Philo of Alexandria’s logos concept and its potential influence on the development of the Jesus narrative

The question of how early Christians conceptualized Jesus and whether this figure was initially understood as a historical person or a celestial being has fueled significant scholarly debate. One prominent hypothesis, advanced by Richard Carrier, suggests that the original Christian understanding of Jesus was as a celestial being, akin to an angel or intermediary figure, who was later historicized into a real human person. Central to Carrier’s argument is the idea that this celestial Jesus may have been influenced by earlier Jewish theological constructs, particularly Philo of Alexandria’s writings about the logos. However, while Philo’s logos shares certain attributes with the early Christian depiction of Jesus, Philo never names this figure “Jesus” or explicitly associates it with the messianic figure of Christian tradition. This post explores Philo’s concept of the logos, its relationship to angelic intermediaries, and Carrier’s argument that early Christians conceived of Jesus as a celestial being modeled after such theological constructs.

“Philo of Alexandria’s logos concept and its potential influence on the development of the Jesus narrative”, interpreted by DALL•E.

Philo’s concept of the logos

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher whose works sought to harmonize Jewish theology with Greek philosophy. A central theme in Philo’s writings is the logos, a term borrowed from Stoic philosophy but reinterpreted within a Jewish monotheistic framework. For Philo, the logos serves multiple roles: it is the divine reason or word through which God created the universe, the intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world, and the agent of revelation.

In works such as On the Creation (De Opificio Mundi) and On the Migration of Abraham (De Migratione Abrahami), Philo describes the logos as the “firstborn son” of God (prōtotokos in Greek) and the archetypal human being. He presents the logos as an emanation of God’s creative power, existing between the purely spiritual realm and the physical universe. Philo also identifies the logos with the figure of the high priest, emphasizing its mediating function between God and humanity.

Philo does not explicitly use the term “angel” to describe the logos, but his depiction of it as a divine intermediary aligns with the broader Jewish tradition of high-ranking angels who serve as God’s agents. For example, in Second Temple Jewish literature, figures such as Michael and Metatron are portrayed as angelic beings who act as intermediaries between God and the world.

Philo’s Confusion of Tongues and On Dreams: Supporting evidence for a celestial intermediary

Carrier cites specific passages from Philo’s writings to support his argument that early Jewish theology already had a concept of a celestial intermediary that early Christians could adapt into their Christology. Two of the key works Carrier references are Confusion of Tongues (62-63, 146-147) and On Dreams (1.215).

In Confusion of Tongues (62-63), Philo refers to the logos as the “chief messenger” or “archangel” (archangelos) of God, emphasizing its role as a divine envoy and mediator. He also describes the logos as a high priest who bridges the gap between the divine and humanity. In sections 146-147, Philo elaborates on the logos as God’s firstborn son and the image of God, portraying it as an agent of creation and sustenance responsible for maintaining cosmic order.

In On Dreams (1.215), Philo describes the logos as the “shadow of God” and the “image of God,” acting as an intermediary that conveys God’s will. He even refers to the logos as a “second god” (deuteros theos), though he carefully subordinates this second god to the supreme God. Carrier highlights this passage to argue that Philo’s concept of the logos includes a divine being distinct from, yet subordinate to, God, capable of performing intermediary and priestly functions.

Carrier interprets these passages as evidence that Philo’s logos was not merely an abstract philosophical idea but a personal, divine entity with specific roles such as creation, mediation, and priesthood. According to Carrier, early Christians could have adapted this existing Jewish theological framework when formulating their belief in a celestial Jesus who performed a cosmic act of atonement in a heavenly realm.

Osiris and the concept of celestial events in mystery cults

Carrier also draws on parallels from other religious traditions, specifically mystery cults, to support his hypothesis. One such example is the story of Osiris from ancient Egyptian mythology.

In the widely known public myth, Osiris is portrayed as a king of Egypt who is murdered by his brother Set, dismembered, and later reassembled and resurrected by his wife, Isis. This story is closely associated with the Nile’s cycle of life, death, and rebirth, symbolizing agricultural renewal and the afterlife.

However, Carrier argues that in private or esoteric traditions, particularly those adapted by Greco-Roman mystery cults, the death and resurrection of Osiris were interpreted as celestial events. He claims that these esoteric versions placed Osiris’s death and rebirth in the sublunary sphere (the region just below the moon), which was considered the realm of change, decay, and transformation in ancient cosmology.

This interpretation is supported by ancient sources such as Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris, where Osiris is depicted not merely as an earthly king but as a cosmic principle. Plutarch, writing in the 1st century CE, presents an allegorical reading of the Osiris myth, suggesting that it represents the eternal cycle of life and death in the cosmos and the soul’s journey through the heavens.

Carrier uses this as evidence that mystery cults often contained both public, literal stories and private, symbolic interpretations involving celestial realms. He argues that just as Osiris’s death and resurrection were cosmologically reinterpreted in mystery cults, early Christians may have initially conceptualized Jesus’s death and resurrection as celestial events before later historicizing them into earthly narratives.

The absence of “Jesus” in Philo’s writings

One critical point in evaluating Carrier’s hypothesis is the fact that Philo never mentions a figure named “Jesus” or associates his logos with a messianic role. The name “Jesus” (Ἰῑσοῦς in Greek, derived from the Hebrew “Yeshua”) means “Yahweh saves,” and it is closely linked to the Jewish expectation of a human messiah. In contrast, Philo’s logos is a cosmic principle rather than a personal savior.

Carrier’s theory does not claim that Philo himself anticipated Christianity or that he described a figure directly equivalent to Jesus. Instead, Carrier argues that early Christians drew upon existing Jewish theological motifs, such as Philo’s logos, to conceptualize their celestial Jesus. This process, according to Carrier, involved attributing a salvific and messianic function to a pre-existent heavenly being who later became identified with a historical individual.

Angelology and early Christian Christology

The idea of a celestial Jesus fits into a broader context of Jewish angelology, where high-ranking angels often played significant roles in divine revelation and salvation. In some Second Temple Jewish texts, figures such as the “Angel of the Lord” or the “Son of Man” in the Book of Daniel are depicted as quasi-divine beings who carry out God’s will.

Carrier points to passages in Paul’s letters that, in his view, suggest an early belief in a celestial Jesus rather than a historical figure. For example, in Philippians 2:6-11, Paul describes Jesus as a pre-existent being who “emptied himself” and took on the form of a servant. Carrier interprets this as indicating a descent from a heavenly realm rather than a historical birth and life on Earth. Additionally, Carrier notes that Paul never mentions specific details about Jesus’ life, such as his birthplace or earthly ministry, which might imply that Paul’s Jesus was understood primarily as a celestial figure.

Philippians 2:5-11 and the celestial Jesus hypothesis

Carrier’s interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 is central to his argument that early Christians believed in a celestial Jesus rather than a historical one. This passage describes Jesus as existing in a divine form (morphē theou) before “emptying himself” (kenosis) by taking on the likeness of a human and humbling himself to death on a cross. Carrier contends that this reflects a belief in a pre-existent celestial being who descended, took on a human-like form, and underwent a sacrificial death.

According to Carrier, this narrative implies a metaphysical event occurring in a spiritual realm rather than on Earth. In his view, early Christians may have imagined Jesus’ incarnation and death as taking place in a heavenly sphere, consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs in multiple heavenly realms where divine beings interacted. After his sacrificial death, Jesus was believed to have been resurrected and exalted back to his divine status, appearing to select individuals to reveal the salvific act.

If Carrier’s reading is correct, it points to the existence of an early Christian sect that conceptualized Jesus as a celestial figure rather than a historical human. This sect would have been overshadowed by later groups that historicized Jesus into a real person, culminating in the narratives of the Gospels.

However, mainstream scholarship generally interprets Philippians 2:5-11 as referring to a historical Jesus who was later exalted. Critics of Carrier argue that Paul’s language about Jesus’ humility and obedience unto death presupposes an earthly life and crucifixion under Roman rule. They contend that Carrier’s interpretation relies too heavily on speculative readings and lacks direct textual support.

The motivation for a celestial messiah

According to Carrier, the reason for “inventing” a celestial messiah was twofold. First, it stemmed from the apocalyptic beliefs prevalent among many Jews at the time. Apocalypticism held that God would eventually intervene in history to overthrow the enemies of the Jews and establish his kingdom. However, a key condition for this intervention was that the Jewish people must be free of sin. While Yom Kippur provided annual atonement for sins through the ritual sacrifice of a goat, this atonement was temporary, lasting only one year. Carrier argues that early Christians conceived of a celestial being who died in the heavens as providing an eternal atonement for sins. This eternal forgiveness would remove the final obstacle to God’s intervention, allowing the establishment of God’s kingdom.

Second, a celestial messiah and celestial sacrifice bypassed the need for the Jerusalem Temple, which many Jews of the time viewed as corrupt. The Temple was the center of the sacrificial system, and its priesthood controlled access to atonement through ritual sacrifices. By proposing a heavenly sacrifice, early Christians could offer a new path to atonement that did not depend on the earthly Temple or its priesthood. This idea was particularly appealing in light of the perceived corruption of the Temple authorities and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, which further solidified the notion that the old system of atonement had been superseded.

Carrier’s hypothesis thus provides a socio-religious context for the development of a celestial messiah. The early Christian message of a heavenly Jesus who offered eternal atonement and bypassed the Temple fit well with the apocalyptic expectations and critiques of the Temple system that were widespread in certain Jewish circles.

The development of the historical Jesus narrative

According to Carrier, the transition from a celestial to a historical Jesus occurred as early Christians sought to ground their faith in a concrete historical context. This process involved attributing historical details to the celestial Jesus figure, eventually resulting in the narratives found in the Gospels. Carrier argues that this historicization served both theological and apologetic purposes, allowing early Christians to present Jesus as a real person who had lived and died in recent history.

This hypothesis is controversial and remains a minority position among scholars. Most historians and biblical scholars maintain that Jesus was a historical figure who was later exalted to a divine status by his followers. Critics of Carrier’s theory argue that the lack of explicit references to a historical Jesus in Paul’s letters can be explained by the specific theological focus of Paul’s writings, which emphasize Jesus’ death and resurrection rather than his earthly life.

Conclusion

While Richard Carrier’s hypothesis about a celestial Jesus draws attention to intriguing parallels between early Christian Christology and Jewish theological constructs such as Philo’s logos, it remains speculative. Philo’s writings provide a fascinating example of Jewish engagement with Hellenistic philosophy and the development of intermediary figures in Jewish theology, but they do not directly support the existence of a pre-Christian celestial Jesus. Carrier’s argument relies on interpreting early Christian texts in light of broader Jewish traditions, but the absence of any direct mention of Jesus in Philo’s works weakens the case for a direct connection.

Ultimately, the relationship between Philo’s logos and early Christian views of Jesus highlights the complex interplay between Jewish thought and the development of Christian theology. Whether or not Philo’s concept of the logos directly influenced the early Christian understanding of Jesus, it remains a significant example of how Jewish thinkers grappled with the idea of divine intermediaries, a theme that would become central to Christian theology.

References and further reading

• Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014.
• Carrier, Richard. Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Prometheus Books, 2012.
• Doherty, Earl. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Age of Reason Publications, 2005.
• Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne, 2012.
• Price, Robert M. The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems. American Atheist Press, 2011.
• Dunn, James D. G., Christology in the making: An inquiry into the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation, 2003, SCM Press, ISBN: 978-0334029298
• Charles Duke Philo (Autor), David T. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses (Philo of Alexandria commentary series, V. 1, Band 1) , 2005, Society of Biblical Literature, ISBN: 978-1589831605
• Philo of Alexandria, F. H. Colson (transl.), G.H. Whitaker (transl.), On the Confusion of Tongues. On the Migration of Abraham. Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? On Mating with the Preliminary Studies, trans. F. H. Colson, 1949, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, ISBN: 978-0674992870
• Philo of Alexandria, F. H. Colson (transl.), G.H. Whitaker (transl.), On Flight and Finding. On the Change of Names. On Dreams, trans. F. H. Colson, 1934, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, ISBN: 978-0674993037
• Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 2017, Independently published, ISBN: 978-1521707944
• Wright, N. T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003, Fortress Press, ISBN: 978-0800626792