krosero

I’m going to thank Ted for expressing so clearly what I suggested was behind Earl’s mindset too. Near the end of the “Born of Woman” thread, I said this to Earl:


So Ted is saying that I was right at least about him: he judges these scholars, before looking at their treatment of the evidence, according to their results. Anything that “marries” Paul to the Gospels (marrying being defined by none other than Ted’s own subjective judgment) must have come from an intention to achieve this marrying and not from an honest use of evidence.

That is why, Ted, you can acknowledge in one place that of course there’s evidence for terrestrial interpretations of archontes (evidence attested quite nicely in the LSJ, which speaks of “rulers, commanders, chiefs, kings” and a possibility of demonic powers), while in another place you can say that when scholars opt for terrestrial rulers, this is just “historicist boilerplate crap” and apologetics and all those nice words you use.

I wonder if you know it, but the more you keep up these arguments, the more it seems that you’re not just disdaining the scholars, but also that you must be disdaining the lexicons and the ancient evidence as “boilerplate crap” whenever it does not agree with you. That's right: disdaining evidence when it does not agree with you, and putting nasty labels on it to cast it aside.

I know, of course, that you acknowledge the existence of historicist evidence, and that of course you're not labelling the LSJ, or raw evidence, as apologetics. But there is a dissonance here. You say that all you’re looking for is an argument to the best explanation; then you say that scholars find “gaping holes” in their theories when they don’t just stick to what “archontes” meant. Someone then points out to you that there are a lot of meanings of “archontes” and tries to get you to see that it’s dogma to “stick” to one meaning when the exact meaning is not explicit in the text. Then you back up and say, of course, of course. Later, if allowed, you just make another dogmatic statement about how scholars just can’t stick to the plain, unadorned mythicist interpretation just sitting in plain view in the text.

And the whole stupid cycle just repeats itself, as apparently it has been for years now.

I am not inclined anymore to take seriously your protests that you’re just looking for a reasonable explanation that fits all the evidence – not when you contradict yourself like this. Nor am I going to fault anyone who finds your reasonable-sounding protests to be disingenuous after you contradict yourself with dogmatic statements.

And I’m sorry to say that I find the situation with Earl to be not much different. As I wrote in that post from the “Born of Woman” debate, Earl claims that both Burton and Brandon choose an interpretation which has nothing going for it but mere assumption, not evidence, which makes it seem as if mythicism is so obvious that only a biased blindless to the true evidence keeps anyone from seeing it; then he backs up in other places and says that he's merely seeking the better of two explanations, and that of course HJ evidence exists, that of course archontes often means earthly rulers and "out of woman" implies birth.

What seems to be happening is a divergence of intentions and results. Ted and Earl both acknowledge sensibly that most scholars are open historicists who do not subscribe to mythicism; and that evidence exists for historicist interpretions. And both Ted and Earl protest often that they never meant to deny such things. But then at other times they both say that the historicists are going on NOTHING but historicist bias. Then we point out the widespread evidence that archontes often refers to earthly rulers and that “born of woman” always refers to earthly births; but Ted and Earl return ritually to the charge that evidence is NOT what is driving the scholars, because, well, the results just prove this.

Ted and Earl hear themselves thinking and saying one thing, but what they actually write can be quite different.

I think it’s just the difference between intentions and results: the difference between using certain language when describing one's own thoughts and elsewhere using the kind of language that will score points/success.

I see a difference generally between intentions and results; it seems to me that Jeffrey does, too; and even Ben acknowledged a difference when he spoke of having made a misleading argument once without meaning to. The historicists are agreed on this. Ted has a very different view, and it makes me want to hear Earl's. I'm very surprised to hear Ted's opinion that negative claims can be proved about intentions (i.e., the scholars' intentions did not include a loyalty to evidence) solely from results.

The most tiresome part for me is that when we try to explain how the results are different from the intentions – when we feed back to Earl and Ted exactly what they sound like – we are just met with the response that, well, there can’t possibly be anything to this, it’s just historicist emotional bias; it’s just anger about "new" ideas; it must be; it's always been that way.

And the whole stupid cycle, rather than being broken, just goes on.

I thank you, Ted, for expressing so clearly what I suggested was the thinking behind Earl's hypothesis.

Earl, I'd like your reply. Feel free, as always, to charge that I've just harped on the language and methods of the mythicists while missing the issues themselves. The issue in this thread is the possible misrepresentation of scholars, so what I want to hear is this: What do you think is the intention of these scholars? Is there more than assumption behind their positions?

Kevin Rosero

jgibson000

Leaving aside the fact that a number of them have already been cited (among whom were, curiously, at least two whom you authoritatively and apodictically claimed were supporters of the "demons" interpretation!), I'll be happy to give you a list of these scholars.

However, seeing as you set the rules in this game when you posted yout list of scholars who allegedly supported the "demons" position and then, on several occasions

(1) noted that it was my responsibility to produce the bibliographical data on where the discourse of these scholars on ARCONTES was to be found, and

(2) demanded, as you did, that I deal comprehensively with these scholars by producing the text of their discourse

that it's the one who receives the list who has the responsibility/obligation to "deal comprehensively" with the names on the list by producing both full and exact quotations of what these scholars actually say and the proper biblographical data vis a vis where what they say can be found,

I will agree to do so only if you agree that upon my doing so, you will then produce in a timely fashion (1) full and exact quotations of what these scholars actually say and (2) the proper biblographical data vis a vis where what they say can be found.

Fair is fair.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Krosero,
I gather from your long, rambling post that you are disappointed and have had enough. You accuse us of using certain tactics and claim that you discern certain undemonstrated "differences" in our "stupid cycle". The non-specific nature of your charges makes them even more obscure. Frankly, I dont know what you are talking about. That is why I see your post as a rant.
Your ventilation does nothing to prove that Doherty has misrepresented certain scholars.
It simply shows that your expectations have been violated. Perhaps you expected the opposition to be a pushover and you employed all the logic you could summon but it came to nought. You expected quick results. And now you are frustrated. You even claim in your blog that there is "no real way to falsify such a theory[a theory like the JM theory]." You have given up. You claim that Mythicism has set itself up never to fail. You are not persistent. They say that impatience is a sign of lack of focus.
And that is your problem. Not mine, and not Doherty's.
So, we will simply let you deal with it and wish you the best.

Ted Hoffman

I dont see your input here Jeffrey. I provided a list and asked you to deal with them comprehensively.
What have you provided here? A promise that you will do something if a certain demand is met? This is childish. Plus, you are not in a position to make demands because I need nothing from you and fear no retaliation from you. So you lack the basic components required for negotiation at this point.
I asked Krosero to support his own argument, not to give me something for my own private amusement. If he fails to provide the support for his own argument, it is the argument that is weakened, not me.

Ted Hoffman

Apologies. Wrong Post

jgibson000

This is good to know. But please note that I'm not making demands. I'm just asking if, out of fairness, you will return the favour, if I provide a list of scholars who support the ARCONTES of 1 Cor 2:6-9 ="earthly rulers" idea, of doing what I did when, after you provided a list of scholars who, according to you, purportedly supported the idea that the ARCONTES of 1 Cor 2:6-8, you asked me to provide the text, and the biblographical details, of what they actually said in this regard.

Save for two (Barrett, Fredrickson) out of the 12 (or so) of the scholars you named, I complied with your request. Will you comply with mine?

Fair is fair, is it not?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Fair is fair. You can provide the list and I may be unable to locate the actual sources. Or I may lack time to track them down (not all of us are on vacation).
It is very simple to get a book that discusses the issue and provide references from that book. Locating the actual sources is another matter. Even from Doherty's recent article, you see how scholars parrot the words of other scholars without themselves conforming whether the scholars they are relying on are stating the issues as they should (accurately).
Go head and provide the list. I do not promise to deal with them comprehensively. I do not promise to deal with them at all. It is a favour you are doing Krosero. Not me. If you do not like that, keep the conceived list to yourself. I wont exactly miss it.
I just wanted to pit you against krosero. He has reduced his claim of "wide disagreement" to a mere "disagreement" and pleaded that he needs "far more familiarity with the topic" to judge whether the disagreemwnt is wide and so on. So I will let the matter rest.
But if you have outgrown holding the list hostage and asking for ransom in exchange, feel free to post it. Or I will go on thinking you had no list in the first place. When are you posting Barrett? Or does it also require a ransom?

I am not in a position to answer that question because I haven't checked the referenced document. But I have no reason to doubt that he has not reproduced the quote accurately. Do you?

Ted Hoffman

Are we done here or are there other misrepresentations you would like to accuse Doherty of besides arcontes?

krosero

Now that is very strange, that you should still think that I was even trying to support an argument for terrestrial rulers, or even that I favored that interpretation, when my only claim, about a “wide disagreement,” was me allowing Doherty’s claim for the sake of argument – it is from him that I learned of what Ellingworth had said on the matter, and it is he who prompted me to read last year about Kirby’s survey.

But one thing I am going to cease to do is be surprised by how poorly you read me.

There are still more misreadings.

I was willing to let this spat drop because even I was unhappy with the way I had expressed my thoughts in my long post. It’s plain that it’s best to let this little spat go. But I feel obligated to correct your understanding of what’s on my blog. I was not stating plainly that mythicism was not falsifiable, but rather that its proponents had exempted themselves from standards that would normally falsify such a theory. It was certainly an expression of frustration, but not at all a feeling that mythicism could not, or had not, been falsified. Everyone who has ever debated someone’s poorly held position (like creationism) has felt frustrated, but that hardly means that the position hasn’t been refuted.

Coming across a strong theory with a strong foundation, the usual response, and the one I always feel, is admiration. My impression of mythicism, though it’s not void of all admiration, is going precisely in the opposite direction. Frustration comes more often from frustrating interactions – generally from not feeling heard correctly. That was what I had felt close to giving up on -- debating mythicism in anything that struck me as true interactions. For that reason (among others) I didn't even post for 5 months. But given up on mythicism? Hardly.

Don’t mistake this for a personal complaint. It isn’t. You don't need a personal complaint and I'm not interested in giving you one. I’m trying to clarify some things I’ve said because as usual you’re reading, and using, them the wrong way.

But there will be time for all this. Don’t wish me well yet.

jgibson000

But that is what you asked me to do nevertheless

Which scholars did this? I only noted person who did this in Earl's article: Earl and Earl alone.

Well, I thought you recognized that fairness obliged you to. How would you have reacted to the call you issued to me about providding texts if I had said to you "I do not promise to deal with them comprehensively. I do not promise to deal with them at all?

:huh:

again :huh:

Think what you want. But how you could say so is beyond me in the light of the fact of what I provided you already regarding what Thackeray and Robinson & Plummer say, and what Ellingworth Hatton note, on the matter

But be that as it may be, here are the names of a number of scholars who claim that the ARCONTES spoken of in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are earthly rulers.

John Chrysostom
John Calvin
T.C. Edwards
F.L. Godet
J.B. Lightfoot
G.G. Findlay
Robertson & Plummer
H.St. John Thackeray
R.A. Horsley
G. Miller
W. Carr
M. Pesce
G. Fee
A.D. Clark
T. Ling
C. Wolff
J. Schniewind
G. Ludemann

I look forward to you giving us the text of these scholars' dicsussions of the ARCONTES in 1 Cor. 2:9 as well as the bibliographical data regarding where their discussions are to be found.

That's curious if only because you used Funks words as if you were certain that the quote was accurate.

Yes. First, there's Earl's track record when he quotes people. Second, there's text of the article itself from which the quote is taken -- a review of Gerd Luedemann's The Ressurection of Jesus that I reproduce in full below --that shows that once again Earl has quoted selectively, and not given us a hint that Funk's statement has a nuance to it that is far different from what it appears to have given the way Earl quotes it, in order to show Funk as supporting something he really does not support.

Here, as you noted, is what Earl says Funk says:

Here is what Funk actually says

Why did this book provoke such violent reactions in Germany? The book itself states the reason: ". . . in the church the serious crisis of present-day Christianity is not recognized" (8). Scholars, theologians, and ministers attempt to pave over the crisis with load after load of verbiage, but to no avail. The crisis in what the church believes about Jesus will not go away. The only remedy for Luedemann, as for us, is to face the issues squarely, honestly, with complete candor, and ask, as Luedemann does, whether in the face of the evidence we can still be Christians.

The crisis does not arise merely from the way in which the gospels and later interpreters have treated the resurrection. The crisis arises, in large part, from what we can know about Jesus himself. For example, as a historian I do not know for certain that Jesus really existed, that he is anything more than the figment of some overactive imaginations. I therefore find it difficult to assent to Luedemann's final affirmation:

And the further question whether the extra nos is guaranteed is to be answered with an emphatic affirmative, because Jesus is not an invention or a projection. (182)

The extra nos refers to something beyond us, outside of us, something of which we can be absolutely certain. VAile I share Luedemann's conclusion, I do not share his conviction.

In my view, there is nothing about Jesus of Nazareth that we can know beyond any possible doubt. In the mortal life we have there are only probabilities. And the Jesus that scholars have isolated in the ancient gospels, gospels that are bloated with the will to believe, may turn out to be only another image that merely reflects our deepest longings. Everything I believe in or want to believe in lies in that noman's-land of uncertainty-a region of anomalous, ambiguous, and indefinite claims. Both as Christians and as scholars, we must stop laying claim to transcendent certainties and submit to all the conditions of finite existence.

So not only does Earl leave out the significant contextualizing material that shows that Funk is not denying the HJ. He also leaves out also significant material within the section of Funk that he is quoting that indicates that Funk is not saying what Earl presents him as saying, not telling us in one of the two places where he has excised such matreial that he has done so (note that he has only one set of elipsis marks, when, given hios excision of in reality there should be two).

Note too not only (as you will see below) (1) that Funk concludes his remarks with

The notion of the bodily ascension of Jesus into heaven, and his eventual return from heaven accompanied by angelic hosts to sit in judgment on the cosmos, died with the ancient worldview. There is no such thing as heaven in any literal sense. We must stop pretending that we still believe such things:

the traditional notions of the resurrection of Jesus are to be regarded as finished and need to be replaced by another view. (181)

Our only choice is to return to the historical Jesus-who he was, what he said and did-and look for clues in the con~ sensus that is emerging in international New Testament scholarship. We are left with that as the basis of faith or nothing at all.

but

(2) that these remarks make it certain that Funk cannot be aduced as one who denies an HJ or thinks that a quest for him, even in the light of uncertainties, is possible.

Jeffrey Gibson


**********

Robert Funk, the Fourth R January February 1995

The original German edition of this work was published in March 1994 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Goettingen, Germany, where Luede- mann is professor of New Testament at the University. The book immediately created a storm of controversy. As Die Welt, a popular German news magazine, put it: "Newspapers mobilized their letter writers in opposition to the doubting Thomas from Goettingen: Antichrist! Heretic! Where will all this lead? The church will be destroyed!"

The first printing sold out immediately, but the publisher refused to reprint it. Had the publisher not read the book before it appeared in print? Does the book differ that much from the works of the great critical scholars Rudolf Bultmann and Joachim Jeremias, also published by the same house? Die Welt again: "First edition, March 1994, with publisher's imprimatur; second edition, March 1994, no imprimatur." Luedemann had to move the book to Radius~Verlag in Stuttgart for a second printing. "Died and buried in Goettingen, resurrected in Stuttgart," was the cry of the press. But Luedemann has also been -resurrected in an English edition in the U.S. by Fortress Press.

David Friedrich Strauss, author of the first great life of Jesus published originally in 1835, was Luedemann's predecessor by more than a century. Luedemann quotes Strauss with approval: it is still the case, Strauss wrote, that large segments of so-called critical theology have developed the capacity "to say nothing with many words." Biblical scholars and theologians continue to cultivate the capacity for high-sounding but empty words. And that is precisely the proclivity Westar and the Jesus Seminar were formed to combat: the ability to sidestep or ignore the crucial issues, but to do so elegantly. As another German scholar remarked of one of his colleagues: they, and politicians, are the only ones we know who can take the white of a single egg and fill a huge hall with meringue. Luedemann finds himself entirely at home in the Jesus Seminar on this point.

BLINKING THE CRISIS

Why did this book provoke such violent reactions in Germany? The book itself states the reason: ". . . in the church the serious crisis of present-day Christianity is not recognized" (8). Scholars, theologians, and ministers attempt to pave over the crisis with load after load of verbiage, but to no avail. The crisis in what the church believes about Jesus will not go away. The only remedy for Luedemann, as for us, is to face the issues squarely, honestly, with complete candor, and ask, as Luedemann does, whether in the face of the evidence we can still be Christians.

The crisis does not arise merely from the way in which the gospels and later interpreters have treated the resurrection. The crisis arises, in large part, from what we can know about Jesus himself. For example, as a historian I do not know for certain that Jesus really existed, that he is anything more than the figment of some overactive imaginations. I therefore find it difficult to assent to Luedemann's final affirmation:

And the further question whether the extra nos is guaranteed is to be answered with an emphatic affirmative, because Jesus is not an invention or a projection. (182)

The extra nos refers to something beyond us, outside of us, something of which we can be absolutely certain. VAile I share Luedemann's conclusion, I do not share his conviction.

In my view, there is nothing about Jesus of Nazareth that we can know beyond any possible doubt. In the mortal life we have there are only probabilities. And the Jesus that scholars have isolated in the ancient gospels, gospels that are bloated with the will to believe, may turn out to be only another image that merely reflects our deepest longings. Everything I believe in or want to believe in lies in that noman's-land of uncertainty-a region of anomalous, ambiguous, and indefinite claims. Both as Christians and as scholars, we must stop laying claim to transcendent certainties and submit to all the conditions of finite existence.

Nevertheless, I can agree with Luedemarm that Jesus is the ground of our faith as Christians (182). Even so, we do not learn from Jesus that faith means the overcoming of death or that faith inspired by him is the final faith. On the contrary, we find in Jesus the willingness to accept finitude and the provisional as the basis for liberation, I subscribe wholeheartedly to this formulation of Luedemann:

Christians should live by the little that they really believe, not by the much that they take pains to believe. That is a great liberation, which already bears within it the germ of the new. (184)

If Jesus was an advocate of an unbrokered relationship to God, then we cannot and should not posit the resurrection as the threshold of faith. For if we were to do so, our faith would be made to depend on the faith of Peter or the faith of Paul or the faith of someone else in the fourth decade of the first century. Congratulations to those who have faith prior to and apart from the resurrection! *[*In more traditional language this beatitude would read: Blessed are those who have faith prior to and apart from the resurrection!]

Luedemann's book is a breath of fresh air in the stifling atmosphere of scholarly discourse. It belongs with Sheehan and Spong and Fuller and Crossan as a truly ground-breaking study. But we do not come here merely to praise Caesar; we came primarily to expound him. We should let Luedemann speak for himself, as we have done with our previous authors.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

The first two chapters offer a brief introduction to the present dilemma with respect to the resurrection of Jesus and a sketch of recent scholarship. Readers may skip this part of the book without essential loss; scholars will want to read it closely for the author's analysis of how we got to our present state.

The body of the book is given to a close analysis of all the texts pertaining to the resurrection (chap. 3 and 4, which run from pp. 21-172 constitute the bulk of the study). Luedemann divides his treatment of the texts into three segments: the first is what he calls redaction, by which he means the identification of what each evangelist or author has added to traditions received from previous writers or storytellers; the second segment, is devoted to the isolation of tradition-the bits of tore on which individual evangelists built their accounts; and, finally, the third part seeks to isolate the historical content of each tradition, which is the residue after Luedemann has sifted tradition and attempted to recover its historical basis, if any.

His method accords with that practiced by critical scholars the world over. It is precisely the procedure the Jesus Seminar has followed in all of its work, although in their papers the Fellows do not always spell out those parts of the scholarly process that are taken for granted or on which there is general agreement in the scholarly literature. In Luedemann's work, however, it is all there, including extensive documentation (715 footnotes in this short book!).

The reader should be prepared for a mass of detail that demands close attention. Luedemarm goes into greater detail than Bishop Spong or even Reginald Fuller. It will be necessary to have the New Testament texts at hand for constant reference. If the amount of detail becomes confusing for the reader, it is permitted, even recommended, to turn to the historical assessment of each text or group of texts and read that first. In fact, it is helpful for even the experienced reader to read through the historical assessments before examining the analysis that leads up to those conclusions. (I myself read through the historical assessments atone the first time through the book and found that procedure very helpful.)

A BELIEVER'S HANDBOOK

The third part of Luedemann's study consists of two short chapters. The first is entitled, "The History and Nature of the Early Christian Belief in the Resurrection." In this chapter the author summarizes his conclusions after examining all of the primary texts in minute detail. As a consequence, this chapter is the heart of his book. But he goes on in a brief final chapter to address the question: "Can We Still Be Christians?" The author asks whether we can do without the traditional belief in the resurrection. His answer is an emphatic "yes."

How, as Christians, can we get by without that dogma?

His answer is simple: ". . . the sayings and history of Jesus already contain within themselves all the characteristics of the earliest resurrection faith" (182). Put differently, "Easter led to an experience with Jesus which strengthened the old one" (181). As a consequence, we have to conclude that Jesus "is the ground of faith" (182). This new way of stating matters contradicts the earlier perspective. It used to be said-and still is in many quarters-that the kerygma, the first confessions of faith, is the beginning and hence the ground of faith. Luedemann is now saying that the Jesus of history is the basis of faith. If he is not, Luedemann claims, then faith has no basis, no real content. Contemporary faith, accordingly, has to be oriented to Jesus himself rather to some hypothetical Easter event for which the evidence is scant and shaky (5).

We then have to conclude that some experience of the abiding presence of Jesus after his crucifixion, perhaps an ecstatic experience, led Peter and Paul and others to formulate the affirmation that God had raised Jesus from the dead (20). At the basis of that conviction lay the abiding presence of some real person, Jesus of Nazareth.

Why do scholars and pastors and ecclesiastical officials resist this conclusion?

We do so in part, Luedemann avers, because our mentors did so. Karl Barth insisted that the ground of faith had to lie beyond the erosive and corrosive powers of historical investigation. And, while Rudolf Bultmann didn't mind letting the critical fires consume ostensible factual information in the gospels, he chose not to inquire behind the first confessions of faith; he elected to take those confessions as the premise of faith ( 17). As Bultmann liked to put it, Jesus rose into the kerygma, that is, into the faith of the first believers.

Other scholars and church people fear subjecting evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus to historical scrutiny. This attempt to cordon off the resurrection from objective examination, according to Luedemann, is an 'immunization strategy': it is designed to insulate the resurrection of Jesus from scientific investigation altogether (34). In the end, this ploy is an attempt to ground faith and theology "in a gap in historical knowledge'~-by asserting that Jesus' resurrection was not an event of history and therefore cannot be evaluated historically (13).

Strategies of this type seek to evade history, to erect a barrier between the Christian faith and historical inquiry. But we can no longer do that. The evolution of our sense of the real world will not permit us to cling to a literal interpretation of the symbols in which the Easter faith was expressed.

The notion of the bodily ascension of Jesus into heaven, and his eventual return from heaven accompanied by angelic hosts to sit in judgment on the cosmos, died with the ancient worldview. There is no such thing as heaven in any literal sense. We must stop pretending that we still believe such things:

the traditional notions of the resurrection of Jesus are to be regarded as finished and need to be replaced by another view. (181)

Our only choice is to return to the historical Jesus-who he was, what he said and did-and look for clues in the con~ sensus that is emerging in international New Testament scholarship. We are left with that as the basis of faith or nothing at all.