jakejonesiv

I know what is at stake, and it is the placing of words in Paul's pen that he never wrote. In 1 Cor. 2:6-8 Paul did not identify the archontes.

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

That's a good point, and thanks for making that clear, but it doesn't change things a whole lot.

We have examples of it being used in reference to "celestial powers", and those examples are also in the context of Messianic scriptures, correct? So, if Paul is familiar with these scriptures and speaking along the same lines, doesn't that lend credence that Paul would use the term in the same way that these other scriptures used it?

Perhaps I don't know enough about the language to continue this conversation, but I'm trying to get at why it is not just reasonable, but likely that Paul is talking about celestial powers in 1 Corinthians 2.

It seems to me that Origen's logic was that Paul is using the term in the same manner that it was used in the LXX when talking about celestial powers.

ynquirer

The point is just this: Origen explanation of tôn archontôn tou aiônos does not support any interpretation of Paul’s use of the phrase as meaning entities dwelling in an intermediate Platonic sphere with the exclusion of earthly human beings.

Malachi151

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

Origen is trying to argue that Paul's use of "archons" is the same as the use in Daniel, where it refers to "celestial powers".

Are you saying that Origens argument is flawed and fails?

ynquirer

Good question. I think that Origen is right on the mark. He draws from Daniel to say that there is a prince of the kingdom of Persia and a prince of the kingdom of Graecia, who are not human beings, and from Ezekiel to say that there also is a prince of Tyre that is shown to be a spiritual power as well. That is, “certain spiritual powers [have] been assigned the rule over certain nations.”

Now, these princes produce some effects - for instance, crucifying Christ. Do they produce such effects regardless of the citizens of the nations over which they rule? This is the crucial question. It seems to me that Origen’s answer is in the negative. Thus, in the third paragraph of your OP Origen says that the princes of this world endeavor to imbue men of their opinions - not to hurt men, but because the princes of this world believe their opinions to be true. This is why Luke 23:34 is all too relevant: “Father, forgive them, because they know not what they do.”

Malachi151

I see what you are saying now, and this si where I was at the beginning of this thread.

Seems to me to imply that though the "spiritual princes" may be involved, they act through earthly princes, and thus "earthlyness" is still involved. The princes may not be earthly, but their effects are earthly, etc.

jgibson000

Did you mean "principalities"? If so, why do you call it "bombastic"? I think you are confusing "archaic" with "bombastic".

You are assuming that the dictionary (did you mean Lexicon) in question is a good one and not outdated and that it gives the full semantic range of words as they are currently known.

And how do you know that the definitions given are adequate unless you've taken into account all of the evidence?

This might be a fine procedure if you are certain that you know the word's meaning. Othewise .. not so much.

In any case, may we return to the original question? Whatever Origen might have thought the ARXONTES mentined in 1 Cor 2:6-8 to have been, does any one seriously doubt that Origen believed that Jesus' crucifixion took place at the hands of Pilate?

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Peter Kirby[/QUOTE]

jakejonesiv

So? I am not arguing for entities thought to be confined to an intermediate Platonic sphere.* Why would they be?

But I am arguing that the archontes are spiritual forces in 1 Cor 2:6-8. This was Marcion's interpretation, and if you can find an earlier interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8, please so inform.

Whether the archontes acted independently or used human agents in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 cannot be determined. Regardless, an ambigous reference that may or may not refer to unknown secular rulers does zero for the HJ position. If the Pauline author had meant Pontius Pilate, he would simply had written so. So why didn't he?

Jake Jones IV

*Surely the Demiurge's (or Satan if you insist) alleged power would reach all the way to ground level, or even the underworld.

Peter Kirby

I originally wrote "principalities," but changed it to principals. I mean bombastic in the sense that we don't ordinarily use the word "principal" except for the ruler of a school, but it seems closest to the Greek word when used generally and ignoring its rare use in English. I don't know if it is archaic in addition to being bombastic, although on reflection "bombastic" is itself a bit overblown for my taste as describing the difference between archon and "principal".

True. I would just submit that reading every application of a word as connotation, let alone some form of denotation, can be misleading.

No.

--
Peter Kirby

jgibson000

Ascension of Isaiah?

You are assuming here (and, notably, against virtually all critical commentators) what needs to be shown, namely, that TWN ARXONTWN TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU would have been ambiguous to Paul's hearers. But would it, especially given (a) the context in which it is used in 1 Cor. and the particular set up it has, and its place and purpose within the argument. in Paul's discussion of the wise and the foolish, not to mention (b) current usage, including that of Paul elsewhere?

You seem to be drawing a false dichotomy here, especially if Paul did not think (as 1 Cor 1:23 indicates), as you seem to assume he does or would have to if ARXONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 is a reference to human rulers, that Pilate alone was responsible for Jesus' crucifixion.

JG