Carrier and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

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 and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Carrier's last news about Hurtado.

I have to confess that Carrier reads into my thoughts, when he says:
here is how this [debate] would have gone, had Hurtado been a professional historian who cares about the truth, rather than an apologist who only cares about what people believe, even if it’s false:
Effectively Hurtado seems only committed to slander mythicism & mythicists. I like only two things about what he has said:

1) the anti-mythicist use of the Argument From Silence about post-Gospel mythicist sects.

2) the (welcomed!) recognition that Richard Carrier is the Emperor of the mythicists of all the world (with the implicit corollary that global mythicism will fail if Carrier's case will fail).

The point 2 is really welcomed. For example, Ehrman had the bad habit of calling G. A. Wells (sic) the best proponent of the Argument from Silence about the HJ in Paul, and not Doherty and not Carrier. I think that the point 2 is an effect of the great resonance gained by Carrier after his last interesting articles (as this).

Frankly, I (or better, the mythicist who is in me) likes also the slandering etc, because it seems really a sign of weakness. :wtf: Something as: "fuck, I know who is the king of the mythicists but I don't know how to confute him definitely".

I see a progress also in Carrier's view about the presumed Logos-Jesus of Philo. He concedes:
There can remain disagreement on whether Philo meant the archangelic Son of God High Priest was the Jesus Son of God High Priest in Zechariah 6. Because that all hinges on how the evidence is interpreted (per above).
And surely I agree 100% with what follows :
But what can’t be disputed is this: whatever this archangel is named, he still has all the same peculiar properties as Paul’s Jesus. Which coincidence remains effectively impossible, unless indeed, the earliest Christians believed their Jesus was this archangel. Even if indeed they had to rename him (as Philippians 2:9-11 suggests they did). So arguing over which name Philo would have regarded as applicable, is not even the primary point relevant here. And it looks like Hurtado is trying to conceal that...
(my bold)

This absence of dogmatism in the words of Carrier (since it seems in my eyes that he concedes the possibility that Philo was interested more to Anatole than to the name 'Joshua') fits perfectly with the conclusion of the great mythicist Rylands about the same presumed existence of a pre-christian Logos-Jesus:

There is no absolutely certain proof that any of the Gnostic sects in pre-Christian days named the Logos Jesus; but the occurrence of the name in the Naassene hymn, the early use of the term “Lord Jesus” by Gnostics and the identification of Jesus and Joshua by Origen, the Epistle of Jude and the Sybilline Oracles, render the supposition highly probable. If one of the constituents of the united Christian Church had been a Gnostic Joshua-Jesus cult, by the time when Christian writers began to
interest themselves in heretical Gnostic sects it had long ceased to have a separate existence. Consequently it is not likely that we should have heard anything about it.
(Did Jesus ever live?, p. 95-96, my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Carrier and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Carrier clearly hasn't read enough of the exegesis of Hurtado, or he'd choose his words a little more carefully.
Point 1: Hurtado now claims Philo doesn’t identify the Logos as an archangel. Yet Philo explicitly does. I quote him doing so. In the book. So here we see Hurtado keeps putting his foot in his mouth by not checking these things before making his assertions. 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? Why is he trying to deny it’s even true?

I don’t know. Yet he asserted Philo doesn’t say that, with unquestioning certainty, thus deceiving the public by giving the impression he actually knows this subject well enough to be that sure. The public is thus led to believe he checked. Yet he didn’t. He misled the public.

By contrast, here is how this would have gone, had Hurtado been a professional historian who cares about the truth, rather than an apologist who only cares about what people believe, even if it’s false:

Carrier: Philo identifies this Logos as an archangel.

Hurtado: Hmm. I was sure he doesn’t. That he only thought of it as an idea. What evidence does Carrier have to the contrary? I need to check that.

Hurtado: [Checks the cited section of my book, reads the evidence; checks the evidence, confirms it’s correct.]

Hurtado: Huh. Well shoot. I guess I was wrong. Philo does identify that Logos as an archangel.

Hurtado: [Publishes a statement that I was right about that and actually did the research to confirm it.]

Instead? Hurtado lies about my not knowing this subject, not doing the research, and being unqualified to do it, and asserts with confidence that Philo never called the Logos an archangel. Thus demonstrating he does not know this subject as well as he thinks, did not do the research (even after being told to repeatedly, and even given the page numbers and source), and should be qualified to do it yet has abandoned all the things his qualifications taught him to do, thus rendering his qualifications irrelevant. He has thus become an apologist, and ceased being a historian. But the opinions of apologists, cannot inform history. They have no authority there. To have authority as a historian, you have to act like a historian. Hurtado chose not to.
This is the biggest problem. If the good Dr. Hurtado knew exactly what was written in Philo, then he's chosen to be dishonest in the way that he characterizes Carrier's reading (that the Logos is an archangel in Philo) as something that was pulled out of Carrier's ass one night while he was on a drinking binge and clearly unlike the work of good historians like himself.

(Necessary disclaimer: as far as I know, Hurtado has kept his opinions on Carrier's drinking habit to himself, as far as I know. The reader should understand the point.)
"... 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 and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:05 am
I see a progress also in Carrier's view about the presumed Logos-Jesus of Philo. He concedes:
There can remain disagreement on whether Philo meant the archangelic Son of God High Priest was the Jesus Son of God High Priest in Zechariah 6. Because that all hinges on how the evidence is interpreted (per above).
And surely I agree 100% with what follows :
But what can’t be disputed is this: whatever this archangel is named, he still has all the same peculiar properties as Paul’s Jesus. Which coincidence remains effectively impossible, unless indeed, the earliest Christians believed their Jesus was this archangel. Even if indeed they had to rename him (as Philippians 2:9-11 suggests they did). So arguing over which name Philo would have regarded as applicable, is not even the primary point relevant here. And it looks like Hurtado is trying to conceal that...
Yep, that is good. Though it's a pity Carrier's pronouncements haven't been consistently more salient and succinct.

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:05 am
This absence of dogmatism in the words of Carrier (since it seems in my eyes that he concedes the possibility that Philo was interested more [in] Anatole than [in] the name 'Joshua') fits perfectly with the conclusion of the great mythicist [L.Gordon] Rylands about the same presumed existence of a pre-christian Logos-Jesus:
There is no absolutely certain proof that any of the Gnostic sects in pre-Christian days named the Logos Jesus; but the occurrence of the name in the Naassene hymn, the early use of the term “Lord Jesus” by Gnostics; and the identification of Jesus and Joshua by Origen, the Epistle of Jude and the Sybilline Oracles, render the supposition highly probable. If one of the constituents of the united Christian Church had been a Gnostic Joshua-Jesus cult, by the time when Christian writers began to interest themselves in heretical Gnostic sects it had long ceased to have a separate existence. Consequently it is not likely that we should have heard anything about it.

(Did Jesus ever live?, 1936; pp. 95-96)
  • (my bold of the quote from Ryland)
Ryland's comments about ' Gnostic sects in pre-Christian days' are interesting, as is his reference to some of them naming the[ir] Logos 'Jesus'.

I still think there's a chance Christianity arose out of Gnosticism, rather than the predominant meme that [most] Gnosticism arose out of Christianity.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Credit should be given to Hurtado insofar he realizes fully the mythicist case (without need of reading OHJ) since he has written the following really intelligent comment:
That’s a pretty critical blow to Carrier’s mythicist case. For he wants to claim that there was an archangel named Jesus already in circulation (so to speak), which (he further asserts without warrants) that earliest Jesus-believers took over and fashioned him into their savior-figure. But, I repeat: no Jewish archangel Jesus, not in Philo, nor in any other Jewish text.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... -of-texts/

I confess and repeat again and again that in all my readings of historicist arguments, this alone is the only argument really convincing and one that makes me think....

Hurtado can be an apologist, but the man is really intelligent.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Carrier and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by andrewcriddle »

IF Carrier interprets Philo as believing in a number of archangels (Michael Gabriel etc) with one of these archangels being called Jesus and the Logos as well as other names, then he is probably misunderstanding Philo. The Logos is not an archangel in the sense of being one among a group of similar heavenly beings all known as archangels.

I'm not at all sure that that is what Carrier means, but if he does not mean that then I find his argument difficult to follow.

Andrew Criddle
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:47 am I'm not at all sure that that is what Carrier means, but if he does not mean that then I find his argument difficult to follow.

Andrew Criddle
If I understand well Carrier's conclusion, Philo knows about the existence of various archangels "there out" (For example, Melkizedek in the essene community and Jesus in a pre-Christian Group) and allegorizes his Logos behind these archangels by remembering en passant that the Logos "is" them but is also more than them.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Prof Hurtado seems to continue in the his errors:

1) He insists which has to be the interpretation for Zechariah, but we know already that what matters here is not the Zechariah's interpretation.
As the larger context of Zechariah makes clear, the prophet predicts and praises the appearance of two figures.  One of them is Joshua (Greek:  Iesous)  the priest, and the other is referred to here as tsemach (Heb:  “branch,” “shoot”), a royal figure who will rebuild the temple and sit on a throne.  One of the crowns is placed on the priest’s head (v. 11), and the other is for the “Branch” guy.
...
 And, by the way, the larger text of Zechariah makes it abundantly clear that two “anointed” figures are central in the oracles for the future of the Jewish people.
2) He insists that Philo read Zechariah just as Zechariah wanted to be read, and his reason to think so is that for Philo the “anatole“ is the regal figure (the tsemach) and ''absolutely'' not the priest figure:
Philo reads Zechariah better than Carrier, and in the passage in De Confusione comments on the royal figure (referred to in the Greek LXX as “anatole“, a translation of tsemach). 
I see a strong confutation of the latter point of Hurtado just in the words of Philo who says clearly that the Logos is a celestial High Priest, also:
"...there are two Temples of God, and one is this cosmos, wherein the high priest is his first born son, the divine Logos."
(On Dreams 1.215)

I think that the argument of Philo can only be reinforced if it is assumed that he saw Jesus as an allegory of the Logos, since he is high priest and, pace Zechariah -- whatever it was his interpretation --, he may be candidate to have also the other crown (of Messiah) and not only the crown already in his possession (the crown of high priest).

It is really surprising to see prof Hurtado reduce himself to play the role of a banal Christian apologist who insists obsessively on the interpretation of Zechariah, when what matters here is only the Philo's interpretation.

In short, the difference between Carrier and Hurtado is the following:

1) Carrier is interested to anything can, in Zechariah's text, can be useful to make better again and again the point of Philo about the Logos as Messiah and High Priest.

2)
Hurtado is interested to anything can, in Zechariah's text, can be used againt Carrier. Even if the his first victim of the his polemic is Philo himself.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier and the ideal Hurtado about (still) the Logos-Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Therefore the most probable conclusion is that, for Philo, a guy named Jesus was an allegory of the Logos.

Hence, the name 'Jesus' was a name for a celestial being (just as Melkizedek) in an author unaware of any hypothetical historical Jesus.

The coincidence is impossible (that a celestial being is titled ''Jesus'' by both a Jewish author and a Jewish sect).

Therefore the most probable explanation is that the title ''Jesus'' was already ''in the air'' as the title for a pre-Christian celestial being.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply