Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Jax »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:04 am If you had to get one, it would be On the Historicity of Jesus.
2nd'd, I found it a excellent book in that it really helped to fill in the background of this subject.

The bibliography alone makes it worthwhile.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Jax »

lsayre wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:01 am In more than one way I'm highly repelled by Carrier as to both his person and his personal life choices, so I'm (unfortunately perhaps) biased against him thereby (perhaps in this regard somewhat similarly to Peter Kirby's perception of Hurtado's bias against him), and therefore I have never considered the purchase of any of his books. But if I was to overcome my bias and purchase only one, which should it be?
What does this have anything to do with whether or not he is a competent historian? He is BTW.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by GakuseiDon »

Dr Hurtado responded to my question on his blog. His answer was along the lines I'd thought it'd be. https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... lly-upset/
Don Gakusei

Thanks for the interesting post, Dr Hurtado. You write that for Philo, the Logos is ‘not really an “archangel.”’ However, Philo does indeed call the Logos an “archangel”. Philo writes:

“And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the ****eldest of his angels****, as the great ****archangel***** of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel.”

Can you explain what you mean by Philo not really calling the Logos an archangel?

larryhurtado

Don: Yes, in another of his writings (NB: contra Carrier, not in the De Confusione passage), Philo can refer to the Logos by the labels you cite. Indeed, he can even refer to the Logos as “a second god” (deuteros theos), but then quickly qualifies this with “so to speak.” The Logos is an “archangel” (remembering that for ancient Greek speakers the word “angelos” = messenger, or spokesman), for the Logos is the expression of the ineffable biblical deity toward the world/creation. One has to study carefully the multitude of Philo’s references to the Logos to put it all together, for he was a complex writer. But the Logos isn’t really a separate ontological being, like we imagine an “angel/archangel”. And, contra Carrier, nowhere does Philo refer to an archangel named “Jesus”.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Jax »

"And, contra Carrier, nowhere does Philo refer to an archangel named “Jesus”."

Isn't this actually the real issue?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Peter Kirby »

Yes, in another of his writings (NB: contra Carrier, not in the De Confusione passage), Philo can refer to the Logos by the labels you cite.
This part confirms that Hurtado read one part of De Confusione and missed the reference to this label in this writing (not "another of his writings"). It's hard to confirm that Hurtado previously believed that the Logos was mentioned by Philo with the label of "archangel." Since Hurtado is still missing the appropriate reference in De Confusione and is vague on the specifics, the conclusion that he was mistaken at the time still seems most likely. The alternative is, again, more dastardly -- it makes Hurtado into a less-than-completely-honest person who elides over the truth in order to get a good "contra Carrier" bash in.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Peter Kirby »

Jax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:24 pm Isn't this actually the real issue?
Define "the real issue"? I consider it a foregone conclusion that Carrier is also making mistakes.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:51 amThis isn't a case where Hurtado could have phrased things a little bit better, but we shouldn't be too hard on the old chap.

Hurtado was wrong.
Okay. So for you, Philo describes the Logos as really a separate ontological being, really an archangel. Best to agree to disagree on this point.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:51 amYou're finding different interpretations that work best only if you assume that Hurtado wasn't wrong. At that point you can go into the text of Philo, find the part where Hurtado is factually wrong, and try to reconcile.
To be honest, I was well aware of the text, since the argument about Carrier's use of Philo has been brought up a number of times, here and elsewhere. So when I read Hurtado, I understood pretty much instantly what he meant by saying that the Logos was not really an archangel, not really a separate ontological being. Rereading Philo confirmed for me that Hurtado was correct in his statement.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:51 amThe justification is as flimsy as a wet noodle. Saying that he wasn't "really" an archangel is just more of the same: talking down to Carrier and explaining that he is really, truly wrong. Hurtado implies that Philo says many things about the Logos but not that the Logos is an archangel. Then Hurtado explains that these other statements about the Logos don't imply archangel-ness but rather something else.
Yes, and Hurtado is correct IMO. That is, he is correct so far as Dr Carrier's argument requires the Logos to be a separate ontological archangel, which I'm still not certain it does.

As always, these arguments over what someone writing today in English really meant, spotlights how much more difficult it is trying to understand what people wrote 2000 years ago in language from that time!
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Jax »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm
Jax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:24 pm Isn't this actually the real issue?
Define "the real issue"? I consider it a foregone conclusion that Carrier is also making mistakes.
That Carrier refers to the Logos of Philo as "Jesus". Carrier is in fact wrong IMO and Hurtado is making a big fuss over it to discredit Carrier.

Nothing more.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:30 pmSo for you, Philo describes the Logos as really a separate ontological being
I did not say that. I did not say that Hurtado was wrong about this not "really a separate ontological being" wording. I haven't said that Hurtado is right or wrong about the not "really a separate ontological being" statement.
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:30 pmTo be honest, I was well aware of the text
I am not making any claims about the exact sequence of events involving your acquisition of knowledge of the text.

What I was saying is that your high level of awareness of the text of Philo is informing your interpretation of Hurtado.
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:30 pmThat is, he is correct so far as Dr Carrier's argument requires the Logos to be a separate ontological archangel, which I'm still not certain it does.
I am also not certain that it does.
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:30 pmAs always, these arguments over what someone writing today in English really meant, spotlights how much more difficult it is trying to understand what people wrote 2000 years ago in language from that time!
Yes, communication can be hard.

Following up with Hurtado is like asking a student "are you sure you really mean X?" It's a clue that it's wrong, already. It's very hard to get a reliable source on what the previous statement was -- even having access to the author doesn't imply you have a reliable source for the author's meaning.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Peter Kirby »

Jax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:35 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm
Jax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:24 pm Isn't this actually the real issue?
Define "the real issue"? I consider it a foregone conclusion that Carrier is also making mistakes.
That Carrier refers to the Logos of Philo as "Jesus".
For my notes, what did Carrier actually write here?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply