Kimpatsu

Origen? Of the Ori?
Get back to the Pegasus Galaxy, where you belong...

jakejonesiv

Hi ynguirer,

Luke and Origin knew better what Paul meant to say than Paul himself?

Would you then please tell me what "Paul meant to say" and why he didn't say it to begin with?

If Paul meant to say "Pontius Pilate" he damn sure screwed up.

I appreciate the caveat, but I am not following the logic. Why is a method that is acknowledged that "may lead to mistakes as may always follow..." not invalid?

It seems to me that all this talk about the "inductive method" is just a way to introduce forced harmonization of disparate texts as a valid method of Biblical exegesis. Can you clear this up?

Jake Jones IV

ynquirer

Hi Jake Jones IV,

What is at stake is the meaning of tôn archontôn tou aiônos, which appears in 1 Cor 2:6-8. Quoting those verses Origen says that the phrase means the politics of Persia, of Tyre, etc. I add: also of Rome. Now, the point is not what Paul meant in general, nor what he could have said yet did not say. The point is whether tôn archontôn tou aiônos had in Origen the same meaning as in Paul. Doherty thinks it had. In this I agree with him. If you think that the usage of a given phrase in Paul was different from the usage in Origen, you ought perhaps to explain what is your evidence.

Peter Kirby

The Church Fathers do not agree on the interpretation of this verse. Back to the drawing board...

--
Peter Kirby

ynquirer

Let's eat the artichoke leaf by leaf...

Malachi151

I think that Origen brings up a good point. The use of archons (or whatever) in the Septuagint is a good place to look to see how Paul would likely have used it. Would Paul be most likely to use it the same way that he had seen it used in relation to the scriptures that he so often quotes?

Peter Kirby

Interesting expression. Is it to make the inedible edible by breaking it down into parts and buttering it up?

--
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

The Greek word is not interesting by itself. It translates into the somewhat bombastic (relative to its Greek source) English word "principals" in the sense of rulers generally. If you think that an examination of where that word is ever used will help us in a particular instance, beyond what the dictionary says about it, you're probably batty. Just take the word's meaning and apply your diligence to looking at the word in context. More interesting would be to look at cognate phrases in cognate literature, if anything.

--
Peter Kirby

Malachi151

I'm not a scholar in this area, so I can only guess around, but I would think that if it can be shown that Paul has quoted from sections of the LXX that use the term to mean "heavenly power" (or whatever) then that certainly lends credibility to his use of the term in that way here. If he had never seen the word used that way, it would be odd for him to use it that way. If you can show that he had indeed seen it used that way, then it makes his use of it in that manner more likely, I would think.

From what you provided yesterday:

To me, it looks like Paul is using the term in this sense, because these are the concepts that Paul is dealing with, and indeed this is how the term is used in the LXX, to denote these "celestial powers."

Peter Kirby

I have a very long post in the archives looking at this issue (it is accessible through the FAQ v. 0.6, under arguments against/for Jesus).

I will say here that the word archon is never used with the denotation of "celestial power," because that is not its denotation. It is always used with the denotation of power, with the location of that power (celestial or earthly) only ever being determined by context.

This is why I think looking at the hundreds of uses of this term for earthly powers and the dozens of uses of this term for celestial powers is missing the point. It means ruler, power, principal; it does not mean anything more.

--
Peter Kirby