Ted Hoffman

One of Doherty's misfortunes is having as challengers, rabid apologists like (J.P. Holding) and people who are not very falimiar with his thesis like the one who just jumped onto the bandwagon of critics. Gakusei Don recently challenged Doherty's thesis with a focus on 2nd century apologists but now has two rebuttals that he (GDon) has failed to respond to. Instead of "explaining the silence" after his explanations were dispensed with, or defending his "spot the mythicists" arguments, GDon now spends his time debating on the internet on the very same issues, leaving the rebuttals, which jut out like sore thumbs, untouched, unattended.

This time, we have a certain Tedrika whose Response to Earl Doherty's Top 20 Silences is now online.
Tedrika mentions that JP Holding's apologetic review of Doherty is "excellent". Tedrika also refers to Muller and appears oblivious of the fact that Carrier and Doherty both found Muller to be wrong on almost everything. These are red flags that show us we have a newbie that has been impressed by JP Holding. I will just pick one of Tedrika's arguments and dissect it. There are several incorrect and hopeless arguments Tedrika advances, but I will just pick one that shows Tedrika's level of scholarship. Tedrika's weakest arguments center on Paul and he uses the perspective of an orthodox layman while addressing issues; an approach that is ill-fashioned and impervious to the consequences of the arguments at hand.

Tedrika goes through interpolated passages like a blindfolded person, and like one impervious to form, source, narrative and rhetorical criticism, he wades right through problematic or interpolated passages, inattentive of the years of scholarly efforts accross the academia. Like Muller, he employs his own ignorant, unrefined perspective as a guide. And, inexorably, he gets totally lost and it is difficult to retrieve him from the web of folly he manages to wrap round himself.

Rulers of This age

Tedrika writes:
The orthodox interpretation claims that archontes (rulers of this age) in 1 Cor. 2:8 refers to Caiaphas, Herod and other "worldly rulers". This is incorrect because Paul was politically astute and well-travelled (he travelled as far as Arabia) to know that rulers in other nations of the world had no part in the putative death of Jesus.

Secondly, and more cogently, as Buttrick argues, if it were worldly rulers, " how could they have known the secrets of God's plan of salvation? Clearly, we must adopt the interpretation, which goes back to Origen, that these are the angelic rulers who, according to ancient thought, stood behind human agents and were the real causes of historic events"

R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer and R. Murphy in The New Jerome Critical Commentary, 1990, p.782 write that: "Contemporary Jewish theology contrasted 'this world (age)' with 'the world (age) to come.' Paul echoes that contrast and sees the former dominated by satan (see 1 Cor. 4:4). Christ's 'giving' of himself has brought about the meeting of the two ages (1 Cor. 10:11) and freed human beings from 'this age'"

The Interpreter's Bible , Vol X, 1953, Buttrick G.A. (ed.), p.37-38
This interpretation is supported by over 15 scholars as I have shown above (see also [7],[11] and [12]).

Buttrick G.A., op. cit.,p.37-38

Even Origen took the princes of this world to refer to spiritual beings. Origen writes: Origen, Contra Celsum, Book V,2, Translated by Henry Chadwick, 1965

[Chadwick notes that the "prince of this world" in this passage refers to 1 Cor. 2. Leon Morris (1 Corinthians, pp. 53-54) also says Origen took the 'princes of this world' to mean demons]

The following scholars support the interpretation of "princes of this world" as referring to spiritual beings:

1. Paul Ellingworth A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46
2. W. J. P. Boyd, '1 Corinthians ii.8,' Expository Times 68. p.158.
3. C. K. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72
4. Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, p.56
5. Jean Hering, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.16-17
6. S. G. F. Brandon., Time History and Deity, p.167
7. Buttrick G.A. (ed.), The Interpreter's Bible, Vol X, 1953, p.37-38,
8. R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer and R. Murphy in The New Jerome Critical Commentary, 1990, p.782 (see [7] below)
9. Others: Delling, Conzelmann, Thackeray, Schmiedel, J. H. Charlesworth, Ignatius letter to the Smyreans, 6:1

Because of the Tedrika's apalling ignorance on NT issues, and his lack of familiarity with the very thesis he is criticizing (he has not read Doherty's book), I think his work is a waste of time for anyone who wants to read a serious criticism of Doherty's work.

Tedrika does not even begin to scratch the surface. His handling of 1 Cor. 2:8 is an example of this.

GakuseiDon

Which ones are these, again? I replied to Earl's first rebuttal, and Earl said that he wasn't going to reply if I addressed his second rebuttal, so I don't have much incentive to respond. Besides, I've put most of everything I've wanted there. I really want to move on to something else, after the 'Minucius Felix' thread finishes.

Hey! Nice hatchet job! Ever thought of being a movie critic?

Now let's see where you actually start addressing the argument:
I can't find that in Book V, Chapter 2. Nor anything like it. Can you find it, TedH? http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen165.html

Besides, even if Origen thought that 'the princes of this world' referred to spiritual beings, he also clearly puts it down to Pilate and Herod. As you say, they 'stood behind' the actual rulers like Herod and Pilate, both to whom Origen refers. So, how does appealing to Origen help you?

Finally, what article of TedM's are you reviewing? I can't find that passage in the "Witnesses to the Resurrection" page here (unless TedM has updated it since you looked at it)

Ted Hoffman

Where did Doherty say that?
For someone who pretends to be challenging my position, you spend the entire time whelping: "Where is that - I cant find it - could you please help". Why dont you take your time to check out my references then come back and do a decent job? The incomplete hack job you just did is just adding to the shoddiness of TedM's tawdry performance.

I did not use Roberts Donaldson Translation. I cant find it there either. Just find a translation, go to the index and check 1 Cor. 2:18.
The issue at hand is the meaning of the expression "princes of this world". It is an expression that does not refer to earthly rulers like Pilate and Herod. You are simply presenting a red herring.
Just search GDon, you will find it.

I had no idea that article was by TedM, but I am disappointed because I thought the time he has spend here should have helped him understand that opinion is not argument: the fact that his opinion differs from Doherty's thesis does not constitute a challenge to Doherty's thesis.
He has to analyze Doherty's argument, refute it logically with supporting evidence, then provide the alternative opinion.

What he has done is simply parade his opinion alongside what Doherty writes. He has not even read the book. Kirby was giving free copies - why can he request for one and do a decent job?

GakuseiDon

Here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon-2.htm

In some ways, what we have here is akin to a formal debate, beginning with extended opposing statements on either side, followed by rebuttals. In response to GDon's critique of my Second Century Apologists material (book and website), I posted a major article. He has now rebutted that response, and I am following up with a rebuttal of my own. That will be the end of my contribution to the debate, although I am willing to reply to questions from the floor.

I DID check it. You said that the quote was in Origen, Contra Celsum, Book V,2. It wasn't there. That's why I said I couldn't find it. :huh: I can't see why your bad reference is the reader's responsibility.

:huh: YOU can't find it there, so I should find a translation? :huh:

No thanks. I've no more time for you.

TedM

TedH, your response demonstrates that this could be a longer debate than I care to engage in, if I try to address all of the misrepresentations and misunderstandings. Please try to be more careful.

First, you mispresent things I've said: I never said Holding's reveiw is excellent, as you claim. Go back and read what I wrote.

Second, you misrepresent the status of scholarship: You have misrepresented the situation between Muller, Carrier, and Doherty. First, it is ridiculous to say that Carrier and Doherty have "found Muller to be wrong on almost everything". That wasn't Carrier's position at all. On balance, it seemed to me that considered the debate to be close to a draw. Second, since Doherty has NEVER been able to find a good example of earthly-sounding activities in a heavenly sphere of the sort he attributes to Paul, and instead has to accuse Muller of not having enough "creative imagination" to appreciate his viewpoints, I hardly think anyone can say that Muller has been shown to be "wrong". Finally, Muller has told me the following: "I do not intend to answer directly either Doherty & Carrier. Instead I already revised my existing critique and answered in it (partially) Carriere's, and more so Doherty's (but not new points which are not in his book)."

Lastly, you have misunderstood my intent in the review. In concluding it is a "waste of time" to review it because of your perception of my scholarship, you may be correct as it pertains to a scholar. I am not a scholar, and I indicated in the Introduction that I didn't intend to primarily rehash old arguments. While I do argue positions, I clearly stated that my primary intentions were to look for the relevancy of the contexts to the alleged silences, and to bring related issues to the attention of people. Many people aren't scholars and may not be aware of related issues which without such knowledge could result in having a very distorted perception of the actual landscape--perceptions that can easily come from reading the arguments from silence by a skillful writer. So, feel free to ignore what I've written.


Now, on to your specific objection, which is to my personal interpretation of 1 Cor 2:8. The first thing that jumps out is the fact that you don't address my claim. You instead appeal to scholarship without even giving the slightest reference to the fact that scholarship is about evenly divided as to whether the passage is referring to human rulers or not. That is another example of misrepresentation. The passages you provide from an entirely different book do provide some evidence for the idea that the rulers COULD HAVE BEEN demon beings. This certainly is POSSIBLE, as is the possibilty other scholars have raised that there is a double intention--demons influenced humans--a concept not contrary to orthodox Christianity. However, again, I addressed the CONTEXT in which the passage was written. To find non-human rulers in the midst of a passage that is contrasting God's wisdom with human wisdom is an example of blatant disregard for the actual context of the passage.

Secondly, your quotes address SPECIFIC rulers as if I said anything at all about specific rulers. No, I said "human" rulers. I didn't say which ones.

You quote Buttrick:

Paul doesn't say the human rulers could have known the secrets of God's plan of salvation, only that the "didn't". Whether they could have discerned it, and had God's wisdom or not to know is a matter of debate. The argument that since they COULDN'T HAVE had God's wisdom they couldn't be humans does not address what is written and it makes an assumption that can't be proven.

One last point: 2:6 says "6Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away"

Would Paul really need to say he was not imparting wisdom from demons? No, he was not imparting foolish HUMAN wisdom.

Lastly, as everyone already knows, Paul the only other time Paul uses the word "archons" is in Rom 13:3, where NO ONE disputes that it is referring to human rulers.


Regarding your comments about what "this age" refers to you wrote:


"This age" COULD refer to the entire history of man under Satan's domination. That, of course, includes the time contemporary to Paul also. If Paul is referring to human rulers who crucified Christ, as I conclude, and if Jesus was a human being whom Paul had heard about, as I conclude, and if Christianity was a new religion, which seems evident, and if Paul's Christianity was anxiously expecting a return of that person to usher in a "new age", as I conclude, it is reasonable to conclude that the "rulers of this age" appears (that's the word I used) to refer to human rulers in recent history.

This seems a much more reasonable interpretation than that of Christ being crucified by demons in the heavens at some unknown point in time, only to be revealed at Paul's time, and to Paul "last of all". Why would the age of satanic domination have to wait for revelation to Paul and others to pass away, if the act of salvation had occurred long ago? Why would Paul be the "last" to recieve revelation? Doherty's interpretation COULD BE correct, but Paul is definitely silent about when that heavenly crucifixion occurred! He calls Adam "the first Man" and Christ "the last Adam". When, between Adam and Paul, did Christ live?


It should be clear now that your attack misrepresents things I say, misrepresents things others have said, misrepresents my knowledge of Doherty's positions, and misunderstands the primary focus and purposes of my Top 20 review. I"m not a scholar, but if you want to attack my scholarship, find something that I've written that applies.

ted

Amaleq13

TedM,

IMO you should drop this particular issue as it cannot be used to either confirm nor deny Doherty's thesis. I completely agree with Doherty and the scholars he relies upon that Paul's reference is more likely to the demonic powers that he believed controlled "this age" but, as even at least some of his source acknowledge, it is entirely possible that such a reference could be made in the context of an execution on earth.

The passage is consistent with Doherty's thesis but does not require it and you cannot establish that Paul could not possibly have been referring to demonic powers. If you cannot accomplish the latter, and you cannot, there is really no point in pursuing the argument. IMO, you are better off accepting the offered interpretation and pointing out that it does not necessarily support Doherty's thesis.

TedM

Just as I cannot establish that Paul COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been referring to demonic powers, so too can no one establish that Paul COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been referring to human rulers.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I"m not primarily writing about Doherty's thesis--to try and prove or disprove something. I'm writing about his top 20 silences, as to whether the claims for them are valid or not. He claims there were no human witnesses to the crucifixion. I"m pointing out that this passage MAY BE evidence that there were, and that they were human rulers. Same kind of thing for the timing of the crucifixion.

ted

Chili and Johnny Skeptic digression from this post split to this new thread.

Ted Hoffman

First of all, I would like to apologize to GDon: I think I was too abrasive. Please accept my apologies.
The reference to Origen is Book VIII, 13. My bad. It is there in ECW site.
I also appreciate your failure to respond to Doherty's rebuttal given Doherty indicated he might not respond further. However, it leaves a misleading picture IMO: it appears as if you cannot muster a response. His refutation remains unchallenged.
The page from which I cite TedM is the one below:
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...op20/id10.html
I think that responds sufficiently to your post.
TedM:
True, you said he makes excellent points. You meant to say that: "even though Holding's review is not excellent, he makes excellent points?" Oh, my bad.
He found Muller wrong on most points. Indeed, carrier later became a mythicist.
Both Doherty and Carrier have shown how incorrect Muller's views were.
How many times does he intend to resurrect his error-ridden "refutations"? No one has time to go back to peek at what he comes up with.
Thank you for your candidness.
Try and address the arguments please. I am just showing that Doherty's interpretation enjoys huge scholarly support.
You need to check the meaning of "this age" in the Theological Dictionary of The New Testament. Please do some research. It is not enough to have an opinion.
This is an insignificant quibble. Address the argument. To cut the chase, you have no basis to challenge Doherty's interpretation where it is found to be enjoying scholarly support. Because you would then actually need to refute those scholars first. By your own admission, you are a layman. You are therefore approaching the argument from an inferior position and yet without scholarly support. Yet Doherty's arguments have scholarly support.

Why should we take your response seriously? I mean, every Tom, Dick and Harry has an opinion - why is yours worth the time?

If you understood Doherty's thesis, you would know that you have missed the boat by miles. Why not read the book and understand the thesis? Why the hurry?

As Rod Green surmises in Jesus Mysteries:

TedM

I didn't voice an opinion on his review as a whole. Again, you misrepresent me. I don't have an opinion on the whole because I still haven't read his entire review. I"m not sure I EVER will.

Go back and read his initial review and you will see that in no way did he find Muller to be "wrong on almost everything". He was agnostic and agreed that Muller had made valid points a number of times.


Give me even 3 examples. I don't think you can.

This is your opinion based on assumptions that aren't correct.

And ignoring my argument under the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about and that the scholars that favor Doherty's view are correct, even though there are plenty of scholars who disagree. And, I don't know about "huge" scholarly support. From what I've seen it is divided. I presented the view that fits the context of God's wisdom vs human wisdom the best. It isn't about God's wisdom vs demon's wisdom.

Yet you continue to misrepresent the level of scholarly support for "human rulers". Doherty himself says it is about even.

Do what you want. But if you decide to attack me again, why don't you do it fairly, and do it by finding a passage that applies? I never claimed to have proven my viewpoint, yet you are behaving as if I did and that--contrary to reality--there is no scholarship support for it.

I responded to him that Doherty's strength certainly isn't in his claim for a heavenly Christ who did earthly sounding things in a heavenly sphere. There's little to no support for such a claim. His strength is in being creative enough to come up with a number of alleged silences, and arguing for them persuasively. He relies HEAVILY on those silences to bolster up his thesis--one that he himself implies requires "creative imagination" to fully accept. My goal was to look at the validity of his claim that we should NOT EXPECT the silences we find. Part of that is to look at whether such silences really can be proven to exist. What I've pointed out with this example of the "archons" is that the claim that there were no witnesses to the crucifixion is questionable based on the context of this passage. The fact that you have critiqued my viewpoint about this passage by falsely implying that it has no scholarly support illustrates that you neither understand my level of knowledge nor what I'm trying to do.

Let me make it clear for you: My goal was to review the Top 20 arguments from silence that Doherty finds most compelling, to see how valid they are, based on the context of the surrounding passages, and other early writings he finds acceptable. Of course this will require my opinion. I do think that what I found, along with the points in my conclusion bring into question Doherty's entire thesis, but you are making a mistake if you think I'm being an apologist, and highly biased in my representation. I agreed in the conclusion that a number of the 20 points are at least somewhat valid. What I disagree with is how significant they are. And you are making a mistake in thinking I need to have read everything in Doherty's book in order to review his Top 20. He adequately explains his positions for each item.

In light of this, if you have something credible to critique, which shows that I am at nearly complete odds with the views of scholarship, please DO let me know.. Otherwise, keep in mind that I will voice opinions you simply disagree with, and that is OK.

ted

TedM

Despite the unpleasant nature of the exchange between TedH and myself, I welcome discussion of anything I've written about Doherty's Top 20 silences. In particular, I'd like to encourage discusson about the following items that I'm curious about:

1. For which of the 20 passages Doherty provides would you strongly expect the mention he indicates, and why?

2. What is your response with regard to the works I mentioned in the conclusion which Doherty excludes from consideration?

3. What is your response with regard to the point I make in the conclusion with regard to my own Top 20?

4. How do you come to terms with the sheer dwarfing in terms of numbers of mentions of a Jesus/Christ who sounds like a person who does things on earth as compared to a heavenly being who does earthly-sounding things in some other sphere than earth?

ted