• I made some changes to the part 1 post so do check it out: (Part 1) Blogging Through Richard Carrier’s new book “The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus (2025)” 

In this chapter, one thing that caught my eye was Carrier rejecting the Q source as a supporter of Jesus’ existence.  He writes:

One of the most ineffectual versions of this approach is to defend the historicity of Jesus on the basis of non-existent sources, like ‘Q’ or ‘M’ or ‘L’ or the ‘Signs Gospel’, or a hypothetical lost edition of Josephus, and so on. Lataster’s study focused a lot on the inability of that approach to reach a probable conclusion (as opposed to a merely ‘possible’ one), since a hypothesis that depends on a mere hypothesis remains a hypothesis (see next chapter).17 While it is possible to establish a lost source as probably existing and that some key content probably was in it (rather than only might have been), this is still not the case for any source or claim posited for Jesus. Even John Kloppenborg, for example, one of the leading proponents of Q, set the probably of there being a ‘Q’ source at all at fifty-fifty.  Which means the historicity of Jesus, if it is based on that content, is also fifty-fifty (at best)—yet fifty-fifty is just another way of saying ‘we do not know one way or the other’. It’s only worse that establishing some content about Jesus was in some kind of ‘Q’ document still wouldn’t get us to a historical Jesus, but to just another layer of mythology, which could as likely date decades after the fact and be based on no real sources either, just like the Gospels. Historicists need to prove otherwise, not conjecture otherwise.

While Carrier makes a point here, I think something like Q is expected on the historical Jesus model, with the loving Q 1 Jesus and the sayings by him, and the contrary judging Q2 Jesus and the material fictively attributed to Jesus. We will see a historical analogy with Diogenes.

The Cynic-Jewish aphorisms of the loving Jesus of Q1 are contrasted with the judging Jesus of Q2.  Interestingly, Q doesn’t have a salvific cross/resurrection, like the Didache doesn’t, which fits Ehrman’s model that the historical Jesus didn’t teach substitutionary atonement through his death but rather repentance and forgiveness.  His followers thought they saw Jesus after he died, so his death must have meant something, and so the followers invented Jesus substitutionary atonement theology.  After all, it makes little sense Jesus’ followers were armed and attacked the arresting party if the plan was for Jesus to die.

The model of the teacher Jesus having Cynic ideas fictively attributed to him along with his own genuine material has an important analogy in the history of Cynic thought with Diogenes.  Diogenes of Sinope, the ancient Greek Cynic philosopher (c. 404–323 BC), is renowned for his ascetic lifestyle, sharp wit, and critiques of societal norms, but no original writings from him survive. Instead, his philosophy and anecdotes were primarily transmitted through later sources, most notably Diogenes Laërtius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers (3rd century AD), which compiles sayings (chreiai), stories, and fragments from earlier accounts.   While some attributions appear to have a historical core of Cynic principles—like his declaration of being a “citizen of the world” (kosmopolitēs) or his emphasis on self-sufficiency (autarky), such as being “rich without having a single obol”—many sayings and aphorisms were indeed fictively or apocryphally attributed to him, often as legendary embellishments to illustrate moral or philosophical points.

Paul’s Philippian Christ hymn seems to be expressing incarnational theology similar to John’s prologue perhaps expressing the “incarnating” of the Q source Wisdom school of Cynic/Jewish aphorisms, a new and greater corporate Son of Man “holy ones of the Most High” from Daniel 7:18, 22, 27. 

The notion of Jesus in the form of God being found in the likeness of a human (Philippian Christ Hymn) or the Word becoming flesh (John’s Prologue) seems a homily on Q where a set of Cynic/Jewish wisdom aphorisms were embodied in someone, somewhat analogous to Cynic ideas being credited to Diogenes.  This notes a progression from a loving figurehead Wisdom of Jesus in Q1 to a concrete judging personality of Q 2, the new and greater Joshua (the same name as Jesus), Joshua being known for being infused with Wisdom in Deuteronomy 34:9: “Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” 

And so, the early Q1 Cynic Jewish sayings would be reflective of the historical Jesus as a similar thing happened with Diogenes, echoing Crossan’s Power of Parable where fictions by Jesus became fictions about Jesus.  Boyarin notes John’s prologue about the Word is a homily on Genesis (e.g., God speaking the world into being), while the innovation seems to be the Word becoming Flesh.  The various messianic claimants of that time were trying to revive Joshua’s legacy.

The whole of the Jesus story seems to be a homily on the Q sayings to turn the other cheek and love your enemy as yourself, Christ dying for those who killed him.  The school of wise ones with their Q wisdom from the Cynic-Jewish tradition, the Christian interpretation of the Daniel collective Son of Man, holy ones of the most high, thus has the wisdom/word was incarnated in a literal Son of Man Jesus.  Jesus lived a perfect love of enemy, dying by their hands to save them. In the Book of Daniel, chapter 7, the “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13-14) is interpreted in the angelic explanation as symbolically representing the collective “holy people of the Most High” (also translated as “holy ones” or “saints” in various Bible versions).  

This is the connection to Jesus’ name as per Paul’s remark that he got the divine name Joshua/Jesus – God saves, after he completed his mission.  Jesus is the new and greater Joshua.  Thus, while Joshua receives a gift of wisdom for leadership, Jesus is presented as the embodiment and source of divine wisdom itself.  In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 Paul declares Christ to be “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1:24) and that believers become wise because “Christ Jesus… has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1:30).   Colossians 2:3 says “in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  John 1:1–14 has The Logos (Word) who “was with God” and “was God,” through whom all things were made, is identified with Jesus. In Hellenistic Jewish thought (e.g., Philo), Logos was closely associated with divine Wisdom (Sophia).  Early Christian hymns and creeds reflect this: e.g., the prologue of John echoes Wisdom 7–9, where Wisdom is God’s companion in creation.  Boyarin notes John’s prologue about the Word is a homily on Genesis (e.g., God speaking things into creation), whereas the only real innovation is the incarnation. 

So, the loving Jesus of Q 1 fused with the contrary judging Jesus of Q 2, and Q 3, to leave us with a teacher who underwent a similar metamorphosis to Diogenes. This makes good sense of Paul saying Jesus received the divine name after his mission was complete, being the new and greater Joshua, not just filled with wisdom divinely as Joshua in the Old Testament was, but wisdom incarnate personifying the Q wisdom of love of enemy.