jgibson000

In a previous post to me in the "Born of a Woman" thread, Earl Doherty asked:

Quote:

Will someone please have the good grace (or good sense) to realize that when I say various scholars regard "rulers of this age" as a reference to demon spirits, I am not denying that these scholars also have in mind that the demons are working through earthly rulers. Of course they think that. And they think that Paul thinks that, too. They are all historicists. Jeffrey is indulging in his usual antics by imputing to me that I am claiming that Ellingworth, Hering, Brandon, etc., support me (and JM) in that they regard the demons as the direct crucifiers of Jesus. I'm very sure that Jeffrey is intelligent and astute enough to realize that I am claiming no such thing (which doesn't stop him from misrepresenting me).

Well, thank you Earl, for saying that I am intelligent and astute when it comes to reading correctly what you write and what you claim.

But I'd be grateful if you could show me how, while seeing, Ive gone on to misrepresent, what you claim you've been doing when, in "The Rulers of This Age" section of your article Who Crucified Jesus, you've cited Barrett, Fredriksen, Hering, Delling, Ellingworth (but not Hatton), and Brandon as scholars who, as you assert, "have felt constrained to agree" with (so you say) Ignatius, and Origen, and Marcion that the ARCONTES TOU AIWNOU TOUTOU of 1 Cor 2:6-8 are, in Paul's eyes, "evil spiritual beings" rather than earthly rulers.

After all, despite your note above about how utterly transparent it is to anyone, and not only to the intelligent and the astute, that in what you have said/written about how these scholars take the ARCONTES TOU AIWNOU TOUTOU of 1 Cor 2:6-8 to be "demonic spirits" rather than earthly rulers, you

(1) are not "denying", but rather have been all along affirming, if only implicitly, "that these scholars also have in mind that the demons are working through earthly rulers, and

(2) have never claimed that Ellingworth, Herring, Brandon, etc, support you on the matter of demons and not humans being the "direct crucifiers" of Jesus,

there is, so far as I can see, nothing in that article that even suggests, let alone actually indicates, that this is what you are up to.

In fact, everything you say there, as well as the way you say it (e.g., in the way you reproduce what these scholars have said on both ARCONTES in general and the ARCONTES of 1 Cor. 2:6-8 in particular and the context you have given to your reproduction of what they say), gives the distinct impression that it is your contention that these scholars do indeed deny that the demons purportedly spoken of in 1 Cor 2:6-8 use human instruments to carry out their will and that they do side with you in believing that demons were the direct and only crucifiers of Jesus.

Let's note how this is so.

You begin the section in which you cite the scholars named above with this remark:

Quote:

If both references to the Gospel agents of Jesus' crucifixion [i.e., 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16; 1 Timothy 6:13] are to be discounted (these are the only passages in all the epistles I would claim as interpolations, plus one or two other 'possibles'), how then does the early record deal with the circumstances and responsibility concerning the death of the Son of God[emphasis mine]? Who does Paul identify as having slain Christ? Let's look at 1 Corinthians 2:6-8:

Then after quoting an English translation of that text you note that

Quote:

A great amount of scholarly ink has been spilled over the meaning of "the rulers of this age" (ton archonton (sic) tou aionos (sic) toutou, verses 6 and 8). In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals. That invisible powers, mostly evil, were at work behind earthly phenomena was a widely held belief in Hellenistic times, including among Jews, and it was shared by Christianity. J. H. Charlesworth (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p.66 [sic] ) puts it this way: "Earth is full of demons. Humanity is plagued by them. Almost all misfortunes are because of demons: sickness, drought, death and especially humanity's weaknesses about remaining faithful to the covenant (with God). The region between heaven and earth seems to be almost cluttered by demons and angels; humanity is often seen as a pawn, helpless in the face of such cosmic forces." There has not been a universal scholarly consensus on what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 2:8, but over the last century a majority of commentators (see below), some reluctantly, have decided that he is referring to the demon spirits...Thus, "rulers of this age" should not be seen as referring to the current secular authorities who happen to be in power in present political circumstances. Rather, Paul envisions ...[them to be] ... the evil angelic powers, [who] are approaching their time of "passing away" (2:6) [because]... [t]hey did not understand God's purposes, namely their own destruction, when they inadvertently crucified "the Lord of glory."

Then you quote Ephesians (of all things) to back up that this is indeed Paul's view.

Quote:

Ephesians 3:9-10 echoes these hidden purposes of God, and declares that they have now been brought to light: "9. . . the application of this mystery which has been hidden for long ages in God the creator of the universe, 10so that through the church the wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavens, in accordance with his eternal purpose which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord."

You then conclude that because,

1.

Quote:

Here the rulers are clearly identified as the ones in heaven.

and because

2.

Quote:

... the writer is consistent with general Pauline expression in allotting the task of revealing God's long-hidden mystery to the "church," to men like himself, not to any recent historical Jesus.

that

Quote:

that last phrase refers to the workings of Christ in the higher spiritual world, his redeeming actions within God's eternal realm and time. In other words, the world of myth.

You also note that because

Quote:

A prominent first century Christian idea was that Christ by his death had subjected all the spirit powers and authorities, both good and bad, to his control.

and that since

a.

Quote:

In this light, Colossians 2:15 again places Jesus' crucifixion in a spiritual milieu, for it is difficult to see any historical scene on Calvary contained in this idea: "On the cross he discarded the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment; he made a public spectacle of them and led them as captives in his triumphal procession."

and

b.

Quote:

Ephesians 6:12 also speaks of the fight which is not against human foes, but against the "cosmic powers, authorities and potentates of this dark world, the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens."

and

c. that these demons

Quote:

...were even thought of has having political organizations like rulers on earth.

that we shoulkd conclude that these demons

Quote:

... were certainly well placed and capable of executing a spiritual Christ who had descended from the higher divine realm into their territory

You then declare that

Quote:

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 [sic]), are bucking even ancient opinion [emphasis mine].

for

Quote:

Ignatius uses the term archon in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the gnostic Marcion.

Now immdeiately after this, you state that

Quote:

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. [emphasis mine]

without noting that Barrett and especially Hering (in his penetrating analysis go on in a most penetrating way to deny that the ARCHONTES spoken of in 1 Cor. 2:8 are demons.

You then opine that not only that

Quote:

Delling in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, p.489) notes that the spirit rulers [emphasis mine] are portrayed by Paul as "treating the Lord of glory as prey in ignorance of the divine plan for salvation."

[B]

but that, in your juxtaposition of your notice of what Delling purportedly says with

Quote:

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."

you make Delling say that these "spirit rulers" crucified Jesus in a "heavenly" realm.


You go on to say that

Quote:

Paul Ellingworth (sic. It's Ellingworth and Hatton), A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46, states: "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here."

without noting not only that before this Ellingworth and Hatton say

1.

The second question, concerning the rulers of this age, does not affect ranslation into certain languages such as English. But translators into many other languages may have to decide whether the rulers are human or nonhuman. Verse 8 does not settle this question; the rulers of this age may be either people like Caiaphas, Pilate, and the Roman emperor, or the supernatural powers of evil which are ultimately responsible for Christ's
death

2. that they have realized they were wrong in their claim about what a majority of scholars believe and now in the second edition of their handbook say

Recent writers generally tend to think of human rulers, and these should certainly not be excluded in translation

but that they have a foot note to their statement that "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here" which shows that even in the first edition they did not intend to support that claim. For as you can see below, it does not illustrate the claim, but shows just the opposite:

However, M. Pesce's detailed Paolo e gli arconti a Corinto (Brescia 1977) argues that the "rulers" are the Jewish authorities. So do A. W. Carr, 1976, "The rulers of this age_1 Corinthians 2.6-8," New Testament Studies 23.20-35; and T. Ling, 1956, "A note on 1 Corinthians ii. 8," Expository Times 68.26. Against this view, W. J. P. Boyd, 1957, "1 Corinthians ii. 8," Expository Times 68.158.)"

BTW, here is what Boyd states:

1 Corinthians ii. 8
In the October number (lxviii. 26) Mr. Ling argues that the phrase 'the rulers of this world ' can only mean 'human rulers,' so no reference to spirit powers can be allowed. However, the ' either-or' approach is not very helpful here. To determine the meaning of the phrase, it is surely necessary to consider it not merely in the light of the context and the linguistic usage for hO ARCONTES but also against the background of Paul's demonology, which is more developed than that of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke-Acts and the Johannine writings. The study of the Pauline usage of such words as ARCAI, EXOUSIAI, QRONOI and similar designations of authority is very relevant for determining the meaning of hOI ARCONTES in 1 Co 2:8. The picture that results from such a study makes it very probable that in 1 Co 2:8 as well as in RO 13:3 hOI ARCONTES refers to both human rulers and the spirit powers that lie behind them. Such a concept originated in Judaism which asserted that there is a particular angel for each people. The angels are subject to God because they are created, but though subject in power they are often hostile. In the Judaic faith there is not the same rigid dualism that is characteristic of the Gnostic systems. An excellent exposition of this point of view is found in Oscar Cullmann's great book Christ and Time (S.C.M. , Eng. Tr. F. V. Filson, 37 n., 103 f., 191-199). Man sees only the visible deeds executed by the earthly agents of the invisible powers and authorities, TA ORATA KAI TA AORATA (Col 1:18).

As for the question of the responsibility for the crucifixion, it seems precarious to suppose that the spirit powers knew what would happen at the cross in view of Col 2:15 ' He cut away the angelic Rulers and Powers from us, exposing them to all the world and triumphing over them in the cross' (Moffatt). For if that were the case then the crucifixion is the result of sinful men who reject the offer of God in Christ as well as resist the influence of the hostile spirit powers who would be trying to prevent their own downfall in the cross. Surely Paul would agree that the wisdom of this world, at even its highest level namely that of hO ARCWN THS EXOUSIAS (Eph. 2:222), utterly fails to comprehend the Divine plan of Salvation revealed in the cross.
In the light of these considerations it appears that1r Co 2:8 is congruous with both Col 2:15 and Ac 3:17 I3:27.)

And then you end with with the proclamation that

Quote:

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."

which, interestingly, leaves out the portions of the material in Brandon which shows that what you quote of him above is hardly all he "unflinchingly declares", let alone that what he actually states on the matter of under whom and where Paul thought Jesus crucifixion transpired is quite different from what we are would be given to believe if what he said was what you've given as his words on the matter.

Now, in the light of all this, I'd puzzled how you now have the temerity to claim that you have not denied that these scholars also have in mind that the demons are working through earthly rulers.

They way you present what they say (i.e. through selective or no quotation at all of what they indeed do say on the matter), as well as the way that you have contextualized what (selectively) quoted words of theirs you give (i.e., with "constrained to agree" with the purportedly "evil spirit's only) view of Ignatius and Origen and Marcion) says otherwise.

I am also at a loss to explain how you can say that you have not claimed in what you wrote in Who Crucified Jesus that Ellingworth, Hering, Brandon, et. al support you (and JM) in your view that demons were the direct crucifiers of Jesus. For to show that scholars do support you in this this is, as you yourself note, not only exactly why you have quoted them, but it is what you have made all of them -- and expressly Brandon --say.

So if I have not had "the good grace (or the good sense) to realize" that you are not (and have never been) denying that Barett et al. "also have in mind that the demons are working through earthly rulers" when you claim that the scholars above regard "rulers of this age" as a reference to demon spirits or that, as you now say, you are not claiming "that Ellingworth, Hering, Brandon, etc., support" you (and JM) on the matter of demons being, it's not because I have misread you or misunderstood what you said on these matters and about these scholars.

It's because (1) you have never claimed any such things before now and (b) I'm not a mind reader.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey, any neutral observer can see that in the born of woman thread, your reading suffered considerably. What this means is that it is actually the case that you do misread others and that you can make errors in comprehension.

Let me illustrate by a simple example:
On July 10, 2006, 10:58 AM I posted:
On July 11, 2006, 05:23 AM you posted:
Now, the above example shows that accusing others of misrepresenting certain authors is a reflex action on your part and can happen without adequate thought or proper reading on your part. We know that there are other examples in the above mentioned thread where you misread and went on a tangent discrediting Jesus Mythers and their brand of scholarship. Of course, you later acknowledged that you had misread. Nobody accused you of purposeful misrepresentation at the time.

Even as we look at your accusations against Doherty, it is clear that your case springs from a tortured reading of the texts in question and assuming your arguments, instead of demonstrating them. For example, you do no work regarding Barrett: you just make the void claim that Barrett does not support Doherty. This is contra both Kirby and Doherty.

Doherty states that the mentioned scholars interpret archontes to be referring to spiritual beings and not earthly rulers.
This is correct.
These scholars assume that these demons worked thorugh earthly rulers. Paul does not talk about demons working through any rulers so these scholars are clearly smuggling in their own historicist assumptions into the text.
The passages you have provided from Ellingworth and Hatton does not contradict Doherty's interpretation: they allow it. Just the same way they allow a historicist interpretation. In other words, they are neutral as you indicated earlier.

If I were you, I would simply respond by saying Doherty does not use the word "direct." But Doherty only says that they agree with him that the word archontes has a spiritual meaning. And they do.
Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton are non-commital. Period.
Even Peter Kirby agrees because he does not place them on either side:
E & H do not say that they were wrong: you claim that they state that "Recent writers generally tend to think of human rulers, and these should certainly not be excluded in translation" [Emphasis mine] You then conclude thom that quote that they "have realized they were wrong in their claim about what a majority of scholars believe"
This is not an admission of error: this is an acknowledgement of recent trends. You are reading overzealously and are reading what you want into the text.

You also contradict Peter Kirby when you state:
Why should we believe you over Peter Kirby and Doherty?

Doherty has "not denied that these scholars also have in mind that the demons are working through earthly rulers." because he never had a chance to confirm or deny it. I use deny to mean "declare untrue". At best, you can accuse him of being silent on the historicist assumptions that these scholars smuggle into Paul.

Doherty does not say that their interpretation of archontes means that the demons killed Jesus directly. He says that their interpretation of archontes is as a reference to demons. Period. And it is. But they go further to supplant earthly rulers between the demons and Christ. And that is historicist boilerplate crap. And Doherty does not dwell on that dreck. He recognizes it as historicist flotsam and jetsam and pushes it aside to reveal the pearls that historicist scholars think are stones.

S.C.Carlson

Here's what Doherty wrote (from his website):

Doherty here put the issue of the "rulers" into a false dichotomy between temporal and spiritual, while ignoring the excluded middle that demons used earthly agents. Citing scholars who actually favor the excluded middle as if they supported his strictly supernatural position is disingenuous. Doherty may well believe that these scholars had a pearl of wisdom among a lot of dreck, but this passage does not inform the reader of that. By suppressing the middle position, the reader is misled into the thinking that these scholars fully support the point, rather than partially supporting both his position and the other position of the false dichotomy.

Doherty certainly had the chance to confirm or deny the scholars' actual positions--right at the point when he cited them. In fact, I cannot think of a more appropriate opportunity to disclose what those he cited in support actually believed. That he failed to do so means that the reader was misled about the scholars' beliefs.

Stephen

Ted Hoffman

There are two camps: the demonic powers interpretation and the earthly rulers interpretation. That is on the meaning of the word archontes.

But there is also the question of how the archontes operated. here again, we have two camps: those that supplant earthly rulers between Jesus and the demonic powers, and those that do not. These two do not have to be discussed in the same level. Just like historicists disagree on whether Jesus was a revolutionary or a cynic Jew or a peripatetic teacher, or all those combined. A scholar can agree on the meaning of the word archontes and disagree on how the archontes operated.

Doherty is talking about how to interpret the word archontes. Not how archontes operated. He can validly stick to that level of the debate without going on to talk about how these archontes worked.

S.C.Carlson

Only if how the "rulers" worked is irrelevant to his thesis of a mythical Jesus, but I cannot see how it could be irrelevant. If Paul was contemplating humans crucifying Jesus (whether as the "rulers" themselves or human agents of demonic "rulers"), there goes an important part of silence from Doherty's conspiracy of silence.

Stephen

Ted Hoffman

These scholars do not know how Paul conceived the demons to have worked. And even if they can claim that they do, they cannot prove it. They simply import gospel assumptions into Paul. And we can have Origen charge against Marcion on this matter till the cows come home.
But this is about Paul, and Doherty is talking about what Paul meant. Not the current state of belief amongst historicist scholars about the business process as applied in a sublunar realm, which Paul does not address.
So, no silence on Doherty's part. And no false dichotomy.

S.C.Carlson

But in talking about what Paul meant, Doherty is claiming he has scholarly support for his side of the false dichotomy, when in reality they supported an excluded middle position. If it is true that "[t]hey simply import gospel assumptions into Paul" and Doherty thought so, he still could have disclosed the middle position, followed by a lambasting of their historicist assumptions. He did not do so, misleading reader about the scholarly support over one of points and risking his credibility if one of the readers decides to look up those scholars he cited.

Stephen

Ted Hoffman

Doherty once talked about how much space it would have taken and the impact on the volume and consequently weight and price of the book.
Your argument, of course, has merit. I think it is a matter of balance.
If you look at the entire JM hypothesis, there is a lot that scholars would disagree upon, not just on archontes alone, but various other issues including the twin traditions, the HJ criteria, Q, second century apologists and so on.
I dont see how Doherty would have accomplished the task without keeping some debates out of his book. I think we should bear all these in mind because whilst publishing a book that presents a new idea, its not just about hammering away every argument: one needs to build their overall case even if they do not break down every issue.
But perhaps he will explain this himself.

Ben C Smith

That is always a consideration.

However, Doherty is apparently trying to replace one paradigm with another. If some of the surface-level defenses of an historical Jesus (defenses that do not delve too deeply into the details) that Doherty rebuts fail to impress him, how will a surface-level defense of a completely different paradigm, one which ignores middle positions, impress scholars at large?

I sympathize somewhat with what Doherty has said about the archons. He can support his case, at least in this one respect, if he can show that scholars have cogently argued for supernatural spirits and merely assumed historical agents. Right or wrong, that looks like an issue worth investigating. But to make scholars who hold a both A and B position sound like scholars who hold a not A but B position...:

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

...is to gloss over fairly essential details... if representing scholars correctly has any merit to it.

I once unintentionally (mis)represented Kloppenborg as arguing for the existence of Q by noting that Luke sometimes presents a more original order (the other option, that Matthew sometimes presents a more original order, was unquestioned by my debating partner, and thus needed no argument at the time). Kloppenborg, however, was actually assuming the existence of Q and arguing that Luke often preserves its order better.

My debating partner, a certain S. C. Carlson , pointed this out, and the proper response was to admit that yes, I was pressing Kloppenborg in a new direction. The argument was still worth making, IMVHO, but there was no sense in making Kloppenborg argue what he was actually assuming. And this is the moral of my little confession: I went and changed the wording on the webpage where I had expressed the original argument. It now reads:

As Kloppenborg, presuming Q (instead of dependence of Matthew upon Luke), says on page 89....

He is arguing at this point for the originality of the Lucan order of Q over the Matthean order of Q....

Hopefully Doherty will do the same and change some of his phrasing, both on his site and in his second edition.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

According to Tertullian, ( Adv. Marcionem, Book 5, chapter 6)
Marcion taught that the princes (Latin principes; Gk. archontes,) of the creator (the demiurge, the ignorant creator, the prince of this world) ignorantly crucified Christ. Tertullian strongly disagreed, but Marcion’s position is therefore made clear.

Tertullian’s reasoning against Marcion took two parts.
#1. By reading the gospels back into the context of 1 Cor. 2:8, Tertullian argued that the demons recognized the identity of Jesus, and thus could not have been ignorant.
#2. Having a different view of the O.T. God, Tertullian argued the Creator is not ignorant, and therefore the apostle (i.e. Paul) must have been referring to secular princes (King Herod, Pontius Pilate).

We can see from this that Earl Doherty’s position is similar to the one taken by Marcion. Jesus was crucified by spiritual powers, and human rulers go unmentioned. It is the proto-orthodox reaction of Tertullian to Marcion that first identifies the archontes of 1 Cor. 2:8 as human rulers.

Priority in this argument goes to Earl.

Jake Jones IV