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.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Richard Carrier has listed the two errors of Hurtado:

Richard CarrierLarry Hurtado
Philo says this is God’s “firstborn Logos, the eldest of his angels, the ruling archangel of many names.” Why doesn’t Hurtado know this?
(source, original bold)
the Logos is not really a separate ontological being, not really an “archangel.” 
...
Furthermore, Philo doesn’t designate this figure in Zechariah an “archangel.” (source)
Philo says the Logos (God’s “Firstborn Son”) is the Son of God and the High Priest. Who is the Son of God and the High Priest in this passage? There is only one: Jesus. It’s therefore clear, Philo is reading this as a coronation declaration to Jesus, not of someone else (and note, there isn’t anyone else present to “behold” but him). Other interpreters read it differently, but Philo isn’t
(ibid., original cursive)
Philo wasn’t talking about archangels at all there, and neither he nor the Zechariah text calls the anatole figure “Jesus.”
(ibid.)


Surely at least an error is really there by Hurtado: to insist irrationally that the Philo's Logos is not archangelic.

What is more difficult to accept about the Carrier's view is the his insistence that the ethymology of the patronimic (meaning ''Son of God the Just'') has to count something in the list of the (presumed) impossible coincidences.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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 »

(duplicate)
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:48 amSurely at least an error is really there by Hurtado: to insist irrationally that the Philo's Logos is not archangelic.
Dr Hurtado's comment is that "the Logos is not really a separate ontological being, not really an 'archangel.'" (my bolding) I think he is correct. I'm not sure if it rebuts Dr Carrier's point, though.

Here is Hurtado's full comment:
Now in Philo’s thought (which, it appears, Carrier hasn’t researched adequately in the six years he devoted to his project), the Logos is not really a separate ontological being, not really an “archangel.” Instead, for Philo the “Logos” designates the form in which God engages creation, and that of God which can be perceived by the creation. As one scholar put it, the Logos is the side of God turned toward the creation. Philo wanted to affirm the reality of God’s creation and governance of the world, while also avoiding accusations that the Bible portrays a crude anthropomorphic view of its deity.

In short, in De Confusione, Philo wasn’t positing or developing any “archangel named Jesus.” Philo wasn’t talking about archangels at all there, and neither he nor the Zechariah text calls the anatole figure “Jesus.”
This is the source from Philo's "On the confusion of tongues": http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html
Because, like archers shooting at random at many objects, and not aiming skilfully or successfully at any one mark, so these men, putting forward ten thousand principles and causes for the creation of the universe, every one of which is false, display a perfect ignorance of the one Creator and Father of all things; (145) but they who have real knowledge, are properly addressed as the sons of the one God, as Moses also entitles them, where he says, "Ye are the sons of the Lord God."{41}{#de 14:1.} And again, "God who begot Thee;"{42}{#de 32:18.} and in another place, "Is not he thy father?" Accordingly, it is natural for those who have this disposition of soul to look upon nothing as beautiful except what is good, which is the citadel erected by those who are experienced in this kind of warfare as a defence against the end of pleasure, and as a means of defeating and destroying it. (146) 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. (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons."{43}{#ge 42:11.} For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.
I suspect that the underlined passage is what Carrier is referring to. The bold passages I think is what Hurtado is referring to. Hurtado is right: the Logos is not really a separate ontological being, not really an archangel. I'm not sure if it matters though. Assuming Carrier's reading is valid, would it matter to Carrier's point if the Logos was not a separate ontological being?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:00 am
Dr Hurtado's comment is that "the Logos is not really a separate ontological being, not really an 'archangel.'" (my bolding) I think he is correct. I'm not sure if it rebuts Dr Carrier's point, though.
You can't evade so openly the clear words of Philo:
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
there is simply no contradiction, for an archangel, to be also the image of God, etc. At least in the eyes of Philo.

Hurtado knows surely a lot of things, but he can't replace Philo with himself when he talks in the name of Philo. Even a child can read that Philo calls the his Logos with the term ''archangel''. More clear than so...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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 »

The Logos is "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". I think that is what Dr Hurtado is getting at. The Logos is not an archangel as such. Hurtado is right in that. Whether that actually rebuts Dr Carrier's point or not is a separate question.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:45 am The Logos is "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". I think that is what Dr Hurtado is getting at. The Logos is not an archangel as such. Hurtado is right in that. Whether that actually rebuts Dr Carrier's point or not is a separate question.
Hurtado isn't even getting that. He has denied explicitly that the Philo's Logos is an archangel (not even if it is allegorized by Melkizedek for Philo, and Melkizedek was notoriously an archangel for the essenes).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

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

Post by perseusomega9 »

It' s a distinction without a difference, Hurtado makes the mistake of projecting later developed Christianity backwards in a vain attempt to show no connection to Philo here so as not to have to admit to a fairly straight forward path of Philonic concepts informing Christianity.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:45 am The Logos is "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 Israel1." I think that is what Dr Hurtado is getting at. The Logos is not an archangel as such. Hurtado is right in that. Whether that actually rebuts Dr Carrier's point or not is a separate question.

1 'On the confusion of tongues' XXVIII -

.
(145) ... they who have real knowledge, are properly addressed as the sons of the one God, as Moses also entitles them, where he says, "Ye are the sons of the Lord God". {#de 14:1.} And again, "God who begot Thee"; {#de 32:18.} and in another place, "Is not he thy father?"

Accordingly, it is natural for those who have this disposition of soul to look upon nothing as beautiful except what is good, which is the citadel erected by those who are experienced in this kind of warfare as a defence against the end of pleasure, and as a means of defeating and destroying it.


(146) 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.


(147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons". {#ge 42:11.}

For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.


(148) And, indeed, in many passages of the law, the children of Israel are called hearers of him that seeth, since hearing is honoured with the second rank next after the sense of sight, and since that which is in need of instruction is at all times second to that which can receive clear impressions of the subjects submitted to it without any such information.


(149) And I also admire the things which are spoken under divine inspiration in the books of Kings, according to which those who flourished many generations afterwards and lived in a blameless manner, are spoken of as the sons of David who wrote hymns to God; {2 Ezr. 8:2.} though, during his lifetime, even their great grandfathers had not yet been born. The truth is, that the birth here spoken of is that of souls made immortal by their virtues, not of perishable bodies, and this birth is naturally referred to the leaders of virtue, as its parents and progenitors.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html
.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:28 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:45 am The Logos is "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". I think that is what Dr Hurtado is getting at. The Logos is not an archangel as such. Hurtado is right in that. Whether that actually rebuts Dr Carrier's point or not is a separate question.
Hurtado isn't even getting that. He has denied explicitly that the Philo's Logos is an archangel (not even if it is allegorized by Melkizedek for Philo, and Melkizedek was notoriously an archangel for the essenes).
Yes, and in my view Dr Hurtado is correct. "Florence Nightingale is an angel of mercy". Is that calling her an angel, in the sense of her being a heavenly creature? No. Similarly, Hurtado's point is that Philo's Logos is not an archangel, in the sense of being a separate ontological being, like the archangels Michael and Gabriel. Whether that impacts on Dr Carrier's point is a separate matter.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but lets be accurate about reporting the arguments.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:23 pm
.. Hurtado's point is that Philo's Logos is not an archangel, in the sense of being a separate ontological being, like the archangels Michael and Gabriel.

Whether that impacts on Dr Carrier's point is a separate matter.
Hurtado (and anyone else's) comparison of Philo's unnamed angel in 'On the confusion of tongues XXVIII, (146) to Michael or Gabriel is disingenuous.

Philo says in (145) -

.
'On the confusion of tongues
' XXVIII -

(145) ... they who have real knowledge, are properly addressed as the sons of the one God, as Moses also entitles them, where he says, "Ye are the sons of the Lord God".
.

Then he says -

.
'On the confusion of tongues' XXVIII

(146) 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.
.

  • "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' .."
Post Reply