dog-on

The following is a reply from Hermann Detering in response to certain posts by Dr. Gibson and Ben C. Smith crtiquing Detering's - THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

I took the liberty of informing Dr. Detering of the critique of his work re: Galations by Dr. Gibson. I invited Dr. Detering to review the thread and if he felt it necessary, to please respond to the criticism of his paper. He responds to some posts by Dr. Gibson and Ben C. Smith that are located on page 11 of this thread, (these posts refer to Dr. Detering's work concerning Galations).

Here is his response, as sent to me in the original German.

Here is a translation of the above response. I apologize for any misinterpretations I may have made, but I believe that it is fairly accurate.

I would like to add that, in defense of Dr. Gibson, the tone of the language used by Detering, especially the sarcastic (ironic) tone he uses when refering to the Rienecker passage as expressed in the German language original of the Galations paper is somewhat lost in the English translation that was posted.

Ted Hoffman

I was away for a while and I can see there have been some interesting developments, including the gratuitous congratulatory hoo ha Jeffrey has received from Bede. I am amused that Bede perceives me as "slippery" and that Jeffrey has allegedly "nailed" me. Thus, to Bede, Jeffrey is a "slippery things" hunter, harpoon held at the ready, muttering under his breath while stalking slippery mythicists. Bede is fascinated by Jeffrey's hunt, and gets enraptured in pleasure everytime Jeffrey "nails" one of the slippery mythicists.
For whatever its worth, I am glad that Bede has received some entertainment and satisaction from Jeffrey's performance. Order for more popcorns Dorothy, because the hunter is about to become the hunted.

Now, lets get back to the hunt. Shall we?
Red herrings. You did not address the passage I referenced:
Ignatius in Smyrnaeans 6:1.
Here, we see that Ignatius held that there were invisible arxontes. Thus, for Ignatius, arxontes could refer to demons.
Wrong. I think that you are really careless. For a professor, this is particularly appalling. When you have enough energy to open a book, please look at C. K. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72.
Peter Kirby writes:
Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton (who appear non-commital) write:
A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 46

Thanks for nitpicking. I am however, more interested in substantive points - not these worthless quibbles.
What do you mean by "actual" notes? Are there non-actual notes? What exactly are you trying to pull with that phrase "actual"?
Go figure.
Jeffrey is now speculating, without any justification, that I am relying on "a crib by someone else that [i] found elsewhere". I posted on this very subject in BiblicalStudies and Jeffrey is free to demonstrate that anyone cribbed anything in that post from anywhere. These vacuous speculations that impute lack of integrity on the part of others really just bounce back on Jeffrey. I think it is a shoddy approach to issues <edit>.

Jeffrey appears to favour a speculative approach to issues whenever he cannot find any legs for his arguments to stand on. Remember Jeffrey asking a certain Professor something derogatory about Carrier and then concluding from the lack of response from the professor that he agreed with Jeffrey regarding Carrier. That particular incident, among others, compelled Doherty to stop responding to Jeffrey because it was really desperate and dishonest. It demonstrated that Jeffrey could stoop to any level to discredit someone Jeffrey disagrees with. Some of us have a huge tolerance to unscrupulousness though, hence here we are, wading through this dreck of baseless accusations and innuendo.
Jeffrey has accused me of lying on a TDNT reference regarding Sarx. I proved him wrong. He never acknowledged error. Even in this thread, he has been guilty of concluding that I am wrong only to apologize later for misunderstanding me.
Jeffrey, this is not acceptable. Especially for an alleged Professor, who is supposed to show restraint and discipline when shaping his conclusions. Really.
Slothful thinking. First of all, I can have a right page and mistype it, or type it incorrectly. Ever heard of transcription errors? Typing mistakes? Check the Biblicalstudies link for the "strange reference".
Your failure to deal directly with the direct bibliographical references I have provided vitiates against any weight behind your objections about my lack of bibliographical specificity regarding some of the references. They sound hollow and idle. Perhaps you feel that you are wrestling with something slippery?
Whenever in doubt, instead of making reckless statements, consult a book. Or if you insist to remain in a reclining position, demand for more evidence.

Lack of specificity does not mean complete ignorance. In fact, you have no basis to reach any of the conclusions you have reached above. The hasty conclusions you reach can be taken as signs of a <edit>, or a poor grasp of logic. None of these are good for an alleged, actual or aspiring professor (which one is it, by the way?). If your peers see the amateurs here putting you to task, and the moist brow you are incessantly mopping, they could fall on the floor in uncontrollable laughter.

Regarding Conzelmann, Kirby cites Leon Morris from 1 Corinthians, pp. 53-54:
Now, go ahead and wipe the egg off your distinguished face. Prof*cough*fessor.

Julian

[MOD]
The moderator staff has had do quite a few edits in this thread, far more than are acceptable. Please stick to the arguments and refrain from speculations regarding the posters themselves. The incessant sniping in this thread is embarrassing for all. Please desist or the thread will be locked.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

Ben C Smith

In post #252 of this thread I wrote:

Well, it appears I have received better than that; I have heard from the man himself, Hermann Detering. My sincere thanks to Dr. Detering for taking the time to respond to a rank amateur, and to Robert for providing him with the opportunity.

Nota bene: I do not know German, so I am relying on the English translation that Robert has kindly provided. My apologies if I miss any nuances in the process.

It appears Detering and I agree up to and including the following line:

Here Smith quotes Philippians 4:14 as an example:

"Nevertheless, you have done well sharing [aorist participle] in my tribulation."

One could add further examples: To these, everything applies based on the (Blass-Debrunner, Greek Grammar §339) set up rule:

"the moment of the relative time is missing from the Aortist participle if its action is identical to that of the aoristist verbum finitum (Coinsidence of both verbal contents)."

But then we suddenly disagree:

But: Doesn't Smith notice the difference between Phil 4:14 and Gal 4:4?

The answer is that yes, I do (and did) notice a difference between Philippians 4.14 and Galatians 4.4, but I was unaware that it was a difference that makes a difference.

Simply put, the difference between the two verses is that in Philippians 4.14 the participle modifies the subject of the main verb whereas in Galatians 4.4 the participle modifies the direct object of the main verb.

Detering continues:

Since the fact that the action verbum finitum is identical to the Aortist participle ("coincidence of both verbal contents") it can hardly refer to Gal 4:4, since both actions refer to completely different persons. The participial phrases refer to the object "his son", not to the subject ("God").

The argument is that in cases like Philippians 4.14 the action of the main verb (you have done well) and the action of the participle (you have shared in my tribulation) are the same action, whereas in Galatians 4.4 the action of the main verb (God sent) cannot be identical to the action of the participle (his son was born) because the two actions have two different subjects (God and his son).

He concludes:

Therefore, the exception quoted by Smith does not apply in this case. It, therefore, applies according to the first rule, that "genomenon" must be understood as a prior occurance.

When I first submitted my thoughts about Galatians 4.4 to Robert I did not consult a Greek grammar; I was simply relying on my own translating experience (and it was nice to learn that there was a rule to match what I had experienced ).

That said, I am not sure now whether to agree or to disagree here (but keep in mind that I am the amateur, and Detering is the professional), since it looks to me as if Detering may be pressing too far what it means for two actions to be identical. Here is how Smyth puts this same basic rule (Greek Grammar, page 420, §1872c (underlining mine):

The action set forth by the aorist participle is generally antecedent to that of the leading verb; but it is sometimes coincident or nearly so, when it defines, or is identical with, that of the leading verb, and the subordinate action is only a modification of the main action.

Smyth uses the word define here alongside the identicality, which as a concept seems closer to the examples that I adduced.

You will notice that neither in the portion of Blass-Debrunner that Detering cited nor in Smyth is anything said about the subject of the verb and the noun modified by the participle necessarily being the same. Perhaps that was supposed to be obvious, but it is not (yet) obvious to me. Other differences could have been cited, too, but were not. For example, nothing is said about whether the participle should be in attributive or in predicate position. Is that a difference that makes a difference here? I doubt it.

It still appears to me that the son being born of a woman defines the action of God sending the son. We can show this definitional quality in Philippians 4.14 as follows:

You have done well by [means of] sharing in my tribulation.

You have done well, to wit, you have shared in my tribulation.

And I think we can do much the same with Galatians 4.4, despite the fact that the participle modifies the object rather than the subject:

God sent his son by [means of] him being born of a woman.

God sent his son, to wit, his son was born of a woman.

In both cases the action of the participle defines, fills out, or restates the action of the main verb. God sending his son is the birth of his son from a woman; his being born defines what it means for God to have sent him.

I will admit that my own rudimentary searching has failed to turn up an exact parallel to this construction; frankly, however, this kind of construction seems somewhat rare to begin with, yet it stands out so clearly in each of the more mundane cases that I have encountered that the two actions (of the main verb and of the subordinate participle) are coincident. And it still seems obvious to me in this case, Galatians 4.4, that the two actions (God sending his son and his son being born) are supposed to be coincident (if, as has been the case so far for both of us, we are taking the sending as referring to the act of God that resulted in the son of God becoming human, rather than to some subsidiary act that led directly to the cross and redemption), despite the fact that two different people (God and his son) are in view. (Note also that the participle is passive; the son is not really doing anything, but rather something is happening to him.)

Let me add one other consideration regarding the case for interpolation based on the grammar. Detering says that the interpolator gives himself away with a clumsy construction; yet, even if we grant for the sake of argument that this construction does not accord with good grammar, it ought to be admitted that original authors are also capable of writing clumsy constructions.

If the aorist tense is not correct here, the only reason I can see for using it is because Jesus was born in the past relative to the interpolator; that is, the aorist would be pointing to a time prior, not to the main verb, but to the time of the interpolation. But Paul himself also stands in this same relationship to the birth of Jesus, that is, after it. If an interpolator can follow up a finite verb with a questionable aorist based on his relationship to the event described, then surely the apostle Paul can follow up a finite verb with a questionable aorist based on his own relationship to the event described. The argument for interpolation would be more persuasive to me if the original author and the interpolator stood in mutually different relationships to the event described (for example, past as opposed to present).

(Smyth notes shortly after the above citation that an attributive aorist participle can sometimes, though rarely, point to a time antecedent to the author standing outside the text instead of antecedent to the action of the main verb within the text. The participle in Galatians 4.4, of course, is not attributive; it is predicate. However, could something along these same lines be happening?)

It might be argued that an interpolator would be more apt to stumble into a nongrammatical structure than the original author; Detering does not argue this directly in his paper, but rather relies on the interpolation serving certain doctrinal purposes, hence its awkwardness in context, but I am afraid I do not understand how a doctrinal purpose would tend to lead to a nongrammatical construction any more than any other kind of purpose.

I write all of this with all due tentativeness, of course. Thanks again to Dr. Detering for his response.

Ben.

jgibson000

Well it looks like your time spent at the School of Overheated and Purple prose was well spent. But if I were you, I wouldn't just yet take out an ad in the yellow pages, or hang out a shingle, that advertises you as a qualified, experienced, and reliable guide for safaris and game hunts.

The evidence that appears in what you write strongly suggests that you have a long way to go before you can legitimately make that boast.

To show this, let's remember now that the questions I posed to you in my last post -- and to which your message ostensibly contains answers -- were the following:

1. Whether those scholars you cited as holding that the ARCONTES in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 are, according to Paul, exclusively demonic powers also accepted the idea that it was believed in the ancient world that when these ARCONTES were thought of as engaging in the type of action that they are described as having done in 1 Cor 2:6-8, they ever did so apart from and without human agency.

2. Whether you had actually read what the authorities you cited actually wrote on the subject of the meaning of ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

3. Whether you could give me the bibliographic details of the works of the authors whom you claimed as advocates of the "demonic powers view" but whose works, and the particular place within these works where their claim could be found , you did not mention.

So let's now go through your reply and see if what you had to say there:

a. was really in any way relevant to the questions I asked, let alone was in answer to them

b. If what you say was relevant, to which question it applied

c. whether what you had to say was an adequate answer, and

d. if not, why not.

[/QUOTE]

This does indeed have something to do with one of the questions I asked -- namely, question 1. So one point to you, Ted. But is it actually relevant and is it a good answer?

Sadly no. In the first place, I was not asking (except with respect to your New JBC citation) whether a particular author you cited actually said what you claim he/she said (i.e., that the ARCONTES spoken of in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 are demonic powers). Rather I was asking if it was true, as you seem to be claiming, that these authors held to the view that these specific demonic powers never used human beings as the instruments through which they carried out their will, and, more specifically did not use human agents to carry out what in 1 Cor 2:6-8 they are said to have carried.

So claiming that I did not address the passage you "referenced" is irrelevant (not to mention how inaccurate is your claim that what I said above is a red herring]. The issue is not what is said about the ARCONTES of 1 Cor in a particular passage, but whether what is said by the author of that passage is all that the author believes about the ARCONTES of 1 Cor 2:6-8.

We should also note not only (1) that the mention of the "rulers" in the Ignatian passage that, (borrowing from Earl) you cite is not a commentary on, let alone a reference or allusion to 1 Cor 2:6-8. Rather it is a quote from Col 1:16, a (probably) non Pauline text that most certainly does not envision the "rulers" it mentions as demons, but as (earthly) powers that were created by God in, through, and for, his Son); but (2) that for the Ignatian passage to do the work you want it to do (even assuming, of course, that the issue in question is, as it is not, only whether or not Ignatius used ARCWN solely of "demons"), you'll need to show not only that AORATA (lit = "unseen") ARCONTES could refer to "demons, but that it actually does.

More importantly, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the language used in Smyr. 6:1 is not what Ignatius uses when he is referring to or commenting upon the ARCONTES that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 2:6-8., let alone when he is speaking of demonic powers. Then he uses ARCONTES TWN AIWNOU.

So, as an answer to question 1, this response of your is both irrelevant and inaccurate. Indeed, it is the red herring my reply above as being.

Well, this seems to be relevant to questions 1 and 2 above. But it seems to me to be a very bad answer, and not just because of the accusations of carelessness and laziness leveled against me within it. It's because of the way you have gone about answering what I specifically asked of you, namely, whether you have indeed read what Barrett writes on p. 72 of his commentary on I Corinthians and what Ellingworth (along with Hatton --whom you did not mention previously) wrote on p. 46 of their handbook.

In the first place, I see you avoid saying anything like "yes, I have (or no, I haven't) read Barrett and I have also (or not) read Ellingworth/Hatton", which is the only thing that was appropriate given the question asked of you.

In the second place, I note with interest how you attempt to show a knowledge superior to mine about what Barrett said on p 72, and Ellingworth/ Hatton on p. 46, not by quoting Barrett and/or Ellingworth/Hatton, but by quoting what Peter Kirby writes about what Barrett and Ellingworth/Hatton have said on the matter at hand (which may or may not be derived not from reading Barrett and Ellingworth/Hatton themselves, but from reading someone else's claims about what they said about the referent(s) of ARCONTES in 1 Cor 1 2:6-8 (but, notably, not on the question of whether these authors did or did not believe that these "demonic forces" used human agent)

In this you admit that you have not read the works you cite and your knowledge of what these authors have to say about the matter at hand is only second – and possibly third – hand.

We should also note that Ellingworth/Hatton do not take the stance vis a vis ARCONTES as solely demons that you say they do. In fact, in the quotation that you supplied above as proof that they do, all they are doing is reporting on what others have felt the referent of ARCONTES might be. But they say nothing about their own feelings on the matter. And you wholly misrepresent them when you cite them as in any way, let alone as you do, as explicitly favouring your position.

Interesting, then, that you have the temerity to accuse me not only of carelessness and laziness in my investigations of what authors did and didn't say on the matter at hand, but of appalling scholarship in this regard.

This seems on the face of it to be irrelevant to my questions.

But given that Ted has raised the question of whether I'n spouting irrelevancles, it seems important to ask:

Is it true out that one (i.e. Ted) who seems to claiming superior research and first hand acquaintance with the literature he appeals to to make his case, nevertheless

1. makes an egregious error of attribution and doesn't seem to actually know who wrote the entry that he claims supports his claims,

2. cites a page as one containing a discussion of certain topics that does not contain anything remotely resembling said discussion, let alone one that, as he claims it does, supports a claim he's made

3. isn't aware of where said discussion actually takes place within the work he cites

4. Isn't aware of that what is actually said within that discussion contradicts his claim,

and who all the while asserts that he knows what is said therein and that it supports a point he is trying to make about that author supporting his view

is not a subtantial point, and is tantamount to nit picking and worthless quibbling, even though the issue in question is whether that person (Ted) has actually has read the works he cites??

To my eyes, it's just the opposite.


The opposite of what you are trying to pull in this remark.

Am I now.? Haven't you yourself just provided above the evidence that shows that you did just this?

What you posted was this:

Quote:

Regarding Christ being killed by demons (archontons) (sic) whose reference Gibson correctly points to 1 Cor.2:8., Gibson writes: "this text says the ARCONTES TOU AIWNOU "crucified" (ESTAURWSAN) Jesus. Moreover, you beg the question in asserting that ARCONTES TOU AIWNOU means demons." Gibson then asks: "Could you give the relevant passages in the works of Frederiksen, etc. where they claim this?" Absolutely. Knock yourself out. Here they are: 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. The Interpreter's Bible, Vol X, 1953, Buttrick G.A. (ed.), p.37-38 (see [11] below) 10. Others: Delling, Conzelmann, Thackeray, Schmiedel, J. H. Charlesworth, Ignatius letter to the Smyreans (sic), 6:1

Which is essentially the same material you posted here.

As to the above not being I crib, I suppose then that we must just take it as a coincidence that your list seems to mirror closely in citation and in wording (even down to the mispellings) what is set out in this quote from http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp03.htm?

Scholars who balk at this interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify (e.g., Anchor Bible, p.164), are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archon (sic) in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton (sic) of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the gnostic Marcion.

Modern scholars like C. K. Barrett (First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72), Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ, p.56), and Jean Hering (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.16-17, a brief but penetrating analysis), have felt constrained to agree. Delling in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, p.489) notes that the spirit rulers are portrayed by Paul as "treating the Lord of glory as prey in ignorance of the divine plan for salvation." They operated in the spiritual realm, which S. Salmond (The Expositor's Greek Testament, Ephesians, p.284) describes as "supra-terrestrial but sub-celestial regions." Paul Ellingworth, A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46, states: "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here."

S. G. F. Brandon (History, Time and Deity, p.167) unflinchingly declares that although Paul's statement "may seem on cursory reading to refer to the Crucifixion as an historical event. . .the expression 'rulers of this age' does not mean the Roman and Jewish authorities. Instead, it denotes the daemonic powers who . . . were believed to inhabit the planets (the celestial spheres) and control the destinies of men. . . . Paul attributes the Crucifixion not to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders, but to these planetary powers." [emphasis mine]

It's stlll there and even stranger because of the double citation.

Then there's another.

And these are not page citations. These are references to items in a (cribbed) list.

I think you mean "militates against". There is no such expression as "vitiates against". But even if there were, how have I not dealt directly with the bibliographic references you've given me? I showed, for instance that your reference to the purported citation of the new JBC was wrong and that the comments on ARCONTES that do appear within that work do not support your claim about what the author of the comments on 1 Cor. 2:6-9 says.

I noted that Ignatius cannot be adduced as one who in Smyrneans or elsewhere says that ARCONTES are demons or that demons alone crucified Jesus.


I would if there was any on it to wipe. But is there egg on yours?

I think there is. But iInstead of surveying all that you wrote and that I've quoted above, to show that this is so, let's just demonstrate this from this last paragraph of yours.

What appears above about Conzelmann is apparently in answer to my questions numbers 2 & 3 above, namely,

2. Whether you had actually read what the authorities you cited actually wrote on the subject of the meaning of ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

3. Whether you could give me the bibliographic details of the works of the authors whom you claimed as advocates of the "demonic powers view" but whose works and the particular place within these works that their claim could be found you did not list.

I note that in all of this the bibliographic data I asked if you were capable of providing me is nowhere to be found. So I'll take it that your answer to question # 3 is no. (BMW, it's p. 61)

I also note not only (a) that you once again avoided giving me a straight answer to question # 2, but (2) that what you wrote above shows that your knowledge of what Conzelmann said on ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 is not even second hand. In fact it's twice removed from an actual reading Conzelmann on your part. You "know" what Conzelmann "said" on ARCONTES, not because you yourself read Conzelmann, but because of what Peter Kirby reported (presumably accurately) Leon Morris said Conzelmann said. And FWI, Morris gets it somewhat wrong.

Then there's the little matter of you quoting the material in Peter's quotation of Morris that questions the legitimacy of your view.

Morever, you have also skipped over giving me what I asked for with respect to your claims about Delling, Thackeray, Schmiedel, and J. H.Charlesworth which strongly suggests that, despite your implicit claims to the contrary, you not only cannot give me the bibliographical data on these people I asked for, but that you've not read them as well.

So if, as you have claimed, what determines that someone has egg on his face is bad scholarship, laziness in research, and making claims he/she cannot substantiate, then I think it's pretty clear who it is who really needs a moist towel.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

It is very simple. I cannot crib what I myself wrote. Secondly, the question is not whether I have personally checked each passage and understood the etymology of ARCONTES. The question is: do majority of scholars regard Paul to have used it to mean demons?

Readers will have to answer that for themselves. I have provided the references. Instead of dealing with them, Jeffrey wants to accuse me of stealing them from elsewhere, he wants to teach me that militates fits better when I state vitiates.

Instead of showing off how much Greek he knows, Jeffrey would do well to pick one reference at a time and demonstrate that they do not support the idea that archontes as used in 1 Cor 2:6-8 can be taken to mean demons.

The answer to that question is bigger and more important than knowing whether Jeffrey incorrectly refers militate rather than vitiate, whether I have access, or ownership, to all texts I reference, and why I should make it my job to do Jeffrey's research for him and proceed to supply him with full citations after supplying him with a list of references.

I am supposed to distrust Doherty, Distrust Kirby, Distrust Leon Morris and personally track down Conzelmann and extract the specific passage just to make Jeffrey happy?
I dont think so. After getting Conzelmann, Jeffrey will of course erect arguments questioning my competence in Greek like "How do you know Conzelmann is right if you dont know the Greek?" Its is just an endless chain of demands that adds no value to the debate at all. Its the same thing he did with Carrier regarding kata sarka. It will not differ when it comes to archons. He has already declared Morris wrong. Of course, no arguments offered. He might as well declare everyybody else on the list wrong.

When Jeffrey gets tired of the pettifogging and preoccupation with personality and irrelevant grammatical issues, we shall see the arguments.

I assume that there are arguments that Jeffrey can make on the issue. Let us see them.

krosero

Ben, if I understand your argument correctly, you acknowledge that the participle describes the Son and is therefore an “adjectival participle” (to quote Detering), in agreement with Detering and Jeffrey, but that the participial phrase nevertheless modifies the main verb by describing God’s action, therefore making the phrase “adverbial” after all. If this is the argument, I’m not sure I find it persuasive – keeping in mind that I’m not trained in Greek but simply trying to judge the arguments already put forth.

Burton in his commentary ultimately treats the two phrases – “born of woman” and “made subject to the law”—as adjectives of the Son, simple facts about him. Yet he does not seem to close out the possibility that you’re offering, about “adverbial participles” (to quote him). He may be expressing some nuance with his use below of the words “not so much”:

What this seems to mean for Burton is that the participle (concerning the birth) does not modify or limit the main verb (God’s sending):

So for Burton, the action in the participle does not modify, and is not to be equated, with the action in the main verb. Rather, the action in the participle is included, or encompassed, by God’s action.

That seems somewhat different from your argument but not necessarily contradicting it.

The interesting thing is that the whole passage ends up being, in Burton’s eyes, one in which no priority in time exists between the action of the main verb and the action of the participle – an argument similar to yours, if I’ve understood it. Burton just gets there differently.

I hope others, perhaps including Detering if he has time, will keep this conversation going, it’s been fascinating.

The full passage from Burton is here (Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 217-18):

jgibson000

Then you do not understand what a crib is

Let's leave aside the matters of whether I or anyone has ever raised the question about whether you understand the etymology of ARCWN (I haven't and to my knowledge, no one else has either), let alone that knowing what the etymology of ARCWN is is something that is important in the current debate (it's not).

The question of whether you yourself have personally checked the references you cited is a very important one in this debate, especially in the light of the demonstrated fact that some of authorities you cited (Ignatius, Fitzmyer (sic), Delling, Ellingworth, Barrett) do not say what you claim they say, since this raises the question of whether you know what you are talking about and if we can take your claims seriously. Why should we trust you in the matter of who claims that the ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are "demons" when, upon a cursory examination of just several of those references, it's clear that your claims about what they say, if they actually say anything at all, on the meaning of ARCONTES in 1 Co. 2:6-8 are plainly wrong?

Well, if this is the question, I note with interest that the answer is clearly no. Not only do the majority of scholars (is 12 or 13 the majority?) not think this is the case. But several of the ones you listed , presumably, but not in any way demonstrated to be, representative of the majority, do not think so either.

But now that we have that question answered (and note, I do not deny that some scholars have arged that ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 means "demons"), perhaps you will now finally go on to answer the question I have been putting to you for ages: Do you know for certain whether the scholars who do believe that ARCONTES means "demons" in 1 Cor 2:6-8 deny that the ancients ever thought that when demonic ARCONTES act as they are said to act in 1 Cor. 2:6-8, they do so apart from human agency?

I'd be grateful for an answer.

Geeze, and here I am thinking that in my message to you last night I did deal with them. Perhaps you'll tell me how my remarks on what Ignatius actually says at Smyr. 6:1 or my pointing out to you that Ellingworth does not say what you claim he says, and that neither the New JBC reference you cited nor the discussion of 1 Cor 2:6-8 by the author of the entry on 1 Cor. supports your claims about what is stated in the New JBC on the ARCONTES of 1 Cor 2:6-8 is not dealing with these references, if by "dealing with them" means examining them to see if your claims about what they say are sound.

And as to your claim that I want to accuse you of stealing these references from elsewhere, I did no such thing. All I've claimed is that your claims about who says what is not based upon your having actually read the authoritiies you cite and therefore that your "knowledge" of who says what is derivative, and is second or third hand.

Actually, I was noting that "militates against" was better than the infelicitous "vitiates against". I'd be grateful if you did not put words in my mouth,


OK. But isn't this what I did?

"Refers" militate rather than vitiate"??? Do you mean that I "prefer militate (against) over vitiate (against)?" Well, in this instance, I do. And so should you, since as I've noted, "vitiate against" is a solecism.

Why is this my research when it is your claim?

Not to make me happy. But to do what is required if you want anyone to take your claims seriously.

Well, as you would have known if you'd actually read Conzelmann, in this instance knowledge of Greek is not necessary to see just what it is he claims vis a vis ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8. And besides that, the issue here is not whether Conzelmann is right vis a vis ARCONTES. It is rather whether he says what you claim he says.

Is that what I said? And even if it is, was what I said untrue? And is a statement that someone was wrong the same thing as a demand, let alone an endless chain of them?

I think you mean "no evidence" offered (to support my claim). But whatever you meant, none was needed -- as you would know if you had actually read Conzelmann. And again, was what I said regarding what Morris says regarding what Conzelmann claims untrue?

:huh: Well there's a non sequitur if I've ever seen one. But just to satisfy Ted, let me say: OK, every one on the list. You are all wrong!!!.

Happy now, Ted?

LOL!! That's funny, Ted! I wonder if you've ever heard of the pot and the kettle and the former's declarations on colour to the latter?

Please point me to the "grammtical issues" I raised in my last post, and show me, if they are there, how they are irrelevant in the matter at hand.

Yes there are arguments. And slap a dress on me and call me Dora, but I thought I had already made them. But what do I know?


Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Jeffrey. I accept that you have done your best to prove that the referenced authors do not say what I claim they say.

jgibson000

Thanks, I think.

But please note that I have not "tried to prove" that all your referenced authors do not say what you claim they say. I have shown that this is the case in several of your instances -- i.e, those where I have the means readily at hand to check your claim.

But even if it's the former that I've done, albeit only, say, with Ignatius and Ellingworth, are you saying, as I suspect you are (and please correct me if I am wrong in this) that my efforts were unsuccessful? If so, please show me how.

In any case, will you now do me the kindness of answering the question that I've put to you (if memory serves) at least half a dozen times now, but which you have always, in a variety of ways, avoided answering:

Do you know for certain whether the scholars who do believe that ARCONTES means "demons" in 1 Cor 2:6-8 deny that the ancients ever thought that when demonic ARCONTES act as they are said to act in 1 Cor. 2:6-8, they do so apart from, and without, human agency?

Jeffrey Gibson