Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Giuseppe »

What I have learned from recent discussions between so great scholars:



Hurtado and Gullotta: the Philo's Logos is not an archangel

Hurtado and Gullotta: the Paul's Jesus is not an archangel

Carrier:
the Philo's Logos is an archangel

Carrier and Ehrman:
the Paul's Jesus is an archangel

Hurtado and Gullotta: no evidence of an archangel named Jesus

Carrier: even if there was no archangel named Jesus, the Christians were the first to name ''Jesus'' an archangel (see Hymn to Philippians).

McGrath: the Paul's Jesus is a man.

Carrier:
the Philo's Logos is a Man.


MY CONCLUSION:

Is possible that there is no Agreement even about the following questions?

1) is the Philo's Logos an archangel?

2) is the Paul's Jesus an archangel?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

.
Philo refers to angels five times in de Confusione Linguarum and an aspiration for an archangel ('the eldest of His angels') - at (146, see below) - who has similar attributes to "a 'man' " spoken of by 'one of the companions of Moses', and, "who in no respect differs from the divine image'', as previously described by Philo (at 62, 63) -
(62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{#zec 6:12} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of 'the east' has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

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

de Confusione Linguarum 146 says -
(146) 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.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Thank you for these Philo quotes. I believe these fragments have insprired the author of GJohn 1: the Logos as the pre-existent messiah.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

FransJVermeiren wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:25 pm Thank you for these Philo quotes. I believe these fragments have inspired the author of GJohn 1: the Logos as the pre-existent messiah.
You're welcome (so much has been either overstated or understated about the significance of these passages, largely b/c Richard Carrier has, at various times and in various places, done both).

As far as GJohn 1 goes, yes a lot of people have said the reference to the Logos there comes from Philo. And it certainly looks as if Philo is willing a messiah in De Confusione Linguarum. Another interesting thing about that treatise (a wide-ranging allegorical midrash exegesis starting with the book of Genesis) is that Philo is pretty disparaging about polytheism in a couple of places, each leading up to the passages quoted in my previous post -
(41) ".. I admire those who say "We are all one man's sons, we are men of Peace" {#ge 42:11} because of their well-adapted agreement ... delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?

(42) For they who make out 'many beginnings' of the origin of the soul, being devoted to the evil which is called polytheism, and turning each individual of them, to the honour of different beings, having caused great confusion and dissension both at home and abroad, from the beginning of their birth to the end of their life, filling life with irreconcilable quarrels;

(43) but they who rejoice in one kind alone, and who honour one as their father, namely right reason, admiring the well-arranged and all-musical harmony of the virtues, live a tranquil and peaceful life, not an inactive and ignoble one, as some persons think, but one of great manliness, and sharpened, and vigorous against those who endeavour to break the confederacy which they have formed, and who are always studying to bring about a violation of the oaths which have been taken; for it has come to pass that the men of peace have become men of war, sitting down to attack and to oppose them who seek to overturn the firmness of the soul.

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

(144) ".. Those who, as it were, 'attribute many fathers' to existing things, and who represent the company of 'the gods as numerous', displaying great ignorance of the nature of things and causing great confusion, and making pleasure 'the proper object' of the soul [ (117) had referred to 'unmeasured indulgence in pleasures'], are those who are, if we must tell the plain truth, spoken of as the builders of the aforesaid city, and of the citadel in it; having increased the efficient causes of the desired end, building them up like houses, being, as I imagine, in no respect different from the children of the harlot whom the law expels from the assembly of God .."

(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." {#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 ....
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:14 am
Carrier:
the Philo's Logos is an archangel

Carrier and Ehrman:
the Paul's Jesus is an archangel
For clarity only! I don't think Dr Ehrman ever calls Paul's Jesus an "archangel" -- do have a source for that claim? He only uses "angel" AFAIK.

Nor IIRC does Dr Carrier restrict Philo to calling the Logos "an archangel", but rather "angel/archangel".

There are metaphysical differences between the two terms: an angel is a messenger, a heavenly being who is an intermediary messenger between the gods and man. It can be applied to humans as well who are messengers between two humans. (Ehrman uses the term in the former sense, so can still be in-sync with Carrier on this point). An archangel tends to be a ruler ("arch" being root of "archon" IIUC) of angels. Less running around at a guess.
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:14 am Carrier: even if there was no archangel named Jesus, the Christians were the first to name ''Jesus'' an archangel (see Hymn to Philippians).
Does Carrier really claim that? Do you have a source or page reference?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by FransJVermeiren »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:50 pm
As far as GJohn 1 goes, yes a lot of people have said the reference to the Logos there comes from Philo. And it certainly looks as if Philo is willing a messiah in De Confusione Linguarum. Another interesting thing about that treatise (a wide-ranging allegorical midrash exegesis starting with the book of Genesis) is that Philo is pretty disparaging about polytheism in a couple of places, each leading up to the passages quoted in my previous post -
(41) ".. I admire those who say "We are all one man's sons, we are men of Peace" {#ge 42:11} because of their well-adapted agreement ... delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?

(42) For they who make out 'many beginnings' of the origin of the soul, being devoted to the evil which is called polytheism, and turning each individual of them, to the honour of different beings, having caused great confusion and dissension both at home and abroad, from the beginning of their birth to the end of their life, filling life with irreconcilable quarrels;

(43) but they who rejoice in one kind alone, and who honour one as their father, namely right reason, admiring the well-arranged and all-musical harmony of the virtues, live a tranquil and peaceful life, not an inactive and ignoble one, as some persons think, but one of great manliness, and sharpened, and vigorous against those who endeavour to break the confederacy which they have formed, and who are always studying to bring about a violation of the oaths which have been taken; for it has come to pass that the men of peace have become men of war, sitting down to attack and to oppose them who seek to overturn the firmness of the soul.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html
When in verse 43 Philo writes 'for it has come to pass that the men of peace have become men of war', was he discussing the Essenes?
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:41 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:14 am
Carrier:
the Philo's Logos is an archangel

Carrier and Ehrman:
the Paul's Jesus is an archangel
For clarity only! I don't think Dr Ehrman ever calls Paul's Jesus an "archangel" -- do have a source for that claim? He only uses "angel" AFAIK.
Even so, his claim is fully in support of Mythicism.
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:14 am Carrier: even if there was no archangel named Jesus, the Christians were the first to name ''Jesus'' an archangel (see Hymn to Philippians).
Does Carrier really claim that? Do you have a source or page reference?
He seems to mean clearly so in the his answer to Gullotta.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Giuseppe »

So Ehrman insists that Jesus is an Angel for Paul, contra Hurtado:

Christ as an Angel in Paul


This will be my final set of comments on the evaluation of How Jesus Became God by Larry Hurtado, on his blog. His review consisted of a set of positive comments, of things that he appreciated (for which I’m grateful); several misreadings of my positions, in which Larry indicates that my book was asserting a view that, in fact, it was not (he corrected those after our back and forth in a subsequent post); one assertion that I was motivated by an anti-Christian agenda and wanted to convince readers that Jesus’ followers had hallucinations (I dealt with that assertion yesterday; I do not think that it is a generous reading of my discussion – especially since I explicitly stated on repeated occasions that I was *not* arguing for a non-Christian or anti-Christian view); and, well, this one point that I’ll discuss here, on which we have a genuine disagreement. The point has to do with whether the apostle Paul understood Christ, in his pre-existent state, to have been an angelic being. Larry devotes two paragraphs to the issue; the second one I find more problematic than the first, although I disagree with the first as well (but not as strongly):

As a final criticism, Ehrman posits that the key to Paul’s Christology is that he thought of Jesus as an (or the) angel (of God/the Lord). That, says Ehrman, explains how Paul could ascribe “pre-existence” to Jesus, and how, as a devout Jew, he could countenance worshipping Jesus. As the key basis for this notion, Ehrman invokes a peculiar reading of Galatians 4:14, where Paul says that in his initial visit the Galatians received him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” Ehrman insists that this is to be read as a flat appositive construction, in which “an angel of God” = “Christ Jesus.” But this isn’t actually as compelling a claim as he thinks. Even Gieschen (on whose work Ehrman relies here) presents this reading of the construction as only a distinct “possibility.” And most scholars (myself included) don’t think it really works. The grammar certainly doesn’t require it, and it seems more reasonable to take it as a kind of stair-step statement, “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” as ascending categories.

I did indeed find Gieschen’s argument that Paul understood Jesus as an angel prior to becoming human extremely provocative and convincing. His arguments are supported and advanced in a very interesting discussion of Susan R. Garrett in her book. No Ordinary Angel.

When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27). He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel. That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.

...
https://ehrmanblog.org/christ-as-an-angel-in-paul-2/

Unfortunately, I can't read the rest. But I am tempted to read it...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:32 am
Unfortunately, I can't read the rest. But I am tempted to read it...
Some of the comments and replies are interesting.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Giuseppe »

I agree quasi totally with this critic:
So, Carrier concedes this [that there is no evidence of an archangel named Jesus], but insists on his point: even if Jesus was not based on an archangel named Jesus, he was still based originally on some form of archangel and the Christians just named him "Jesus". So Carrier's thesis is not entirely refuted. I have two problems with this. Again, going back to Gullotta's point, no one was naming archangels "Jesus" at this time. Secondly, Paul in fact says Jesus is not an angel by making an unambiguous distinction:

Code: Select all

Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Hurtado brings up this same point when criticizing Ehrman's thesis (to which Ehrman did not address in his response). According to Paul, nothing, including any angel, can separate us from God and the Lord Jesus. So Jesus isn't an angel. So, in light of Gullotta's criticisms, Carrier might think his thesis can still survive that Jesus was based on some angel, but I sure don't. Given Gullotta's arguments, Carrier concludes "we just don't know if there was an archangel named Jesus!" But if we don't know, Carrier's argument can't be supported.
https://discourse.biologos.org/t/richar ... =korvexius
(my bold)

My reply to:
Again, going back to Gullotta's point, no one was naming archangels "Jesus" at this time.
It is false. We know from the Hymn to Philippians that at least the same Christians were giving to a divine being the name 'Jesus' ('Jesus' being clearly the ''name above all names'' that is given to a suffering hero, per Couchoud).

My reply to:
Secondly, Paul in fact says Jesus is not an angel by making an unambiguous distinction:

Code: Select all

Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Hurtado brings up this same point when criticizing Ehrman's thesis (to which Ehrman did not address in his response). According to Paul, nothing, including any angel, can separate us from God and the Lord Jesus. So Jesus isn't an angel.
But for Ehrman (see my post above), an angel is precisely
When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27). He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel. That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.
We know that for some ebionites,
They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of
the archangels
... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the
Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called
Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews?,
reports:
"I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing,
the wrath of God will not cease from you."
(Epiphanius,  Panarion 30.16,4-5)

MY CONCLUSION:

So, in light of Gullotta's criticisms, Carrier might think his thesis can still survive that Jesus was based on some angel, and I too.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply