Notsri

Though I can appreciate that archons is not a legitimate transliteration of the nominative plural term in Greek, archon has, so far as I can tell, become something of an acceptable Greek loan-word in various respectable English literatures, and, more to the point, with the appropriate English suffix being used in the plural declension. Thus one can find the plural archons in, to name but a few examples, Frank Williams' translation of Epiphanius' Panarion, B.P. Reardon's version of Chaereas and Callirhoe in his Collected Ancient Greek Novels, and Francis E. Williams' translation of the Apocryphon of James in the Nag Hammadi Library. To insist, then, that one avoid the term altogether here at BC&H, strikes me, personally, as unnecessarily restrictive. And that's about all I have to say about that.

Nathan

jgibson000

Plural declension???

In any case, "archons" wasn't being used here as a loan word. It was being put forward as the Greek plural of ARXWN.


Jeffrey Gibson

Notsri

Yeah, sorry. The infelicity there did occur to me, though not until after posting. (Though, of course, nouns do decline in English to reflect, inter alia, their number.) Anyway, 'twas too late to fix it; I'd already signed off.

I understand that. But then every time the word archons is used by someone in this forum, regardless of their intent it seems, you (and nobody else) jump down their throat. Malachi151's question in the OP was clear enough, and could easily have been answered without the condescending lesson in Greek (which you've given him before anyway). Does the issue really require such belaboring?

jgibson000

Is it really just an infelicity?

Excuse me, but who else here except those Greekless pronouncers on matters Greek, Malachi151 (sheesh) and Ted Hoffman, as well as E.D. not only use "archons" as a transliteration of the nominative plural of of ARXWN/ARCWN, but put it forward as an accurate transliteration of the nominative plural of ARXWN/ARCWN?

But come on... Is jumping down someoneone's throat an accurate description of what I've done? And have I really done this "every time" someone here uses the word "archons"?? :huh:

Leaving aside the question of whether I gave a lesson of any kind, let alone a "condescending" one, the answer is "Yes", especially when those who use "archons" assume, as they do, the mantle of expert and who want and expect us to take what they say as authoritative, and who (as you yourself have noted) persist in an error after the error has been pointed out to them.

Jeffrey Gibson

EarlDoherty

by accident I posted before I was very far into composing this post. I have deleted entirely and will be posting shortly.

EarlDoherty

I really need to check in more often. I almost missed this extraordinary lesson on Greek declension from Jeffrey which contradicts my own knowledge and that of every lexicon and other authority I have consulted. I approach this subject with trepidation, because of course like so many of us here I have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that Jeffrey is never wrong on things Greek (unlike incompetents like myself and Richard Carrier). No doubt his knowledge is based on sources which none of us have access to (perhaps from an alternate universe, or Ben’s “utterly differently conceptual universe”), and he will no doubt come back and utterly destroy me, so I caution everyone here to take what I say and the sources I quote with several grains of salt.

Here is my, perhaps tentatively presented, premise: The nominative plural of ARXWN is not (I say, NOT) ARXONTAI, as Jeffrey maintains so vociferously, but ARXONTES. (Be still, my heart.)

What “evidence” can I draw on which Jeffrey will accept as legitimate, and not the product of my distorted imagination and abysmal lack of education? I’ll even make the effort to use Jeffrey’s preferred transliteration of Greek letters (hopefully without typos). Hmmm, let’s see…

Huddleston: Essentials of Greek Grammar (1934) p.148:
ARXWN, HO, ruler, prince / Stem ARXONT-

ARXWN
ARXONTOS
ARXONTI
ARXONTA

ARXONTES (here is the nominative plural)
ARXONTWN
ARXOUSI
ARXONTAS

An identical model can be found in Goetchius "The Language of the New Testament" p.121.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Perschbacher, ed.) p.55:
ARXONTES, nom. pl. m. n. {Acts 3:17}…..ARXWN

Let’s look at that “Acts 3:17”):
HWSPER KAI HOI ARXONTES HUMWN = (lit., “as also the rulers of you”)

Bauer’s Lexicon: (2nd ed. 1979, p.114)
(Def. 3) “Many would class the ARXONTES TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU 1 Cor 2:6-8 in this category…” (Here, Bauer is taking the liberty of placing the term in the nominative plural rather than in the genitive in which it actually appears in the text, for reasons unknown to me. Perhaps Jeffrey should point this out to the editors.)

Now, despite the opinion of my sources (which I guess is largely Jeffrey himself) that he never makes mistakes, and his Greek is inferior to none, I suspect that he has become confused here with certain masculine nouns of the first, or “A” declension, such as HO PROPHNTNS, “prophet” which, though masculine, declines in several of its cases like the feminine nouns of that declension. One of those cases is the nominative plural: PROPHNTAI. You will note the ending “AI” which Jeffrey has mistakenly tacked on to the stem of ARXWN, where it does not belong.

I will perhaps be forgiven (by all but Jeffrey himself, no doubt) for pointing this out with a certain amount of ill-disguised sarcasm and glee, but I think all (again, perhaps with the exception of Jeffrey) will agree that the insufferable attitudes that regularly invest his postings have left him open to such rejoinders where merited, and I thank the gods that I did not miss this one. Regardless of his mistake, to even bother to make such a fuss about an anglicized handy reference to the plural form of “archon” in informal discussion conducted in the English language, and to cast the most humorless aspersions on those using it in such a context, with barely concealed insult and contempt, is beyond insufferable. If Malachi151 had actually employed “archontai” or some such in his OP, I for one would have considered him pretentious and snobbish. Robert Price is another who thankfully writes without affectation, unconcerned with peacocking a snooty elitism.

Jeffrey has accused Malachi of using “archons” as a “transliteration” of the nominative plural, with no evidence that he intended such a thing. The most natural assumption to make is that it was simply an informal anglicized term not intended to reflect the Greek spelling and handy in this context. I can only assume Jeffrey seized on this as a way to dump on IIDB posters as illiterate and to demonstrate his (supposed) superior knowledge. Unfortunately, where Jeffrey is concerned, this is the sort of thing he often indulges in as a substitute for real, meaningful debate on the topics under discussion.

I guess the other lesson we can take from this is that we are all human (even Jeffrey) and can make mistakes, have lapses of memory, fall prey to mental typos and always have more to learn.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Steven Carr

No.

Angles are either obtuse, acute, right or reflex. They are never 'archons'

It is this sort of ignorance of the subject matter that makes one grateful that Jeffery Gibson is here to correct mistakes.

EarlDoherty

Further to my earlier post about Jeffrey’s mistake in the plural of ARXWN , it occurs to me that he would benefit from reading a little more widely in the Greek documents of the early Christian era, and I am happy to apprise him of such. For example, there is an (admittedly obscure) work called the Gospel of Matthew, where one finds the nominative plural ARXONTES in 20:25. Another lesser known work, the Gospel of Luke finds the same word in 23:35 and 24:20. And perhaps he has heard of the Gospel of John, where ARXONTES can be noted at 7:26. The largely fictional Acts of the Apostles, composed toward the middle of the 2nd century, can be mined for ARXONTES at 4:8, 4:26 and 13:27, in addition to the 3:17 I noted earlier. In the epistles, the nominative plural form can only be found at Romans 13:3.

Now, one might note that all these New Testament instances of ARXONTES refer to human, earthly rulers, and I know that this is popular as an alleged sticking point for many who debate the meaning of TWN ARXONTWN TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU in 1 Cor 2:8 and claim that it can’t mean the demon spirits. I’d like to point out yet another appearance of the nominative plural ARXONTES outside the canon: namely in Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrneans 6:1, where his HOI ARXONTES HORATOI TE KAI AORATOI (“the rulers visible and invisible”) is a reference to the heavenly rulers/archons. I’ll say a little more about this Ignatius passage presently.

Jeffrey referred to an English usage of “archons” as a “barbarism”. Actually, Malachi is in good company. While no English translation I can find of ARXONTES in any of the above passages uses that word, writers on Gnosticism find nothing barbaric in it. Kurt Rudolph (Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism (or via: amazon.co.uk)) uses it extensively, as on p. 172: “The reason for this lies in the existence of the powers that rule the world, the Archons, who try to impede…” (One might note the similarity of such language and ideas to the Pauline phrase in question.) Bentley Layton, in The Gnostic Scriptures also notes the word, though he prefers to translate the term as “rulers”.

Then, of course, in the Gnostic documents themselves (as in The Nag Hammadi Library), the term appears even in the title of a Tractate, namely “The Hypostasis of the Archons”. Here the opening remarks appeal to Paul, apparently interpreting his references to such powers and authorities as heavenly. Layton has translated this tractate for the NHL and writes at 87, 23: “The rulers (archontes laid plans and said, ‘Come, let us create a man that will be soil from the earth’,” demonstrating that he, too, seems to acknowledge the prevalent usage of ARXWN as referring to spiritual beings.

Robert M. Grant, in Gnosticism and Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) also fails to shrink at the barbarism of “archons” and has some interesting things to say. He actually translates 1 Cor. 2:8 as “the archons of this age” (p.176). With notable perception, in comparing Paul with the Gospel of John, Grant says: “In Paul’s mind Satan was the archon of this age; but for John he has become the archon of this world.” Insightfully, even if inadvertently, Grant has strengthened the mythicist interpretation of Paul and 1 Cor. 2:8 in particular. Paul’s focus is on the larger cosmos where the archons operate, embracing spiritual realms; they are the rulers of this age, and it is on this ‘cosmic’ scene where the mythical Christ himself also operates. With the Gospels, the focus has been reduced to the world of humans, now seen as Satan’s theatre of operations. This is because Christ, with the advent of the Gospels, is now on earth, and the focus shifts to that perspective.

When he goes on to discuss that passage in Ignatius mentioned earlier (p.177f), Grant gives us even more inadvertent insight. He says, “(Ignatius) informs the Smyrneans that there are archons visible and invisible, and a “glory of the angels”; all must believe in the blood of Christ unless they are to be condemned.” Ignatius still shows close ties to Paul’s concept of the rulers of this age being ignorant of Christ’s role and consequently being doomed because of it. That focus on the heavens is prevalent in the Pauline corpus, and Ignatius is only now edging himself out of it to include some basic earthly features for Christ.

But he is still in a Pauline universe, whether we realize or acknowledge it or not. Grant recognizes it but tries to pull away (p.179).

And just how was Satan “ignorant” of all these things, since they presumably took place on earth in full view of many eyewitnesses, which accounts were recorded in the Gospels? The idea of "taking place in the silence of God" speaks of the mythical, timeless concepts of Platonism, reflected in Paul and Hebrews, the Odes of Solomon and the Shepherd.

Talk about still having one foot in the Pauline ‘cosmos’. And Grant admits, “It is difficult not to conclude that Ignatius knows, and partly accepts, a Gnostic interpretation of the meaning of the Incarnation.” Well, what he really means is that the proto-gnosticism of the 1st century, of which Paul was a part, is part and parcel of Ignatius’ mindset because that is what he grew out of and is still tied to. Grant points out that the one “basic Gnostic doctrine” which Ignatius rejects is docetism, that Christ only seemed to suffer. This is an issue which never troubles Paul, but Ignatius has to cope with it at the beginning of the 2nd century because it disturbs the newly-developed concept that Christ had been on earth in the flesh, to suffer as Ignatius himself has suffered.

Again, Grant is troubled by Ignatius’ apparent ‘gnostic’ interpretations of certain aspects of Jesus’ life, that Jesus “was baptized in order to purify the water (Eph. 18.2),” and “the Lord received ointment on his head so that he might breathe immortality on the church (17.1).” But these are not new (Gnostic) interpretations applied to historical elements. Grant has it the wrong away around. These so-called Gnostic elements are characteristic of the mystical treatment of the Christ (i.e., the spiritual mythical Christ) which are in evidence in Paul and even in the epistle 1 John, not tied to an historical figure in either of them because this comes from pre-historicist cultic Christianity. It is Ignatius who (first in our record outside the Gospels) is tying alleged historical elements to the 1st century Christian faith in a mythical Christ.

Grant hastens to appeal to the Gospel renditions of these previously mystical beliefs by appealing to the anointing of Jesus head in Matthew 16:7 and the breathing on the disciples in John 20:22, claiming that “Ignatius combines the accounts and reads a Gnostic meaning into both.” But Ignatius never appeals to a Gospel at all throughout his seven letters, and shows no knowledge of any written documents. (The one Gospel-like scene in Smyrneans 3 is supported by no ‘prooftext’ Gospel and may well represent a new ‘floating tradition’ in the new historical-Jesus circles from which Luke drew his post-resurrection anecdote.) So much in Ignatius shows that he is emerging from a mystical/proto-gnostic past into the first tentative beliefs in the basics of a Jesus biography (not to be found in any earlier piece of Christian correspondence and which so many around him seem to be unaware of--he condemns those who are failing to preach it). That biography is so threadbare as hardly needing dependence on any document resting on his writing desk. In fact, if one did, he should be appealing to it right and left throughout his letters (the genuine "Shorter" recensions, which later historicists padded with countless Gospel details) to back up his claims and doctrines. He has no teachings of Jesus, no sense of apostolic tradition going back to him, no establishment of the eucharist, and not a single detail of that historical suffering and death he so urgently champions.

In fact, he seems to know more about the heavenly "ARXONTES" (nominative plural) than he does about the life of Jesus.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Malachi151

Hi Earl,

So, back to the real basis of this post and this question. Among the pre-Christian apocalyptic and messianic literature of the Jews, including Enoch, do we find this concepts of "heavenly rulers" (whatever they are to be called, rulers who are not humans on the earth), which corresponds to the "rulers of this age" in the writings of Paul?

Magdlyn

We can't say archons when speaking English? Must we always say rebbitzim and cherubim intead of rabbis and cherubs then?

Can one say Gnostics? Frankfurters? :grin: