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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

Jax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:17 pm This might help. https://boxingpythagoras.com/2014/10/13 ... esus-myth/
lol -

13 Oct 2014
On Carrier’s pre-Christian Jesus Myth

.. blah blah blah ...


nicma13 on 2017/12/07 at 3:38 am said:
Carrier does address these issues you raise in his book… please read the entire book. He cites other early and later rabbinical sources as well as apocalyptic Jewish literature to show a clear messianic pattern that is based on the Zechariah passage in question. He does this precisely because he is aware that it would be easy to dismiss Philo’s passage as an isolated “one-off” thing. Also, his mythicist argument does not rest on one single line of evidence but hundreds, which when taken together as a whole, makes for a very persuasive conclusion. Do yourself a favor and please read his entire book. The Kindle version is now available on Amazon for $19.99


Boxing Pythagoras on 2017/12/07 at 10:32 am said:

Thank you for reading and responding. I definitely do still intend to read On the Historicity ... blah blah blah ...
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:41 pm
Jax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:17 pm This might help. https://boxingpythagoras.com/2014/10/13 ... esus-myth/
lol -

13 Oct 2014
On Carrier’s pre-Christian Jesus Myth

.. blah blah blah ...


nicma13 on 2017/12/07 at 3:38 am said:
Carrier does address these issues you raise in his book …please read the entire book. He cites other early and later rabbinical sources as well as apocalyptic Jewish literature to show a clear messianic pattern that is based on the Zechariah passage in question. He does this precisely because he is aware that it would be easy to dismiss Philo’s passage as an isolated “one-off” thing. Also, his mythicist argument does not rest on one single line of evidence but hundreds, which when taken together as a whole, makes for a very persuasive conclusion. Do yourself a favor and please read his entire book. The Kindle version is now available on Amazon for $19.99


Boxing Pythagoras on 2017/12/07 at 10:32 am said:

Thank you for reading and responding. I definitely do still intend to read On the Historicity ... blah blah blah ...
.
He didn't make a secret of it.
Carrier recently published a book entitled On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt which lays out his views and arguments. I have been meaning to purchase, read, and review that book for this site since it was released, but I refuse to pay $85 for the hardcover or $35 for the paperback version– I find such prices to be wholly excessive. Unfortunately, the book has not yet received an eBook release, which I might be more inclined to purchase (though not if the price is similarly high).
There's something to be said for the inefficiency of trying to spread a new idea that's got its (supposedly) best presentation hidden behind a paywall.

Earl Doherty pulled off a balance of web material and book material that seemed more conducive both to discussion and (I'm assuming) book sales.

(Of course, I'm also sympathetic to the author's plight, and I know that e-books are often pirated even quicker than bound ones.)

Oh, I just noticed that the e-book is available, and the person still hasn't gotten it... now I get it. Now he blames "time" instead.
If Dr. Carrier cannot establish that there WAS a pre-Christian divine (or semi-divine) figure from Jewish mythology named Jesus, then the rest of his lines of evidence are fairly worthless, no matter how many in number.
This statement seems obviously false. Why do people say things like this? Do they not check whether it makes sense first?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:49 pm
He didn't make a secret of it -
Carrier recently published a book entitled On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt which lays out his views and arguments. I have been meaning to purchase, read, and review that book for this site since it was released, but I refuse to pay $85 for the hardcover or $35 for the paperback version– I find such prices to be wholly excessive. Unfortunately, the book has not yet received an eBook release, which I might be more inclined to purchase (though not if the price is similarly high).
There's something to be said for the inefficiency of trying to spread a new idea that's got its (supposedly) best presentation hidden behind a paywall.

Earl Doherty pulled off a balance of web material and book material that seemed more conducive both to discussion and (I'm assuming) book sales.
.

I noted that an appreciate it, and did note the reference to Carrier having then recently given a talk at Zeteticon which outlines his view. And it is good blog-post.

There are actually many ironies and points to my cryptic post above. Some are

1. I am also guilty of not having read OHJ yet.

2. Carrier does not do what you have pointed out Doherty did. And, when Carrier posts web material he muddies his own waters -

ie. Carrier does not, in context, refer to or articulate his own overall argument well. And that is made more ironic by -

3. the point that nicma13 makes about Carrier in OHJ is highly pertinent -

.
Carrier...cites other early and later rabbinical sources as well as apocalyptic Jewish literature to show a clear messianic pattern that is based on the Zechariah passage in question. He does this precisely because he is aware that it would be easy to dismiss Philo’s passage as an isolated “one-off” thing. Also, his mythicist argument does not rest on one single line of evidence but hundreds, which when taken together as a whole, makes for a very persuasive conclusion. Do yourself a favor and please read his entire book.
.

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

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

Post by Blood »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:53 pm Marvel in the fact that Hurtado was wrong and that Hurtado's arrogance, prejudice, and laziness rendered all his credentials and all his years of study to a big fat nothing when he sat down trying to explain once and for all, to the world, why his little guild is the way it is.
Not surprising at all. The guild is moribund. Even a half-ass historian with very little effort like Carrier makes them look like a ship of fools.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

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

Post by Blood »

ἀρχάγγελον is a rare word in Philo, only appearing three times. It also appears in Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres (Who is the Heir of Divine Things?) 205."The Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift..."

Archangel = Logos.

The third place ἀρχάγγελον appears is De Somniis (On Dreams) 1.157. "But the dream also represented the archangel, namely the Lord himself firmly planted on the ladder..." (Jacob's ladder in Genesis)

Archangel = the Lord.
Last edited by Blood on Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:03 pm
I noted that an appreciate it, and did note the reference to Carrier having then recently given a talk at Zeteticon which outlines his view. And it is good blog-post.
The relevant part is at 20:34.
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 4:37 pmLet's review again the exchange in which an answer is solicited from Hurtado.
GakuseiDon wrote: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?
Hurtado wrote: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”.
When presented with the passage where Philo calls the Logos an archangel -- a fact which it would be extremely foolish to deny -- Dr. Hurtado has no idea where it is in the corpus of Philo! He believes that it comes from a different text than De Confusione.
Actually, Dr Hurtado is correct (again!) In other writings (not in De Confusione) Philo refers to the Logos as according to God's image, a second god, other labels. You have clearly misread Hurtado there.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:37 pmThe most that I could claim (without real evidence) is that Hurtado was aware of Philo calling Logos an archangel, in a vague way as one of many possible 'names' that might have been used, but that he forgot the reference. Alternatively, Hurtado wasn't sure on this point -- all he was really sure about was that Philo's Logos was not an archangel as we understand it, not a separate whatever-the-bobber.
And my take: Hurtado was aware that Philo didn't consider the Logos an actual angel or archangel as we understand it, thus his comment "not really an archangel, not really a separate ontological being".
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:37 pmHurtado was wrong about the contents of De Confusione.
And I think that he was right about the contents, based on his "really" statements. :cheers:

We're pretty close, but I don't think we can bridge the gap there. These things happen! So I'll make this my final post in this particular discussion.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:37 pmHere's what I do know:

Hurtado's intent is to portray Carrier as incompetent and as making claims that have no corroboration and no basis in the evidence. In service of this goal, Hurtado "mishandles the evidence" by saying only that Philo's Logos wasn't really an archangel. Does he hope that the reader won't find out that Philo called the Logos an archangel, or at least that his argument will seem more impressive by not discussing it? This kind of dastardly behavior is certainly possible, GakuseiDon, so thanks for warning us about this possibility.
You're welcome, and thanks for your time. Interesting discussion!
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
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 7:48 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:37 pm
GakuseiDon wrote:However, Philo does indeed call the Logos an “archangel”. Philo writes
Hurtado wrote: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.
When presented with the passage where Philo calls the Logos an archangel -- a fact which it would be extremely foolish to deny -- Dr. Hurtado has no idea where it is in the corpus of Philo! He believes that it comes from a different text than De Confusione.
Actually, Dr Hurtado is correct (again!) In other writings (not in De Confusione) Philo refers to the Logos as according to God's image, a second god, other labels. You have clearly misread Hurtado there.
I very clearly have not.

"Yes, in another of his writings ... Philo can refer to the Logos by the labels you cite"

You=GakuseiDon and labels=angel,archangel [possibly others also] and another of his writings=not De Confusione.

This is clear, and I have not misread it.

I'm quite surprised by your misreading, actually. It's pretty bizarre and forced.

As for "NB: contra Carrier, not in the De Confusione passage" -- this is the part of that writing that he actually read when writing his post. And from that he concluded that the reference to "archangel" that you cite isn't found in the text of De Confusione, but in another writing. And, well, his conclusion was false.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Boxing Pythagoras
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:42 am

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

Post by Boxing Pythagoras »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:49 pm This statement seems obviously false. Why do people say things like this? Do they not check whether it makes sense first?
In what way does this seem false?

Imagine, one holiday morning, you awaken to find a number of wrapped presents sitting beneath a tree. Someone tells you that the presents were delivered by a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole who travels the world for the sole purpose of doling out gifts.

Now, if one cannot establish that there actually exists a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole, would ANY amount of other evidence validate that person's hypothesis?

Can you think of any evidence which would be able to show that the gospels Euhemerized a pre-Christian belief in a celestial figure named Jesus without reasonably establishing that there existed a pre-Christian belief in a celestial figure named Jesus?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

Boxing Pythagoras wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:04 am
Can you think of any evidence which would be able to show that the gospels euhemerized a pre-Christian belief in a celestial figure named Jesus without reasonably establishing that there existed a pre-Christian belief in a celestial figure named Jesus?

For the gospel Jesus to be the result of euhemerization - ie. the result of anthropomorphization of a celestial figure - does not require
  1. that pre-euhemerized figure to have been called Jesus, or
  2. that figure to have been pre-Christian, either fully or partially (though that is possible)
    • eta: ie. there may have been a period of early Christianity that espoused a celestial figure, whatever his/it's name

How long the process took [from collective contemplation of a celestial saviour [angle] to a synoptic or other textual human-Jesus] may have been longer than one might otherwise anticipate. The process might have taken several generations ie. been completed after those who had initially contemplated [or discussed] a celestial saviour [angel] had died.

I wonder if there are aspects of Irenaeus's Adv Haer that show he was contemplating a Jesus being euhemerized or having been recently euhemerized.
Post Reply