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!