Ben C Smith

For the sake of utter clarity, let me lay out the three positions discussed so far about the meaning of 1 Corinthians 2.8:

1. Only demons crucified Christ.
2. Both demons and humans crucified Christ (or demons acting through humans).
3. Only humans crucified Christ.

Are you saying that Marcion, like Doherty, held to number 1? Two different possibilities present themselves:

A. Marcion held to number 1 above only with regard to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 2.8 (but actually believed that human powers did have a hand in crucifying Christ).
B. Marcion held to number 1 absolutely; he did not think human powers had any hand at all in crucifying Christ.

To be clear, which of these options do you think is the more accurate? Because this is what occurs to me. If in fact A is the more accurate, it shows that mythicism has gained no great victory even if it proves that Paul had only demons in mind in 1 Corinthians 2.8; it is possible both to state that demons crucified the Lord (without reference to human agency) and to believe that humans crucified the Lord (without reference to demonic agency). IOW, if Marcion can say that the demiurge killed Christ in his version of 1 Corinthians 2.8 and simultaneously believe that humans killed him in his version of Luke, then surely Paul can believe the same thing. The two options are not mutually exclusive.

So is it A or is it B?

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

Ben,
The issue is not really about who and how Christ was crucified, which is not what Doherty cites the scholars about, but about the interpretation of the word archontes as used by Paul. You want Doherty to go further into educating readers about how HJ scholars assume these demons worked.
In fact, the only reason these scholars proceed to explain how these demons worked is because Paul goes against the gospel accounts and they are therefore compelled to plug the holes that would otherwise be gaping if they simply stuck to what the word meant. In other words, they are engaging in apologetics to burnish Paul and harmonize him with gospel accounts.
If it is a matter of mentioning that ,"Oh, by the way, all the scholars mentioned above disagree with me about X", he would be confusing readers and presenting the differing opinions of other scholars instead of building his own case. Because on just about every point, historicist scholars disagree with Doherty.
I think I would rather have critics accuse him of not fully informing the readers about the opinions of other scholars, than have a presentation of the JM hypothesis bogged down by a critique of historicist assumptions, which cover miles when spread out.
The quest for historical Jesus has been going on for centuries and has been heavily funded and supplied with the best brains and tools. The last thing we need is a presentation of the baseless assumptions that HJ scholars imported into Paul, interrupting a presentation of the younger, marginal MJ hypothesis.
For whatever it is worth, I do not feel misled on this matter. I think these other scholars have enough room presenting their assumptions, what you call "fairly essential details" elsewhere, and not in a MJ book.

The facts are as follows:
1. Paul wrote that archontes killed Jesus.
2. Several critical scholars regard archontes to refer to demons or spiritual beings.
3. Paul does not say anywhere that human rulers stood between these archontes and Jesus.

Ben C Smith

Ted, the fact remains that the following sentence...:

Many scholars agree that he is referring not to temporal rulers but to the spirit and demonic forces....

...is misleading. The good news is that it could be fairly easily changed.

Ben.

jgibson000

The only reason?

How do you know that this is the only reason or that it is a factor at all in what these schoars have written on ARONTES in 1 Con 2:6-8? Do these scholars ever say as much? Is there anything within what, say, Delling, or Herring, or Brandon write that indicates or evn hints that their motives for writing what they wrote are what you "know" they are?

Or is this another of your global and apodictic claims that --like your claim about me not writing or researching in recent months -- in the end is based not on any hard evidence, but only on a hunch -- and a bad and question begging hunch at that?

Is it at least possible that the scholars whose integrity you impughn and (in your absolute black and white assertions about what has motivated them to write what they have written concerning ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8) whose minds claim to be have read, that they have said what they have said about the ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 because of an homest and sober examination of the use of the term ARCONTES in 1st Hellenistic literature?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

But is it a correct statement Ben?

Ben C Smith

No. The not is inappropriate. The not sets up an either-or scenario when most of the scholars are thinking both-and.

Ben.

krosero

You speak of the Gospels and Christian apologetics as if they were the only factors. Are there any others, Ted? Any evidence at all in the ancient world that archontes can refer to human rulers?

You say that scholars won't stick "to what the word meant." Are you telling us that it only has the meaning of demons, and that this is what we must stick to?

He is confusing them already. When I first read the statement, "Many scholars agree that he is referring not to temporal rulers but to the spirit and demonic forces....", I did a double-take, and had to remind myself that these scholars were still historicists and were not actually referring to spiritual rulers and excluding human agency (as the phrase "not to temporal rulers" unmistakably implies). I could do that because I have some familiarity with the field. Someone newer to this whole subject will swallow the sentence whole if they don't stop to think about it -- and then Doherty's book will seem to them like a revelation out of the blue.

The way Earl writes is a good way to attract some readers -- and to alienate scholars.

It would certainly weaken the rhetorical force of his book if he paid full attention to these disagreements; the book would not make the same impression (although its impression would be more honest, IMO).

What this sounds like is that you care less about teaching readers than you do about having a case that sounds and feels vigorous.

If they are baseless, then Doherty needs only, in this case as he does almost all the time, to say why they are baseless. Just say that historicists are assuming something that is not necessary to assume. That's all he has to do, and it would take only a few words. He does it all the time, and it is his argument that these premises are baseless, so I'm surprised that you're saying that in this case he shouldn't have to present his argument -- and that you're using such lame excuses (not enough paper?) and superficial reasons (the need for the case to sound strong and to suffer no interruption or hesitation).

These arguments of yours are counterproductive, and I seriously wonder whether Earl appreciates these excuses. He wants to be treated as a scholar; we're asking him to write like one; and you're coming up with reasons why he writes just fine given his marginal and unsupported situation.

Well if that's the attitude, if that's how he thinks of himself, then others will think of him that way too.

You want greater regard? Show a more positive attitude.

You have an equally misleading way of stating facts.

#2 does not lay out the fact that archontes can refer to human rulers (though I grant you that this is implied weakly by your use of the word "Several").

#3 already speaks as if Paul certainly was referring to "these archontes" of the spiritual world and Jesus, between which human rulers might or might not be interposing.

What you have up there, Ted, is an argument, an advocated position, based on some facts that you've listed -- what you have is not mere facts.

These are mere facts, if you want them:

1. Paul wrote that archontes killed Jesus.
2. The term refers to rulers, temporal and/or spiritual.
3. There is wide debate about what Paul meant exactly.

Kevin Rosero

Ted Hoffman

Is it correct. Yes or No?

Ted Hoffman

Sorry. I think you have answered the question Ben.

Ted Hoffman

There is? Please tell us more because that is exactly where this discussion started and Jeffrey swooped in on me.