Philo’s discussion of Zechariah 6:12 explains the connection between Joshua and the Christ Myth.
Philo – On the Confusion of Tongues http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html
Philo discusses the man named Joshua by Zechariah as indicating that “the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son”. Zechariah says the name of this son of the eternal father is Joshua (also translated Jesus) son of Jozadak (not unlike Joseph). Philo discusses a man named East whom all his readers would know was really called Joshua by Zechariah.
Philo, author of the concept of the Logos which became identified with Jesus, is speaking in purely messianic terms (eldest Son of the Father of the universe) about a man whom Zechariah names as Joshua. Philo describes Joshua as “imitating the ways of his father, looking to his archetypal patterns.”
The text at Zec 6:11-14 says “make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak. Tell Joshua this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘[You are] the man whose name is the [East]. And [you] will branch out from [your] place and build the temple of the Lord. [You] will build the temple of the Lord, and be clothed with majesty and sit and rule on his throne."
The meaning of this passage is that the ideal priest-king Joshua son of Jozadak (or Jesus son of Joseph) is the centre of pre-Christian cultic hope. We see here the precursor of Christ in Joshua.
Philo's use of the Zechariah passage is as follows: “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. ”
Here Philo says the name of Jesus makes no sense as applied to a real man, but only as applied to an incorporeal being. Philo was a mythicist.