Colossians 1:15-18 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

This passage is full of allusions to the Wisdom literature. Note the following parallels:

The book of Hebrews, while never identifying Jesus directly as Wisdom, does indicate an equivalence. In verse 3 the rare Greek term apaygasma is used to describe Jesus as the "brightness of God's glory," just as the word is used in Wisdom of Solomon (7:25-26) to describe Wisdom's radiance. Hebrews ascribes to Jesus the same functions that the Philonic/Alexandrian Wisdom literature assigned to Wisdom: mediator of divine revelation, agent and sustainer of creation, and reconciler of God and man (Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-8:1).

Hebrews also says of Jesus what Philo says of the Logos. Philo referred to Wisdom as the "charakter of the eternal Word" just as Hebrews uses this term of Jesus. Hebrews also "asserts the superiority of Jesus over a group of individuals and classes that served mediatorial functions in Alexandrian thought," including angels, Moses, Melchizidek, and the high priest. Finally, in Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, though universal in scope, by God's decree rests in Jerusalem, and is regarded as having the role of the priesthood: "In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion." (24:10) Compare this proclamation with what is found in the Book of Hebrews chapters 3-10 describing Christ as our "high priest" ministering at a heavenly tabernacle.

All of this is a precise fit, contrary to Carrier, with the Nicean Creed, as the following "exegesis" of the relevant portion of the Creed will show:

We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

The first thing to note here is that "God" as used is NOT a proper name (as we use it today) but is actually a objective description (like "deity"). "God" is not here a person, but an object description. "Father" IS a person reference.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made;

Wisdom, as Christ here, was begotten "before all the ages" (eternality), was not made (in the sense of, created yet not existing at some point), and is of one substance with the Father. Wisdom was Light and was truly deity ("God" -- keeping in mind again what is said above) for Wisdom shared in the divine nature, having proceeded from the divine.

In sum, the Nicean Creed lays at the end of a train of thought that began with pre-NT Jewish Wisdom theology, and winds its way through the NT. Carrier truly does have no idea what he's doing on this point, and indeed shows a remarkable ignorance of pertinent research on this issue. The human Jesus may well have been "ordained" or "appoointed" Messiah at a specific time, but this was manifestly done because as one who was already the incarnation of divine hypostatic Wisdom he was the best suited for the job. Thus it is of no relevance to point, as Carrier does, to places where Christians are likewise adopted as sons of God; so the idea that Christ was "a preexistent spirit that descended into the womb" of a woman was found in the NT letters and in Paul; so this is NOT a case, as Carrier thinks, where "the Spirit of the Lord" came to inhabit a living person (though the Spirit, as another divine hypostasis, would indeed have a critical relationship with incarnate Wisdom); so also it is false to say that "Christ became more literally God Incarnate precisely as Christianity became less Jewish." Carrier's argument is thus filled with blatant errors that bespeak a woeful ignorance of current literature on the subject.

And it remains that we have a serious problem with Jewish thought on this issue. Carrier readily admits of course that Philo would never entertain a thought of divine Wisdom becoming incarnate; and despite Carrier, as seen above, we do NOT "have the early Christian christology" with his ludicrously simplified view that all this involved for Christians was an idea that Jesus was a mere man on whom the Spirit of God "rested". The further counsel of using the unrelated world of Barclay, about there being no "normative" Judiasm, is patently inapplicable. Surely Carrier is not so oblivious as to suppose that Judaism was so variegated as to allow, for example, that YHWH could be demoted to second place behind Beelzebub! Even within this diversity there were limits to what was allowed; and one of these was the immense gulf between YHWH and man, as well as between YHWH and His creation. This is not a mere matter of prophets and kings inhabited by God's Spirit, but of a man who proclaimed and was accorded YHWH's divine identity -- and Carrier neither can nor will find any indication that a crossing of this boundary had been found conceivable within Judaism. The closest he will get is the humanlike manifestations of YHWH (the "angel of the Lord") before such luminaries as Abraham and Moses -- but nothing with God as a man who took on the appearance of sinful flesh and truly occupied flesh and blood, the very staple of human weakness. Let him search in vain for anything that says otherwise!

Taxis of the Gods

Carrier in turn finds "astonishing" my claim that the "idea of a god condescending to material form, for more than a temporary visit, of sweating, stinking, going to the bathroom, and especially suffering and dying here on earth" would be "too much to swallow." He claims to have too many examples to cite of mortals becoming gods, but those examples are in the wrong direction: I'm asking for examples of gods becoming mortals, and when they do, "sweating, stinking, and defecating" -- this again is perhaps caused by Carrier's assumption that the NT teaches a Jesus who began as purely mortal, which is not the point I was working with anyway. While we are at it, I'd like to know if any of these deified humans sweat and stank and such once they became deified. The examples of the Lycaonians thinking Paul and Barnabas gods is of no relevance; the question is, if asked, how would these Lycaonians have answered the question, "These two fellows you're about to sacrifice to; do you suppose they actually defecate?" Their answer would have to be no, unless it were seriously qualified by an answer such as, "Yes, they may appear to, but they really don't."

As an aside, Carrier here repeats the error which was also found by Glenn Miller against Carrier, where he gives the example of Paul and Barnabas before the Lycaonians, as well as that of Paul in Malta. As Miller noted:

Most of these humans who were given divine 'status' were NOT considered to be gods on earth, but rather were 'elevated' to divinity UPON THEIR DEATH. This apotheosis ("elevation to divine status") was generally NOT thought to be possible during one's lifetime. These individuals were 'voted into' deity (which essentially meant that the state took over the funeral cult, and the commonfolk had one more celebration/party to enjoy per year!), because of their god-like lives. They lived like the gods, in their victories and benefactions, and so 'earned' their post-mortem divine status. Since divine status basically meant state cult on earth, and immortality for their souls with the gods, this looks strangely like Western concepts of "going to heaven"…Since the souls of the dead in standard G-R religion did NOT 'go to heaven' (but rather to the underworld) and since immortality was defined as 'living with the gods', this deification looks almost like 'salvation' instead of 'deification'. [Indeed, the constant emphasis on 'earning divine status through good works' is VERY out-of-synch with first-century Jewish theology.] This was first applied only to military and political heroes, but was expanded to culture heroes later.

Thus, either way this is irrelevant: The answer would be either that the Maltans, etc. would not have affirmed a really "stinking, sweating" god-person in their presence (this is why Christianity later had issues with docetism, which is itseld evidence of my point!) or else the "god" title was one that they assumed would come to fruition posthumously.

Further on, Carrier's appeal to Celsus gives no explicable examples. Only the appeal to Plutarch is of any use, and that at best would be an exception that proves the rule, since apparently Plutarch marvels at how the descent of Romulus seemed credible (which implies that he didn't think it was). And of course, Romulus would have lived at a far earlier time, not the one we are dealing with, when we know of the dichotomy held between human and divine. Furthermore, the passage Carrier refers to says nothing of this whole package being credible to the Romans; it refers rather to them finding credible the story of a man who had met Romulus and seen him ascend:

Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius Proculus by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition, said, "Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?" and that he made answer, "It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus." This seemed credible to the Romans, upon the honesty and oath of the relater, and indeed, too, there mingled with it a certain divine passion, some preternatural influence similar to possession by a divinity; nobody contradicted it, but, laying aside all jealousies and detractions, they prayed to Quirinus and saluted him as a god.

This has nothing to do with whether they found the overlap of human and divine "credible". Carrier is confusing testimony of an event with acceptance of a concept.

Finally, I do not know further where Carrier gets the idea that I have said that "rising from the dead prove[s] Jesus was God". I agree with Wright as Carrier quotes him (even as he disses Wright freely and hypocritcally when it serves his purposes). It does lend credibility to the claims made by Jesus that say he was, not "God" as Carrier puts it, but Wisdom incarnate; but by itself this needs to be accompanied by other arguments, since it makes no direct connection between the two points. Of course, Wright says rather more on this subject as well, which Carrier is content to ignore rather than address. Carrier closes with a reiteration of his confused definition of "resurrection" as in part 3 previously. So once again, the red herrings swim.

We close with some points on footnotes to this section.

In note 2, Carrier admits to "a few other passages" from Paul which "imply preexistence" but has neither the courtesy nor the courage to give them or as much as cite them. He does reveal his likely counsel of desapir should he be confronted with them, implying either interpolation as a possibility, or resorting to Doherty's idea of "Platonic development." In this he will find his views countered by the understanding of Wisdom theology as presented in the NT.

Note 5 refers to "anti-adoptionist corruptions" of Scripture but does not relate any specifics. Not that it matters, since the Christology presented in "unsuspected" texts is clear enough as is, a point we challenge Carrier to dispute, and doubt very much he can, since he was not even informed on the very simple matter of Wisdom theology.

Readers should note Carrier's simple wave-off of Wright in Note 11. Carrier would never have the resources nor the capability to actually answer Wright's case for early belief in literal incarnation.

The Shameless Mercenary

In case you're wondering....

Carrier's response to my ninth point had 2671 words. From his rate sheet here we find that he charges "6 cents per word written" for this type of work. Assuming that Johnny didn't ask for a rush job, that means that Richie was paid $160.26 for his response to this section. More on why we make a note of this later.