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

[Peter Kirby]

ἀρχάγγελον is where the English archangel comes from.

In case anyone blinked and missed it.

[MrMacSon]

ἀρχάγγελον is where the English archangel comes from.

In case anyone blinked and missed it.

So -

Here is the Loeb original:

κἂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἀγγέλων πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον, πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα

- becomes

• 'But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the archangels, their ruler [ἀρχάγγελον] as it were' ??

to align with

• (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.'' ??

[Peter Kirby]

ἀρχάγγελον is where the English archangel comes from.

In case anyone blinked and missed it.

So -

Here is the Loeb original:

κἂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἀγγέλων πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον, πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα

- becomes

• 'But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the archangels, their ruler as it were' ??

to align with

• (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.'' ??

Kapyong, please post the next sentence of the Loeb translation?

My wager is that it may incorporate a phrase in correspondence with πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα -- in the next sentence.

If so, here's your alignment:

κἂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἀγγέλων πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον

'But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were

(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''

(I've mentioned before that alignment would be an interesting problem to try to get computers to solve. Could make it more efficient to throw together side-by-side versions of ancient texts, or versions hyperlinked to each other.)

PS -- No, don't add 'arch' before the Loeb's 'angels.' The word 'archangel' is where you see 'their ruler'. There are two occasions in which a word based on the Greek word for 'angel' appears here.

[Kapyong]

Kapyong, please post the next sentence of the Loeb translation?

My wager is that it may incorporate a phrase in correspondence with πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα -- in the next sentence.

If so, here's your alignment:

κἂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἀγγέλων πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον

'But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were

(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''

(I've mentioned before that alignment would be an interesting problem to try to get computers to solve. Could make it more efficient to throw together side-by-side versions of ancient texts, or versions hyperlinked to each other.)

PS -- No, don't add 'arch' before the Loeb's 'angels.' The word 'archangel' is where you see 'their ruler'. There are two occasions in which a word based on the Greek word for 'angel' appears here.

Here we go :

καὶ γὰρ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὄνομα θεοῦ καὶ λόγος καὶ ὁ κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ ὁρῶν, Ἰσραήλ, προσαγορεύεται. 147 διὸ προήχθην ὀλίγῳ πρότερον ἐπαινέσαι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῶν φασκόντων ὅτι “πάντες ἐσμὲν υἱοὶ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου”

Their translation :

And many names are his, for he is called, “the Beginning,” and the Name of God, and His Word, and the Man after His image, and “he that sees,” that is Israel. And 147 therefore I was moved a few pages abovea to praise the virtues of those who say that “We are all sons of one man”

Kapyong
PS. Sorry, just added the translation I missed, I went a sentence too far, I don't really read Greek

[MrMacSon]

PS -- No, don't add 'arch' before the Loeb's 'angels.' The word 'archangel' is where you see 'their ruler'. There are two occasions in which a word based on the Greek word for 'angel' appears here.

aha, cheers. I edited my post near the top of this page to strikeout 'arch' thus arch

[GakuseiDon]

Assume freely that in Zechariah the guy who is hailed as Anatole is not named ''Joshua'' but, for example, ''John''.

What Carrier is saying is that Philo was interested in the passage basically because his goal, from the start, was to call the his arcangelic Logos as ''John'', via Anatole.

Actually, as Dr Carrier himself notes, some scholars see two figures involved, with the other figure who is "Anatole" named Zerubbabel. Interesting enough, from what I've read "Zerubbabel" seems to mean "seed/sown of Babel/Babylon", an interesting coincidence given that Philo's "On the confusion of tongues" is about what happened at Babel. Zerubbabel was a descendant of the royal line of David and laid the foundation of the temple on the ruins of the earlier one.

From here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13512

Carrier writes:

Some interpreters consider the beheld figure to be the later king Zerubbabel. But what we really want to know is how Philo is reading this passage. And we’ve already seen he is clearly reading it as all about the same person, and not a king, but a priest; and not a “son of Ask God” (ben Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel) but a “son of God” (ben Jehozadak).

Indeed, Philo goes on to say this Anatolê figure, God made to “rise up” (anateile) as his Son, whom he identified as the Logos, the supreme archangel. And Philo says that’s why it is fitting he be called the Anatolê by Zechariah.

A commenter named Robert writes in response:

“And Philo says this being was identified as the figure named “Jesus” in Zechariah”

Philo does not mention Joshua the high priest but rather the ἀνατολή (‘growing’ translating צֶמַח ‘shoot’) figure in Zechariah 3 and 6, which most probably refers to Zerubbabel, the one who governed alongside Joshua the high priest. Zerubbabel, not Joshua, is the one who is to rebuild the temple (Zechariah 4,7-10 6,12-13). But Philo does not even have the historical person of Zerubbabel in mind. He is developing an allegorical interpretation of the Tower of Babel story, which also uses the term ἀνατολή (east) in Genesis 11,2 (ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν).

Carrier responds with:

The Babel story: That’s not what Philo is talking about. Read the passage in context. The book this passage is in is about the Babel story’s real meaning. But this passage is part of a long series of passages about resolving the resulting confusion of words by rediscovering their original meaning. And here he links the meaning of this passage in Zechariah to his discussions in other books of the same archangel. Whom Philo does regard as a historical person: the first created being, who now governs the universe at God’s behest. He gives it as an example of the best meaning of dawning; he follows with an example of the worst meaning of dawning, thus interpreting a different passage in the Bible to that end. For Philo, it’s all about how to correctly interpret different uses of the word “East” (Rising) in the Bible. This is, in effect, a guide to pesher construction.

[GakuseiDon]

This thread has left me unconvinced of the points you've made to interpret Hurtado. You have suggested that Hurtado was fully aware that Philo explicitly referred to the Logos as an "archangel" when he wrote his blog post. It's possible -- communication is hard -- but I'm not convinced.

Suppose you're right there. I don't think this would be very flattering to Hurtado. If you're right, Hurtado is being sly. If you're right, he knows full well that the Logos is called an archangel in Philo, but he chooses to obfuscate his discussion of the issue in order to make it sound like a much more impressive takedown of Carrier than it actually is. The implication of your view is that Hurtado is, in a way, intentionally malicious.

It's possible, I suppose. Though if I am reading Dr Hurtado correctly, his point is that Philo isn't "really" calling the Logos an archangel, in the sense of an archangel as a separate ontological being. (Whether that rebuts Dr Carrier's point is a separate question.) It would have been better if he stated it like that ("Philo uses 'archangel' to describe the Logos, but doesn't really see it as an archangel"), but the "not really" part is pretty clear, in my view at least.

This is possible, but I think there is a better explanation. Hurtado assumes that Carrier is a crank. Hurtado assumes that cranks are likely to have crackpot ideas. When Hurtado is talking about Carrier, he doesn't put as much effort into fact-checking that he might otherwise do. So, if Hurtado were correcting someone else -- Bart Ehrman, for example -- you can be darn well sure Hurtado would be busy crossing all his Ts and dotting all his Is so that there would be no unforced errors. Hurtado would assume that Ehrman's positions had at least a good chance of being well-researched and would take care to do impeccable study before contradicting him. Hurtado doesn't have that same assumption in the case of Carrier, which in a sort of irony makes Hurtado himself relatively unreliable -- at least when trying to do a rhetorical slam dunk on someone that he despises and thinks little of.

And the better explanation has better evidence in the text:

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.” ...

In short, in De Confusione, Philo wasn’t positing or developing any “archangel named Jesus.” Philo wasn’t talking about archangels at all there,

Let's repeat that: In the De Confusione, Philo wasn’t talking about archangels at all there.

Except I agree with Hurtado: the Logos in Philo isn't really an archangel, not really a separate ontological being. (Again, whether this rebuts Dr Carrier's point is a separate question.)

Anybody -- absolutely anybody with an internet connection and the ability to read English -- can find the text here:

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

Then they can do the scholarly trick of using CTRL-F and looking for 'archangel', finding it here:

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.

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.

Philo doesn't see the Logos as really a separate ontological being, really an archangel. What do you think Hurtado meant by those words? Lets say he is wrong in that statement; but what do you think he meant by those words?

(Edited to add: I just posted a question on Hurtado's blog post to ask him what he meant by "not really an archangel". The question is awaiting moderation.)

[Giuseppe]

I can concede to Carrier that the choosing of Joshua high priest and ''Son of God the Just'' - as the guy hailed Anatole - is the more apt figure to allegorize the archangelic Logos (surely more apt than Zorobabel). But what I can't concede is that Philo was interested to the name ''Joshua'' more than to the fact that he is hailed Anatole.

Could the name 'Joshua' figure or not in the list of things ''seen'' by Philo into Zechariah?

I see that the answer may be yes:

''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.''

Jesus in Zechariah	Philo's Logos
He is ''son of God the Just''	He is Son of God
He is high priest	He is high priest
He is king	he is king
He is hailed Anatole	he is hailed Anatole
He has ''the name of God'' in him	he is the 'name of God'

Was the last parallel seen by Philo? Insofar he means for/in Joshua the ''name of God'', the answer may be yes.

[Peter Kirby]

This thread has left me unconvinced of the points you've made to interpret Hurtado. You have suggested that Hurtado was fully aware that Philo explicitly referred to the Logos as an "archangel" when he wrote his blog post. It's possible -- communication is hard -- but I'm not convinced.

Suppose you're right there. I don't think this would be very flattering to Hurtado. If you're right, Hurtado is being sly. If you're right, he knows full well that the Logos is called an archangel in Philo, but he chooses to obfuscate his discussion of the issue in order to make it sound like a much more impressive takedown of Carrier than it actually is. The implication of your view is that Hurtado is, in a way, intentionally malicious.

It's possible, I suppose. Though if I am reading Dr Hurtado correctly, his point is that Philo isn't "really" calling the Logos an archangel, in the sense of an archangel as a separate ontological being. (Whether that rebuts Dr Carrier's point is a separate question.) It would have been better if he stated it like that ("Philo uses 'archangel' to describe the Logos, but doesn't really see it as an archangel"), but the "not really" part is pretty clear, in my view at least.

This is possible, but I think there is a better explanation. Hurtado assumes that Carrier is a crank. Hurtado assumes that cranks are likely to have crackpot ideas. When Hurtado is talking about Carrier, he doesn't put as much effort into fact-checking that he might otherwise do. So, if Hurtado were correcting someone else -- Bart Ehrman, for example -- you can be darn well sure Hurtado would be busy crossing all his Ts and dotting all his Is so that there would be no unforced errors. Hurtado would assume that Ehrman's positions had at least a good chance of being well-researched and would take care to do impeccable study before contradicting him. Hurtado doesn't have that same assumption in the case of Carrier, which in a sort of irony makes Hurtado himself relatively unreliable -- at least when trying to do a rhetorical slam dunk on someone that he despises and thinks little of.

And the better explanation has better evidence in the text:

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.” ...

In short, in De Confusione, Philo wasn’t positing or developing any “archangel named Jesus.” Philo wasn’t talking about archangels at all there,

Let's repeat that: In the De Confusione, Philo wasn’t talking about archangels at all there.

Except I agree with Hurtado: the Logos in Philo isn't really an archangel, not really a separate ontological being. (Again, whether this rebuts Dr Carrier's point is a separate question.)

Anybody -- absolutely anybody with an internet connection and the ability to read English -- can find the text here:

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

Then they can do the scholarly trick of using CTRL-F and looking for 'archangel', finding it here:

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.

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.

Philo doesn't see the Logos as really a separate ontological being, really an archangel. What do you think Hurtado meant by those words? Lets say he is wrong in that statement; but what do you think he meant by those words?

(Edited to add: I just posted a question on Hurtado's blog post to ask him what he meant by "not really an archangel". The question is awaiting moderation.)

We can get a clarification from the author, but what's been written is what has been written.

The impression that Hurtado intended to provide to his audience is that this "archangel" stuff isn't really in Philo.

Hurtado's post, in two different contexts, laid heavy on the emphasis that Carrier had no support in the text for the "archangel" bit.

Philo wasn’t talking about archangels at all there

Philo doesn’t designate this figure in Zechariah an “archangel.”

Hurtado even insults Carrier for somehow slipping up so badly after his many years of study.

Hurtado intends to paint a picture of incompetence on the part of Carrier, and as evidence he cites that "Philo wasn't talking about archangels" and "Philo doesn't designate this figure ... an 'archangel'." (These are not both statements about the Logos concept in Philo, but they both reflect on Hurtado's rhetoric when bringing up the "archangel" bit.)

This 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.

You'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.

The 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. Carrier is just too dumb to notice and too desperate to twist things in weird ways, hence why Carrier manages to squeeze things out of Philo that aren't "at all there".

I doubt Hurtado truly confesses his error. He has a motivation to harmonize.

[lsayre]

In which of Richard Carrier's books is this threads subject best discussed?

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?