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
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 3:37 pm
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.
Well lets do that now. Dr Hurtado writes that for Philo, "the Logos is not really a separate ontological being, not really an “archangel.”"

It seems that for Hurtado, an archangel is a separate ontological being, a being that exists within the class of "archangels". Whether he is right to use that definition or not, that seems clearly the definition he is using. Based on that definition:

For Philo, is the Logos really a separate ontological being?
For Philo, is the Logos really an archangel?
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 3:40 pm
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?
Just going off of memory, but I seem to recall that Carrier wrote that Philo wrote about a celestial being named Jesus. I recall it because I looked into it at the time and could find no corroboration for it.

This is I think Hurtado's bone of contention.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
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 3:52 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:40 pm For my notes, what did Carrier actually write here?
Just going off of memory, but I seem to recall that Carrier wrote that Philo wrote about a celestial being named Jesus. I recall it because I looked into it at the time and could find no corroboration for it.

This is I think Hurtado's bone of contention.
Do we know what passage or passages were cited by Carrier specifically for the "named Jesus" thing?
"... 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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:12 pm
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 ...
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. ...
Yes, 'one has to study carefully the multitude of Philo’s references to the Logos to put it all together', as Carrier has done to induce and infer that Philo might have at least contemplated an archangel with a name similar to Jesus.

Hurtado wrote: But the Logos isn’t really a separate ontological being, like we imagine an “angel/archangel” ...
De Confusione (146) says Philo thought otherwise
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 3:54 pm
Jax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:52 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:40 pm For my notes, what did Carrier actually write here?
Just going off of memory, but I seem to recall that Carrier wrote that Philo wrote about a celestial being named Jesus. I recall it because I looked into it at the time and could find no corroboration for it.

This is I think Hurtado's bone of contention.
Do we know what passage or passages were cited by Carrier specifically for the "named Jesus" thing?
This might help. https://boxingpythagoras.com/2014/10/13 ... esus-myth/
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 3:54 pm Do we know what passage or passages were cited by Carrier specifically for the "named Jesus" thing?
I'm not sure whether Carrier cites the specific passages much in his blog-rants, if at all, or how much he has cited them in OHJ* (his blog-rants often say people should read OHJ).

When I first posted about this on this forum 2 yrs ago, I was referring to a talk Carrier had given where he had the specific references on a slide, but did not mention or refer to them in his talk -
Carrier doesn't appear to state the exact passages, but does briefly show "On the Confusion of Tongues/Languages 62-63, 146-7", and "On Dreams 1.215; etc" - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 444#p42444
* Those Philo references are not in the excerpts from OHJ that Ben Smith posted to that thread (<- link to post)

I think Carrier's lack of clarity is part of the problem.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:16 pm, edited 2 times 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 »

I've been mulling over Dr Hurtado's criticism of Dr Carrier's Philo position. If indeed the Logos was not really a separate ontological being, not really an archangel, does it matter to Carrier's argument?

I can't see that it does. Given that Carrier's argument is that there was a pre-existing Christian belief in a celestial Jesus, then it doesn't matter if that being was really in the class of "angels" or "archangels". Hurtado does seem to think that Carrier's argument depends on the pre-Christians to be worshipping a separate being, perhaps an intermediary one, but it doesn't need to be an angel or archangel. It simply needs to be celestial and called "Jesus". If it was a Platonic Adam that somehow was given the name of "Jesus", that would be enough.
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: 8021
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 3:45 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:37 pm
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.
Well lets do that now. Dr Hurtado writes that for Philo, "the Logos is not really a separate ontological being, not really an “archangel.”"

It seems that for Hurtado, an archangel is a separate ontological being, a being that exists within the class of "archangels". Whether he is right to use that definition or not, that seems clearly the definition he is using. Based on that definition:

For Philo, is the Logos really a separate ontological being?
For Philo, is the Logos really an archangel?
I am looking at the context, I am looking at intention, and I am looking at connotation. Here's some of what I know about Hurtado's emphasis in these posts. Note that I believe some of these statements are correct, but they're also highly revealing of intention, connotation, and emphasis.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... st-hurrah/
He is not expert in the very subjects on which he writes in these books, and his mishandling of the evidence shows this all to clearly.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... -scholars/
The reasons are that advocates of the “mythical Jesus” have failed to demonstrate expertise in the relevant data, and sufficient acquaintance with the methods involved in the analysis of the relevant data, and have failed to show that the dominant scholarly view (that Jesus of Nazareth was a real first-century figure) is incompatible with the data or less secure than the “mythical Jesus” claim. This is true, even of Richard Carrier’s recent mammoth (700+ pages) book, advertised as the first “refereed” book advocating this view.
There is no evidence whatsoever of a “Jewish archangel Jesus” in any of the second-temple Jewish evidence. We have references to archangels, to be sure, and with various names such as Michael, Raphael, Yahoel, and Ouriel. We have references to other heavenly beings too, such as the mysterious Melchizedek in the Qumran texts. Indeed, in second-temple Jewish texts and (later) rabbinic texts there is a whole galaxy of named angels and angel ranks.
First, Paul never refers to Jesus as an angel or archangel.
For a survey of the various types of “chief agent” figures in second-temple Jewish tradition, including high angels, see my book, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (3rd ed.; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015; original edition, 1988). None of these figures, however, gives a full analogy for the programmatic place of Jesus in the devotional practices of earliest Christian circles.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... tal-flaws/
I focused on three claims that Richard Carrier posits as corroborating his hypothesis that “Jesus” was originally a “celestial being” or “archangel,” not a historical figure, and that this archangel got transformed into a fictional human figure across several decades of the first century CE. I showed that the three claims are all false, which means that his hypothesis has no corroboration.
There is no evidence of “a Jewish archangel Jesus”. All known figures bearing the name are portrayed as human and historical figures. Furthermore, contra Carrier, Paul never treats Jesus as an archangel, but instead emphasizes his mortal death and resurrection, and mentions his birth, Davidic descent, and Jewishness, cites teachings of Jesus, and refers to his personal acquaintance with Jesus’ siblings.
There is no example among “all the savior cults” of the Roman period of a deity being transformed into a mortal being of a given time and place (such as he asserts happened in the case of Jesus).
My posting was intended simply to illustrate, especially for “general” readers outside the relevant fields, why the “mythical Jesus” view is regarded as bizarre among scholars in the relevant fields, scholars of all persuasions on religious matters, and over some 250 years of critical study.
So, ignoring the various red-herrings and distortions of the “mythicist” advocates, the claims proffered as “corroborating” their view have been shown to be erroneous.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... lly-upset/
If you want to read a blogger going ape-shit, troll through Richard Carrier’s recent belligerent, intemperate response (here) to my posting in which I showed that his three claims that supposedly corroborate his “mythical Jesus” view are all incorrect.
Well, to test this, let’s return to one of his key claims and arguments, the one where he says that Philo of Alexandria mentions an archangel named “Jesus”. I have read those pages of his book (200-205) where he discusses the relevant passage in Philo (De Confusione Linguarum, 62-63; Philo citing and allegorizing a passage in the OT book, Zechariah 6:11-12).
Furthermore, Philo doesn’t designate this figure in Zechariah an “archangel.”
Surely, surely, one doesn’t have to go through the 700 pages of Carrier’s tome treating every one of his various arguments. The one key claim that I’ve treated here is sufficient to show that he bases his larger zealous claim about a “mythical Jesus” on specious arguments, resulting from a lack of adequate expertise in the relevant sources.
Clearly Hurtado aims to show that Carrier is out to lunch and fails to base his arguments on the text itself.

Let'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. This completely confirms what MrMacSon said, guided only by good instincts and tiny clues, which is that Dr. Hurtado read the earlier passage without referring to the later one.

The 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.

This is what Hurtado, as you point out, originally claimed -- that Philo's Logos was not an archangel as we understand it. Of course, Hurtado is sure to have an opinion on Philo and on Philo's beliefs about the Logos.

Here'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.

Hurtado was wrong about the contents of De Confusione.
"... 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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:33 pm .. Given that Carrier's argument is that there was a pre-existing Christian belief in a celestial Jesus ...
[edited] Which is not relevant to a discussion about Philo. Nothing Philo writes reflects Christian belief, and Philo is very unlikely to reflect early-Christian belief, or so-called ' 'Jewish-Christian' belief'.

eta: [Philo may reflect Jewish messianic contemplation, but that would be another matter]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
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 3:45 pm For Philo, is the Logos really a separate ontological being?
For Philo, is the Logos really an archangel?
In case it isn't clear, so far I have not tried to answer these questions. My conclusions, as stated, require neither a 'yes' or 'no' to either. What I will say now, if it helps, is that it is not certain that the answers are no -- it would be much better for the 'no' case if there weren't any references to the Logos as an archangel, and it is a minor scholarly crime to take the 'no' side without giving due consideration with a discussion of these references. It's also a minor crime to pretend that the conclusion is obvious and simple enough to all, so that you can verbally abuse any who might agree, without even offering this kind of explanation of the state of the facts.

It might have been closer to being simple and obvious without the reference -- the one that Hurtado did not know about at the time, based on his errors regarding the contents of the text of De Confusione.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply