Solo

...but is it true what Jeffrey says ? Do any of the scholars or did the Fathers who interpreted the archontes as demons believe they acted apart from human agency ? That's the real issue here, is it not ?

JS

Ben C Smith

Yes, that seems indisputable. The participle born modifies the noun son.

No, I think you have misunderstood my argument. My tentative position is that the action of the participle is restating or defining the action of the main verb, kind of like all those instances in the gospels of the phrase he answered and said, which is actually a main verb and an aorist participle, literally having answered he said if we were to take the aspect as one of timing, which is obviously inappropriate for such a phrase; rather, the answering is defining or restating the saying. Likewise, I was suggesting that the birthing (of the son) is defining or restating the sending forth (from the father). Modifying is the wrong concept here.

You cite Burton as follows:

Yet on the other hand, EXAPESTEILEN need not, probably should not, be limited to the entrance into the world by and at birth, but should rather be understood as extending to, and including, the appearance of Jesus among men as one sent from God.

Burton is including more than I had discussed, but appears to be treating the matter in a manner similar to mine; that is, the entrance into the world by (and note that by is the preposition I used in my expanded examples) and at birth is at least part of the definition of the sending. (For Burton to write that the sending is not limited to the entrance implies that the sending consists of at least the entrance, agreeing with my argument.)

Right, but it does apparently define or in some way restate that sending. Burton is making the added point that the birthing is not the sum total of the sending, but nothing in what I wrote or in what I am thinking either confirms or denies that.

Not to be equated, per se, I agree. Which is why I threw in that quote from Smyth that included the concept of defining as well as the concept of identity.

Let me add something here, too. There is no question that an attributive participle can stand outside its text, as it were, and refer to a time prior, not to the main verb of its clause, but to the writer himself. We have a good example of this in Acts 1.16:

Which the holy spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus.

Those English words who became a guide represent an aorist participle, the same participle, in fact, as in Galatians 4.4, but in the genitive case this time so as to agree with Judas, which is in the genitive after concerning. But that aorist participle does not point to a time prior to the main verb of the clause, underlined above, as if Judas had become a guide before the holy spirit spoke through David! Rather, Judas became a guide prior to the writing of this sentence. Smyth gives examples of this sort of thing from classical Greek, too.

If the participles in Galatians 4.4 were attributive, this discussion would be over. However, they are not; they are predicate, and I do not know whether predicate participles are subject to the same phenomenon, since (A) the examples that I can find are attributive and (B) Smyth specifically speaks of attributives in this connection, not predicates.

I asked Stephen Carlson for any input he may have; he said he was quite busy at this time but pointed me in the direction of supplementary participles, which function almost as infinitives. In this case the sense would be that God sent his son to be born of a woman. Acts 25.13 may furnish a parallel for this:

King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to greet [aorist participle, having greeted] Festus.

Surely Agrippa and Bernice did not greet Festus before arriving; rather, they arrived in order to greet him (to pay him a visit).

Carlson also suggested in a second PM that perhaps the sending is not supposed to be imagined as before the birth; rather, it is the sending of Jesus to the cross (in order to redeem those under the law, 4.5; compare Galatians 3.15). I had thought of this possibility, but the possible parallel in Romans 8.3 and the definite parallel in Galatians 4.6 made the sending here seem more like a sending from heaven. But I could be wrong.

Hearing from Detering was a pleasant surprise.

Ben.

jgibson000

Umm, what makes you so sure about this? And can a passive adjectival predicate participle modify a verb?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

In exploring this possiblility, you might want to take into consideration what I mentioned in BCH post 3544880:

Hope this helps.

Jeffrey Fibson

Ben C Smith

That the participle is in predicate position (not attributive) seems beyond dispute. Maybe I am not understanding you here or vice versa.

I do not think it is modifying the verb. It is modifying son. But, again, perhaps we are speaking past each other.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

It very much does. A follow-up exchange with Carlson via PM has already melted a number of my reservations on this point of view.

I have always been split on the pre-existence issue, and never really resolved it for myself. Philippians 2 is a crux, I think.

Ben.

jgibson000

I strongly suggest that you read what Dunn has to say about Phil. 2 in his Christology in the Making (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Jeffrey

jakejonesiv

The issue, IMHO is not the technical meaning of archons, but the interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8.

Let's get to the heart of the matter.

According to Tertullian, ( _Adv. Haer._, Book 5, chapter 6) Marcion taught that the minions of the creator (the demiurge, the prince of this world) crucified Christ. Tertullian quibbles with Marcion's interpretaion, to the extent that he disagrees that the creator was the ignorant spiritual power in question. The prince of this world was who else but the devil? (_On Modesty_, chapter 9).
Explicitly, Tertullian argues, "much less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression himself, the devil; for I should contend that these, on account of their fall, were greater strangers still to any knowledge of the Creator's dispensations."

Either way, it was ignorant spiritual powers.
If anyone has an earlier interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:8, please provide it.

Now, does this allow the spiritual powers to use human agency? Presumably so for Tertullian, he buys into the gospel story. But you won't prove an Historical Jesus around 30 CE from the Paulinics. Whoever the unnamed archons are, it is not said to be Pontius Pilate (or other ruler from that time period), and thus provides no historical anchor.

BTW, there was another notable Jesus brought before "hoi archontes," but this time we are supplied with a Roman procurator's name.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

This is quite an interesting area. You are deviating from traditional Christian doctrine. I would like to hear more.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

What I meant, just to be clear, was that I was split on whether Paul thinks there was, or ever refers to, a pre-existent Christ. When it comes to my own theology, my head starts to swim.

I have to stick to what others, like Paul, thought; I myself am a theological basket case.

Ben.