On Carrier’s pre-Christian Jesus Myth
Richard Carrier is a freelance historian with a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia University. He is arguably the most prominent proponent of the Christ Myth hypothesis, today, and one of the few historical scholars with actual qualifications in history that holds to such a position. If you are unaware, the Christ Myth hypothesis argues that there never existed an actual, historical Jesus of Nazareth upon whom the Christian faith eventually became focused. Instead, the Jesus of Nazareth presented in the gospels is a deliberate attempt to tie myths about a celestial being into history. This view is generally dismissed, panned, and ignored by the vast majority of mainstream scholarship, and one could quite rightly describe Richard Carrier as a fringe scholar. However, the simple fact that Carrier is a fringe scholar is not a very good reason for dismissing his work, out of hand. The man is actually a qualified historian, with a PhD from a respected university, who has had articles published in respected academic journals. The fact that his hypothesis goes against mainstream scholarship does not invalidate the rest of his qualifications.
Carrier recently published a book entitled On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt which lays out his views and arguments. I have been meaning to purchase, read, and review that book for this site since it was released, but I refuse to pay $85 for the hardcover or $35 for the paperback version– I find such prices to be wholly excessive. Unfortunately, the book has not yet received an eBook release, which I might be more inclined to purchase (though not if the price is similarly high). Still, Carrier has engaged in a number of debates and public presentations, and it is easy to find at least an overview of his position. For example, he recently gave a talk at Zeteticon which outlines his view.
One of the major points that Carrier alleges, in his presentation, is that we have evidence that there was a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial being which was actually named Jesus, and was the firstborn son of God, in the celestial image of God, who acted as God’s agent of creation, and was God’s celestial high priest. I have seen Carrier present this information numerous times, in different talks, including the one which I linked above, and he always presents it without actually quoting from the sources which he cites. Now, as I’ve said, I haven’t yet read On the Historicity of Jesus, and it is fully possible that Carrier addresses some of my contentions there, but I find his entire claim that there was a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial Jesus to be almost entirely unsupportable.
Carrier’s primary source for his claims about the pre-Christian Jesus Myth comes from the works of a prolific and highly respected Jewish philosopher and theologian, Philo Iudaeus of Alexandria. Carrier cites several passages from Philo, but the most important one– the only one which Carrier can use to support his claim that this proposed pre-Christian celestial being was actually named Jesus– comes from a work known as On the Confusion of Tongues, sections 62 and 63. The passage reads as follows (from the Yonge translation):
I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: “Behold, a man whose name is the East!” A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.
Having read that, you’re probably wondering precisely the same thing which I wondered when I first started researching Carrier’s claim. Where is the name, “Jesus?” The passage which Carrier cites to show that there was a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being named Jesus doesn’t actually mention anyone named Jesus, celestial or otherwise. So, why does he cite this passage? The answer is in Philo’s statement that, “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: ‘Behold, a man whose name is the East!'” This is a reference to a Biblical passage, Zechariah 6:11-12, which says:
Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak; say to him: Thus says the Lord of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord.
Now, chances are pretty good– unless you’ve actually studied this passage and the linguistics behind it, before– that you are now even more confused than you were previously, but allow me to explain. First, let’s establish why we think the Philo passage is a reference to Zechariah, since Philo’s quote clearly says something different than the Biblical verse. Philo gives the quote as, “Behold, a man whose name is the East!” while the direct quote of Zch 6:11-12 (NRSV) reads, “Here is a man whose name is Branch…” There’s certainly a similarity, there, but why do we think that Philo is quoting from Zechariah? The reason is that Philo generally utilized a Greek translation of the Scriptures called the Septuagint, rather than reading directly from the Hebrew. The word which is translated as “Branch” in the NRSV is צֶ֤מַח (se-mah). In the Septuagint, this word was translated using the Greek word Ἀνατολὴ (Anatolē), which can carry the same connotation of “branching” intended by צֶ֤מַח, but which was very commonly used by Greek-speakers to refer to “sunrise” or “the East.” This is why it seems fairly clear, to scholars, that Philo’s clause, “Behold, a man whose name is the East,” seems to be a reference to Zechariah 6:12.
Now that we’ve established that Philo is referring to this Biblical passage, where does the name “Jesus” fit into things? That’s actually an easier thing to see. Zechariah 6:11 explicitly mentions “the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak.” The Greek language didn’t have all the same sounds which Hebrew had, so when names were being written in Greek translations, they had to undergo a process called “transliteration.” This is when we take a word, in one language, and try to reproduce it phonetically using another language’s alphabet. So, the Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁ֥עַ is transliterated into Greek as Ἰησοῦς. Later, the word Ἰησοῦς was transliterated into Latin as “Iesus,” which then found its way into English as “Jesus.” Thus, it is clear that Zechariah 6:11 actually is talking about a person named Jesus.
Given all of this, why do I think that Carrier is wrong to claim that there was a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial being named Jesus?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that Carrier is correct when he asserts that Philo had a belief in a celestial being named Jesus. Even if Philo actually believed in a celestial being named Jesus, this does not indicate that such a belief was, at all, widespread in Judaism. The context of the passage seems to indicate that it is simply the musings of a single Jewish philosopher in Alexandria, Egypt. There is no indication in any ancient evidence that any other Jews held a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being named Jesus, let alone that Jews from Tarsus or Jerusalem or Capernaum or Antioch, which were greatly separated from Alexandria both geographically and culturally, would share such a belief.
However, I don’t think that Carrier could even be justified in claiming that Philo, himself, held a belief in a celestial being named Jesus. Contrary to Carrier’s commentary, Philo is not talking about a celestial being named Jesus, in this passage from On the Confusion of Tongues. Rather, this passage appears in the middle of a discussion on the nature of the human soul. Philo spends a great deal of time discussing wicked men, especially men who act first and then attempt to justify their actions by God, afterwards. During this discussion, and immediately before the passage Carrier cites, Philo says that “there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul.” The good kind, he says, is “when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun,” while the bad kind is when those virtues are in the shadows so that vices show, instead. For an example of the good kind of “dawning in the soul,” he refers to the Garden of Eden which was “toward the East,” which Philo claims contained “celestial plants” which sprang up from an incorporeal light.
It is at this point in his discussion about the soul that Philo writes the passage which I quoted at the beginning of the article. Rereading that passage now, in context, presents a very different picture than the one Carrier has intended. When Philo makes note of “a man whose name is the East,” in the context of the passage, he is very clearly referring to Adam– not to the Joshua son of Jehozadak found in Zechariah 6:11. Just as the plants in Eden were not terrestrial plants, but celestial ones, so too was Adam not a terrestrial man, but a celestial one. It is to Adam that Philo refers, when he says, “the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn.”
So, if Philo meant to talk about Adam, why is he quoting a passage from Zechariah which refers to Joshua ben Jehozadak?
The answer is that while the reference seems to be referring to Zechariah 6:12, it is certainly not quoting that passage. Instead, Philo remembers having heard the phrase “Behold, a man whose name is Anatolē!” as having come from Scripture; and since he is now making reference to “dawnings,” and the “beams of the sun,” and “the East,” he misunderstands this phrase, thinking that it is referring to a man whose name is the East. Notice that Philo does not say something like, “as the prophet Zechariah said,” when he introduces this saying, but rather states, “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this.” Quite clearly, Philo is remembering something he has heard, and not quoting directly from a book he has at hand.
Furthermore, when Philo says, “Behold, a man whose name is the East!” his original Greek phrasing for this is Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ὄνομα Ἀνατολὴ, while the Septuagint translation of Zechariah 6:12 instead renders this passage as Ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ Ἀνατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ. Even if you don’t read Greek, you can fairly easily see that the former is not a direct quote of the latter. Of course, it’s possible Philo utilized a different translation into Greek of Zechariah; however, I know of no other Greek manuscript of Zechariah which phrases this passage in the manner Philo does. Furthermore, it is fairly clear and explicit from elsewhere in his work that Philo utilized the Septuagint, extensively. It would be fairly peculiar for him to switch to another translation solely for this passage.
In addition, if Philo had read Zechariah 6:11-12 for himself, he would have been very aware that the word Anatolē used in that passage has absolutely nothing to do with “dawning,” “beams of the sun,” or “the East,” which is his entire purpose for utilizing the quote. The “man whose name is Anatolē” from Zechariah 6:12 makes no sense at all in the context of the “dawning of the soul” which Philo intends to discuss. In contrast to the hypothesis Carrier tries to put forward, it seems fairly clear that Joshua ben Jehozadak is not being discussed by Philo, in the least.
Richard Carrier claims that stories about Jesus of Nazareth were most likely an attempt to euhemerize a pre-Christian, Jewish mythology about a celestial being named Jesus. In order to support such a claim, Carrier knows that he must show some evidence that there was a pre-Christian, Jewish mythology about a celestial being named Jesus. For this, he points to the works of Philo Iudaeus. However, it seems fairly clear that Carrier needs to take Philo entirely out of context in order to support this claim. A plain reading of the primary sources shows that Philo never makes mention of a celestial being named Jesus, in any of his works; and that Philo’s paraphrase of Zechariah 6:12 in On the Confusion of Tongues has nothing to do with Joshua son of Jehozadak. I cannot see how Richard Carrier’s particular mythicist hypothesis can stand without a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial being named Jesus, and Carrier has not successfully demonstrated that such a belief actually existed.
Boxing Pythagoras 
Wow – interesting. Technical…I’m impressed you managed to get the Greek characters working on your English keyboard. 🙂
I wonder where Carrier sits on Old Testament prophecy that points toward jesus. In other words…the many prophetic statements that Jesus incidentally fulfills in the gospels? To my mind the most significant is Isaiah 53…but there are hundreds more…Not so much a celestial being…more a “Suffering Servant”
Many thanks
Stu
Thanks for reading, Stu! I’m glad you enjoyed it.
It’s easier than you might imagine. When I don’t have a digital version of the Greek to copy-and-paste, I use the tool located at TypeGreek.com to write out Greek phrases and then copy them into my post.
I believe he uses them to help justify his claim that the Jews had pre-Christian mythologies about a Messiah figure which the gospels attempted to euhemerize.
Personally, I don’t believe that the Suffering Servant passages are prophetic statements about the coming Messiah, but that they are rather about Israel. Carrier, however, seems to side with Christian commentators, in this regard.
Hi mate –
Okay. I’d be interested to read about why you understand Isaiah 53 as pointing towards the nation of Israel? Maybe a future blog post we can discuss?
Cheers for now
Stu
Well said. Carrier tried the same tactic with Mark Goodacre in his debate.
btw, as a Christian, I would say Isaiah 53 is firstly about Israel but can apply secondarily to Jesus as the true Israel.
In this piece you make it clear that Philo used the Septuagint. Therefore, he clearly had a manuscript from which he quoted. But you suggest that he is only “remembering,” rather than referring to the passage in Zechariah. It’s clear that it is not a direct quote, but it may easily be taken as a paraphrase. One wonders whether he would merely insert a remembrance in this discussion, rather than return to the text for confirmation, even if he chose to rearrange by paraphrase. Given Philo’s familiarity with and use of the text, is it reasonable to think that he would have completely forgotten the whole Zechariah passage or misunderstood it as a whole? I’m not entirely convinced, yet.
Conceding that Philo’s contextual view is about the first “Adam,” it’s not a small coincidence that Paul is shortly after in his writing referring to Jesus as the second Adam. Could there not be a connection (or even continuation) of thought that links the celestial first Adam of Eden from Philo to the second Adam as Savior that may provide some glue between Zechariah, Philo, Jesus, Paul and Carrier – and the concept of a celestial “Jesus” prior to Christianity among at least some Jews? As to the prevalence of ideas among Jewish sects, it appears the the Roman Empire provided for a rather efficient and fluid movement of people and papers (therefore, ideas) from Rome, through the near east, around to northern Africa. It may not be far-fetched to think of this as broadly (if not ubiquitously) embraced by a significant population of Jews.
It’s all fascinating, for sure, if not easily explained. Thanks for your helpful insight and addition to the conversation.
Thank you for reading and for taking the time to comment! I’ll do my best to address all of your questions, but please let me know if I miss any.
It is important to note that, while Philo had access to the Septuagint, that does not imply that he had the whole thing memorized, nor even that he was familiar with all parts of the text. There are several books of the Hebrew Scriptures to which Philo makes absolutely no reference, at all, including some relatively important and popular texts, like Ezekiel and Daniel. This brief and ambiguous reference in On the Confusion of Tongues is the only place in all of Philo’s texts where a passage from Zechariah is discussed. We have no reason to suspect that Philo would have been very familiar with the book of Zechariah, at all.
Again, I’ll note that Philo himself never ascribes this passage to the book of Zechariah. Nor does he even make a claim that it comes from Scripture, at all. Philo simply says, “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this.” Zechariah was not one of the companions of Moses, and saying, “I’ve heard that a guy said…” can hardly be said to mean “as it is written in Scripture” or “as it is said by the prophet.” Given the fact that Philo does not directly quote the text in question, does not explicitly reference the origin of the passage, and indeed falsely attributes the passage as a saying of someone who lived nearly 1000 years before Zechariah, combined with the contextual issues I cite in the article, it seems perfectly reasonable that Philo would not have been familiar with the actual passage in that prophet’s writings. In turn, it seems completely unreasonable to assume that Philo was familiar with Zechariah 6, and that he is professing a belief in a celestial being named Jesus.
There does not seem to be any such connection in evidence. Even if we were to ignore the problems with Carrier’s assertion that there was a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being named Jesus, there is certainly nothing in Philo’s writings which would parallel Pauline soteriology. The simple fact that both Paul and Philo make reference to Adam does not imply that they held similar theological views.
It would, however, be far-fetched to think that the views of an Alexandrian philosopher with a penchant for incorporating pagan thought into his Judaism would be embraced by the far more isolationist Jews that lived in Roman Palestine.
Thanks for the review! Very thoroughly done.
Pingback: A Response To Jim Walker of NoBeliefs On Mythicism - Deeper Waters
Pingback: Debunking “The One Fact That Will Deconstruct Christianity” by The Godless Engineer – The Dutch Maverick
Carrier does address these issues you raise in his book…please read the entire book. He cites other early and later rabbinical sources as well as apocalyptic Jewish literature to show a clear messianic pattern that is based on the Zechariah passage in question. He does this precisely because he is aware that it would be easy to dismiss Philo’s passage as an isolated “one-off” thing. Also, his mythicist argument does not rest on one single line of evidence but hundreds, which when taken together as a whole, makes for a very persuasive conclusion. Do yourself a favor and please read his entire book. The Kindle version is now available on Amazon for $19.99
The audio version is also now available.
Thank you for reading and responding.
I definitely do still intend to read On the Historicity, but I simply have not had the time to give to it, yet.
That said, I’ll definitely note that I’m quite skeptical that Carrier can demonstrate any significant pre-Christian belief in a celestial being named Jesus, let alone one which came to be Euhemerized in the stories of Jesus of Nazareth.
I will certainly agree that there are Messianic traditions surrounding Joshua son of Jehozadak, particularly as relates to Zechariah’s description of him. However, “Messianic” does not imply any sort of divinity, despite Christian misunderstandings of the term. Moreover, there would have been no need to Euhemerize the figure of Joshua son of Jehozadak since he was already known to have been a human being who lived at the beginning of the Second Temple period after coming out of the Babylonian exile. You don’t need to create myths about an earthly life for a being which already had an earthly life.
As for his argument resting on “hundreds” of lines of evidence, even if I grant this rather ludicrous exaggeration, the fact of the matter is that his entire claim is that the gospels are Euhemerizing a pre-Christian divine (or semi-divine) figure from Jewish mythology named Jesus. If Dr. Carrier cannot establish that there WAS a pre-Christian divine (or semi-divine) figure from Jewish mythology named Jesus, then the rest of his lines of evidence are fairly worthless, no matter how many in number. If he cannot demonstrate this foundational part of his claim, the rest of his hypothesis– “hundreds” of lines of evidence and all– is simply ad hoc and specious.
I am missing something here. The story seems to be that Philo may have referenced Zechariah, who talks about a Jewish celestial Joshua/Jesus who predates Christianity. What is the point of bringing Philo into this? If we forget about Philo and focus on Zechariah, don’t we have the same conclusion with more reliability?
Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply!
Carrier focuses on Philo for a few different reasons. Firstly, the New Testament was written in the first century CE and Carrier is attempting to establish that there existed a pre-Christian celestial Jesus belief during that time. As such, he looks to the first-century Jewish author and philosopher, Philo.
Secondly, as I mentioned in the article, the passage in Zechariah 6– while it definitely discusses visions and “celestial” things– is very clearly talking about a terrestrial human being when it mentions a “Jesus.” It is talking about the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak, and saying that he should be anointed as king. This is, I think, part of the reason why Carrier never actually quotes the Zechariah passage, directly. It’s too much of a stretch to try to claim that Joshua son of Jehozadak was a purely celestial being who would need to be Euhemerized by first century believers.
I didn’t watch the video you mentioned, but I have watched other videos by Carrier where he discussed the same topic, and I have read OHJ, and I just now reread Zechariah 3 and 6.
This Joshua/Jesus is standing before the Lord in Zechariah 3, but in chapter 6 Zechariah is apparently given an errand to fetch metal from specific people from Babylon, an existing place, and to make a crown and put it on Joshua’s head. It is plausible that Zechariah believed this Joshua to be a real person: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_the_High_Priest
Philo comes into it when he claims that someone was better considered to be incorporeal. If that someone was Zechariah’s Joshua/Jesus, that supports Carrier’s point. I understand that now.
You said ‘it seems fairly clear, to scholars, that Philo’s clause, “Behold, a man whose name is the East,” seems to be a reference to Zechariah 6:12’. Unless by “scholars” you meant “only Carrier” it seems that you conceded Carrier’s point there, or you are saying that you know better than these scholars. Which scholars did you mean?
Carrier discusses whether Philo thought this Joshua Risen Branch guy was also Adam in element 40 of OHJ, and I would like you to read that before we discuss it. I am more interested in your criticism of his book than criticism of a video that for practical reasons had to leave out details. The book is presently $21 on Kindle, but I gather the scarce resource here is your time.
I purchased my copy of the book. I read through the preface and the first couple chapters before skipping directly to the Elements of Religious and Philosophical context.
I am pleased to see that Dr. Carrier actually takes the time to quote the passage from On the Confusion of Tongues, here, which was one of the complaints which I had regarding his presentation of this material in his speaking engagements.
However, Dr. Carrier still presents this material as if Philo was making direct reference to Joshua son of Jehozadak, and I still disagree with such an interpretation. At no point does Dr. Carrier actually defend the notion that Philo actually intended to discuss a celestial being named Jesus. He simply takes that position for granted on the basis of Philo’s usage of the phrase, Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ὄνομα Ἀνατολὴ. (I also take a nitpicky exception to Carrier’s translating this as “Behold, the man named Rising,” when the original Greek carries no definite article in reference to “man;” it should be “a man,” and not “the man.”)
I discussed in my article things I find to be very good reasons to doubt that Philo was associating his celestial Adam, in On the Confusion of Tongues, with the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak, from Zechariah. Dr. Carrier does not address any of these issues in OHJ, and I am not aware of his having addressed them anywhere else– though I will fully admit that I have not really been keeping up with his work very closely over the last couple of years.
It seems more than plausible. In both chapters 3 and 6, Joshua son of Jehozadak is explicitly noted as being the high priest– a decidedly terrestrial office, and not a celestial one. It would also have been quite unprecedented for a celestial being– whether angel or god or what-have-you– to be referred to by use of a patronymic. Furthermore, the same person is discussed in Ezra 3 in a manner which unequivocally denotes that he was understood to be a terrestrial human rather than a celestial divinity (or lesser divinity or angel, et cetera).
There is a difference between recognizing the origin of a particular phrase and agreeing with Dr. Carrier’s particular interpretation of the intention behind that phrase’s usage. Yes, most Old Testament scholars will agree that Philo’s reference in On the Confusion of Tongues has its origins in Zechariah. However, I doubt that many– if any– will agree with Dr. Carrier’s conclusion that Philo therefore held a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being named Jesus. Philo is taking Zechariah 6:12 entirely out of its context in order to make his point, in On the Confusion of Tongues, as I discussed in my article. I see no reason to think that Philo referenced the passage in an attempt to make reference to Joshua son of Jehozadak, and quite clear reason to think that Philo is using the phrase “a man whose name is Anatole” to reference Adam.
That’s absolutely fair. I’m a Nook user, and the price of the eBook has come down significantly since I last checked it. I’ll grab my copy tonight and review the relevant chapters.
This is assuming that the name Jesus was derived from Joshua. However, it is likely that the name was derived from the Parthio-Edessan name Izas.
In reality, Jesus was King Izas Manu of Edessa, a real first century king who led the Jewish Revolt, and was crucified by the Romans while wearing the traditional Edessan Crown of Thorns. But Carrier is far too dense to understand this.
See ‘Jesus, King of Edessa’.
Ralph Ellis
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, Mr. Ellis. Unfortunately, I don’t find your case any more compelling than Dr. Carrier’s. In fact, it seems quite a bit less tenable.
Thank you for the article, good work. The only thing I would disagree with is that you say Carrier has to demonstrate a pre-Christian, Jewish mythology about a celestial being named Jesus to support the mythicist position. That seems a bit apologetic or bias towards one side. I agree that there are doubts in the idea that this being was actually called “Jesus” . But I’ve been encountering scholarship over and over (Mary Boyce, Fransesca Stavrakopoulou, Carrier and more) who are demonstrating that the Persian religion was first to have many of the concepts now associated with the OT including savior gods.
Yahweh Wiki
“The period of Persian rule saw the development of expectation in a future human king who would rule purified Israel as Yahweh’s representative at the end of time—a messiah.”
Fransesca and others point out that these concepts were written into the OT during the Persian occupation. So we do not need an actual savior named Jesus. The concept was around and blended into the Israelite myths. I say it’s “apologetic” because you are hanging on the fact that the name Jesus cannot be demonstrated to have been used. But the dying/rising savor god was popular as Carrier sources in his book and on his blog.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890
Thank you for taking the time to read and reply, JR! I understand your critique, but I think you may have misconstrued my point, a bit, so I hope that I can provide some clarification.
It’s not apologetical or biased, at all, in fact. It’s actually a simple matter of fact.
Dr. Carrier claims that the gospel narratives are an attempt to euhemerize a deity whose worship was already established prior to the writing of those documents. In order to support that position, Dr. Carrier makes the further claim that there was a an already extant, pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial being named Jesus. I’m not putting words into Carrier’s mouth, there– that is his precise claim. If Dr. Carrier wants to demonstrate that the gospels are indeed attempts to euhemerize this already extant religious character then the onus is on him to first demonstrate that there WAS such a character.
Here’s an analogy: imagine an art historian suddenly proposed Picasso’s Guernica wasn’t really an original painting, but was rather an adaptation of a work by an earlier Spanish artist named Raul Guernica. Don’t you think that the first step in proving such a statement would be to demonstrate that there WAS an earlier Spanish artist named Raul Guernica?
My blog post doesn’t address the notion of dying and rising deities, at all. I have not argued that it is mistaken to think that Christianity drew influence from other mythologies. Quite the contrary, I think it is fairly clear that Christianity was so influenced.
I was responding to a particular claim. My article is about Dr. Carrier’s proposal that the gospels are attempts to euhemerize a divine being which had already been the focus of worship by some group of people. I see absolutely no reason to think that this was the case; and, in contrast, it seems far more parsimonious with the available evidence to believe that an actual, historical Jewish preacher was elevated to divinity in the eyes of a cult which rose up around him.