NOGO

In another thread Layman claimed that there were several places where the epistles refer to the HJ. I have put forth a case against his claim that Jesus initiated the Lord's supper in another thread. In this post I wish to challenge the following claim.

Claim: (10) the death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Corinthians 2:8);

Here are the verses Layman is refering to.

Note first that Layman adds the word "earthly" when no such word is used in the text.
Layman wants to associate "this world" with the "earth" but is that what Paul had in mind?
Note also "who are passing away"
Which rulers of the "world/earth" are pasing away?
We can stretch it and say that it is the Jewish authorities which are passing away which would be a prophecy of AD 70. A more credible interpretation is the end of the world which Paul obviosuly believed to be at hand.
So who are the rulers of the world according to Paul?
The Roman authorities? Jewish authorities?
The following verses give us a clue.

Are heavenly places which are mentioned above part of "this world" ?
Are they the rulers which are passing away?
Given the above verses how can anybody say for certain that the rulers of this world mentioned in 1 Cor 2:8 are flesh and blood men. Note in particular Eph 6:12 which says that the struggle is not against flesh and blood. Obviously the author of these verses lives in an imaginary world of his own battling spiritual forces which nobody knows about except him and his community.

It is therefore totally unreasonable to force the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:8 to an "earthly" realm as Layman wants to do solely on the basis of the Gospel stories.

There is also the following matter

First, notice that Romans 13 is in complete agreement with the idea that the "struggle" is not against flesh and blood.

The second point is a rather astonishing one. If Paul meant to say earthly rulers in 1 Cor 2:8 he had a complete memory lapse in Romans 13.

"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior,"

There are only limited possibilities here

1. Paul believed that Jesus misbehaved

2. The rulers in Romans 13 are not the same rulers as 1 Cor 2:8

3. Paul is confused and can't think straight


I vote for number 2.

Mathetes

Well, concerning the verse of Corinthians:


ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν, εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν

I would say it is neither "of this world" nor "earthly". The word is αἰῶνος, from αἰών, "extent of time, era, age". The best would be to translate it as "the rulers of these times", or "the rulers of this age". This, whatever it means, is much more vague than "the rulers of this world".

Don't know what version you are using for your quote, but it is clear that the translator was aware of this, as in verse 6, he translates, "not of this age nor of the rulers of this world". But in Greek both words are the same,
αἰῶνος. I think that it is clear that Paul is using the same word in this sentence looking for some repetition effect, so however you translate them, you should use the same word.

My opinion in this case is that, if Paul meant some "earthly rulers" in this sentence, he could definitely have used a more concrete word.

On the other hand, I am not sure this means much. I gave up long ago trying to understand what Paul means in this unintelligible mumbling that his letters are.

(Edited to get this Unicode Greek straight...)

GakuseiDon

I don't know, NOGO. Looking at the use of that word aion in 1 Cor, we have the following passages (from Young's Literal Translation):

1 Cor 3 and 1 Cor 8 seem unambiguously to be talking about earthly people in this age. The others relate to the wisdom of this age, which the "rulers of this age" did not have. The question then becomes whether "rulers of this age" must mean Satan. Do you have any source to show that "rulers of this age" must be spiritual rulers?

It should be noted that where "archon" is used elsewhere in the NT, it seems to refer to earthly rulers, e.g. prince, commander, chief, leader. See http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...5412-6092.html
The only exceptions are *clearly* marked, by saying "ruler of the air" or "heavenly ruler", etc.

This is a weak argument, IMHO. Paul says "rulers are good" in one passage, and that is supposed to apply to how Paul uses the word in other epistles also??? Since "rulers of this age" are rulers also, perhaps Paul means that Satan should be obeyed, as well? It doesn't seem credible.

I agree with you that it is number 2. The rulers in Romans is meant generally, while the rulers in 1 Cor are specifically applied to one group, as it is indicated: "rulers of this age".

In the example you give above, the word "rulers" is "arche", which is related to "archon", but seems to be more specifically applied to the spiritual world: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...5056-3740.html

So you are in fact showing us that Paul is using a different and specific word to apply to what are spiritual powers. So that weakens your argument, I'm afraid. As Doherty likes pointing out, Paul could have used a different word if he wanted to convey that meaning.

What are needed are more examples of "rulers of this age" meaning the spiritual powers.

I suppose the other question is, how did the rulers of this age crucify Jesus? On a spiritual cross? And was He buried in spiritual earth? Why are these details lacking from Paul? This is a problem for the MJers.

And was it just coincidence that the way He died was the punishment meted out by the temporal authorities of the day?
(Interesting that the word "temporal" can mean "worldly" as well...)

Layman

Peter Kirby did a pretty thorough treatment of this issue in a previous post. Because the search function is not working, I'll reproduce it here:

>>>Today's Leaders
I went to the library today to see if I could find out more about the "consensus of scholars" on the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8. I checked out all the commentaries that were there on 1 Corinthians. Unfortunately, some of these commentaries did not touch upon the issue (e.g. Talbert), but some of them did, so here are the quotes. I am quoting these authors here in order to provide a look at the lay of the scholarly landscape and not for the use of their arguments.

Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton write: "The second question, concerning the rulers of this age, does not affect translation 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 (compare Col 2.10, 15). A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 46)

Ellingworth and Hatton provide a footnote: "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." (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 46)

Robertson and Plummer write: "Some Fathers and early writers, from Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 6) downwards, understand the ARCONTES TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU to mean demons: cf. KOSMOKRATORAS TOU SKOTOUS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU (Eph. vi. 12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius; ELAQEN TON ARCONTA [T. AIWNOS] TOUTOU . . . O QANATOS TOU KURIOU. See Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 156 f., 230 n. But this interpretation is wholly incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Angels, whose rule over certain departments in God's government of the world belongs only to this dispensation, and ceases with it (KATARGOUMENWN), and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption (Gal. iii. 19; I Pet. i. 12). See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 5." (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, p. 37)

William Orr and James Walther write: "There seems to be no convincing reason to interpret 'this world's rulers' as being any other than those who actually took part in the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus, and the wisdom they did not know was that their action would have a result exactly opposite to their intention: the ignominy of the cross was turned into the glory of redeeming lordship." (1 Corinthians)

Orr and Walther refer to a 1972 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature 91 by Gene Miller.

Leon Morris writes: "With unwearied persistence the apostle points out that the wisdom of which he speaks is not the wisdom of this age. He has been stressing this for some time and he now adds or of the rulers of this age. In antiquity, Origen took this to refer to the demonic powers behind world rulers, an interpretation which Chrysostom rejected, and this difference of opinion has persisted through the centuries. Among modern commentators Conzelmann, for example, sees a reference to the demons, while Orr and Walther think of earthly rulers. The 'demonic' view sees Christ as engaged in a gigantic struggle with evil forces of the unseen world, a view which is undoubtedly to be found in Paul's writings (e.g. Rom 8:38-39; Col. 2:15; cf. 2 Cor 4:4). But it may be doubted whether this is his meaning here. Three points are especially important. One is that throughout this whole passage the contrast is between the wisdom of God shown in the gospel and the wisdom of this world. To introduce now the thought of the wisdom of demonic powers is to bring in an extraneous concept, and one that is out of harmony with v. 9, which clearly refers to humans. Paul could scarcely have expected his readers to grasp this without one word of explanation. A second is that it was the rulers of this age who are said to have crucified Christ and this same word rulers, archontes, is repeatedly used of the Jewish and Roman leaders (Acts 3:17; 4:5,8,26; Rom. 13:3, etc.). The third is that it is explicitly said that they carried out the crucifixion in ignorance (Acts 3:17; 13:27; cf. Jn 16:3), but, by contrast, the demons are often said to have known who Jesus was when people did not (Mk. 1:24, 34, etc.). Paul habitually ascribes power to the demonic forces, but not ignorance. The very concept of a struggle between demonic forces and the power of God implies that the demons knew what they were up against. Paul's use of this age probably points to the transitory nature of the office of rulers, over against the truth of the gospel, which is permanent. This transitoriness is also in mind in the concluding who are coming to nothing (the verb is katargeo; see on 1:28). The rulers are being rendered completely ineffective; their vaunted power and wisdom are made null and void." (1 Corinthians, pp. 53-54)

[NB: the third argument is worthless in the context of a Jesus Myth debate.]

Thus, in my very incomplete look at the literature, we find these writers in favor of a terrestrial interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8: M. Pesce, A. W. Carr, T. Ling, Archibald Robertson, Alfred Plummer, William Orr, James Walther, Gene Miller, and Leon Morris.

Based on my own survey and the work of Earl Doherty, we find these writers in favor of a 'demonic powers' interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8: Conzelmann, W. J. P. Boyd, C. K. Barrett, Paula Fredriksen, Jean Hering, Delling, and S. G. F. Brandon.

This is a count of nine against seven. Moreover, the tally in favor of Doherty's interpretation included both the authors that I found and the authors that Doherty mentions, so the method of tallying was skewed in Doherty's favor. Ellingworth and Hatton claim that a majority of scholars favors a 'demonic powers' interpretation, but this may not be true, and it would be in any case a rather slim majority. My conclusion is that there is not enough scholarly agreement on this issue to use scholarly opinion in favor of either interpretation.

Therefore, we have to use our own minds and evidence to make a ruling.

I suppose that it would be helpful to provide a survey of the use of the Greek terms ARCW (ruler) and AIWN (age) in the New Testament. The exact word used in 1 Cor 2:6-8, A)RXO/NTWN, is found three other times in the New Testament.

Luke 14:1. "And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the rulers, [who was] of the Pharisees, [TW=N A)RXO/NTWN [TW=N] FARISAI/WN] to eat bread on [the] sabbath, that *they* were watching him."

John 7:48. "Has any one of the rulers [TW=N A)RXO/NTWN] believed on him, or of the Pharisees?"

John 12:42. "Although indeed from among the rulers [E)K TW=N A)RXO/NTWN] also many believed on him, but on account of the Pharisees did not confess [him], that they might not be put out of the synagogue:"

The word for rulers is also found in another verse in the authentic Paul, Romans 13:3. "For rulers are not a terror to a good work..." [hoi gar archontes ouk eisin phobos tÃ́i agathÃ́i ergÃ́i] The context shows that Paul is speaking of earthly rulers in this passage from Romans, as Doherty acknowledges.

Thus, while "Archon" can sound technical and esoteric to us (it's found in the computer game Starcraft to refer to a powerful Protoss unit), in Koine Greek it is the normal term for a leader or ruler. Of course, that does not in itself say whether these rulers in First Corinthians reside on earth or in the heavens in the mind of Paul! Indeed, there are some cases in which ancient Christian writers refer to demonic powers, one of which is found in Ephesians.

Eph 2:2. "in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air [TON ARCONTA THS EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS], the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient."

Note that this passage clearly refers to Satan; ruler is in the singular and qualifies itself by referring to the kingdom of the heavens (i.e. Satan), while no such qualification is found in 1 Cor 2:6-8. There is a different passage in Ephesians to which Doherty appeals, although the specific word archon is not found in this passage:

Ephesians 3. [9] to de Anebê ti estin ei mê hoti kai katebê eis ta [10] katÃ́tera merê tês gês; ho katabas autos estin kai ho anabas huperanÃ́ pantÃ́n tÃ́n ouranÃ́n, hina plêrÃ́sêi ta panta.

Here is the Darby translation:

[9] and to enlighten all [with the knowledge of] what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things, [10] in order that now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God,

Here is the NAB translation:

[9] and to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, [10] so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

What is this passage saying? Certainly the author does not restrict the church from enlightenment of people on earth, but the author extends the church's role to have a cosmic significance in saying that the existence of the church shows even to the powers in the heavens what was wrought by God through Christ.

How is this passage relevant to the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8? This passage does show that angelic beings can be regarded as "principalities" or "authorities," but it does not show that such terminology is being so used in the First Corinthians, since there are also other passages in the New Testament that refer to archons in an earthly sense. All that the Ephesians passage does is to show the possibility that the phrase "rulers" in a Christian mouth might refer to non-physical beings. Whether that possibility holds true in any particular case would have to be decided by an examination of that case and its context.

Is it impermissible to use Ephesians to shed light on an earlier work by another author, Paul in First Corinthians? This seems now to be a somewhat moot point, because I don't believe the Ephesians passage would require a change in the way that one interprets 1 Cor 2:6-8 even if Ephesians were by Paul (pending any comments that convince me of such). But it is interesting to me that people who object to interpreting Paul through the Gospel of Mark or the Acts have no problem using a different work that is also not by Paul (assuming they agree with inauthenticity for Ephesians) to 'read into' Paul's language something which is not justified from Paul's words alone.

Gregg writes: "The gospels, coming later, are vital to getting an overall picture of the CONTINUING evolution of Christianity, but to say that comparing an early-to-mid-first-century Pauline letter to a letter by another early-to-mid-first-century writer is the same thing as interpreting Paul through a late-first-century-to-early-second-century GOSPEL just isn't accurate." However, if Ephesians is not authentic, there is absolutely zero evidence that Ephesians was written before the Gospel of Mark.

Gregg writes: "Paul and 'Mark' were not contemporaries." When would say that Paul died, and when would you say that the author of Mark was born? And how would you justify those opinions?

Gregg writes: "The writer of Hebrews, for example, doesn't say anything about the cross or crucifixion, or even 'hanging on a tree'--his Christ enters a heavenly sanctuary, a spiritual equivalent of the Temple, where presumably he is slaughtered like a sacrifical animal. (In such a scene, a cross would be out of place.)" I have noted the error of this statement on this board recently. "For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2)

Toto writes: "As for using a post 70 document, if you are referring to Ephesians, the only reason for using it is that it reflects the same world view as Paul had, and was presumably written by someone who studied under him or thought like him on this issue." There is no evidence that the author of Ephesians had studied under Paul, as someone other than an understudy can write falsely under Paul's name. To say that the author of Ephesians thought like Paul on the issue is to beg the question of whether Paul is referring to spiritual powers in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

The passage outside of the New Testament that is often cited in this context is Ignatius in Smyrnaeans 6:1.

"Let no one be deceived; even things in heaven and the glory of the angels, and the rulers visible and invisible, even for them there is a judgment if they do not believe on the blood of Christ."

Mhdeis planasqw: kai ta epourania kai h doxa twn aggelwn kai oi arxontes oratoi te kai aoratoi, ean mh pisteuswsin eis to aima xristou, kakeinois krisis estin.

Here, however, the author recognizes a distinction between two kinds of rulers: visible and invisible. This passage does not show that 1 Cor is to be interpreted as referring to invisible powers any more than it shows that 1 Cor is referring to visible powers.

In sum, then, a survey of the use of the word "rulers" in other Christian writings shows that it could be used to refer to earthly rulers as well as to heavenly rulers. The word in itself does not disambiguate the sense. To call it "a technical term for the spirit forces" is to go beyond the evidence, as it is not the only term used for spirit forces and, being used frequently for earthly rulers, has not been shown to be some sort of technical term.

Now what about the word usually translated as "age"? Toto writes: "The term 'rulers' is used to refer to Roman and Jewish officials, but there seems to be agreement that 'the ages' is a religious and apocalytpic term that refers to all recorded history up to this time, as opposed to the coming age when God's kingdom will be established." Toto is following Doherty: "The term aion, 'age,' or sometimes in the plural 'ages,' was in a religious and apocalyptic context a reference to the present age of the world, in the sense of all recorded history, since the next age was the one after the Parousia when God's Kingdom would be established."

The first thing to note is that the word used in 1 Cor 2:6-8 is AIWNOS, which is a Masculine Singular Genitive noun, not the plural 'the ages'. I would agree that earthly rulers were not meant by Paul here if the phrase had been 'rulers of the ages'. But that is not what Paul says. Paul speaks of rulers TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU, "of this age."

Let me quote from the other places in Paul's writings where this term appears. To save some time I have omitted verses where the phrase for "forever" appears (eis tous aiÃ́nas).

1 Cor 1:20. "Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? [pou sunzêtêtês tou aiÃ́nos toutou;] Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?"

1 Cor 2:6. "Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age [sophian de ou tou aiÃ́nos toutou], nor of the rulers of this age [tÃ́n archontÃ́n tou aiÃ́nos toutou] who are passing away."

1 Cor 2:8. "and which none of the rulers of this age [tÃ́n archontÃ́n tou aiÃ́nos toutou] knew for, if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

1 Cor 3:18. If anyone among you considers himself wise in this age, [ei tis dokei sophos einai en humin en tÃ́i aiÃ́ni toutÃ́i,] let him become a fool so as to become wise.

1 Cor 10:11. "These things happened to them as an example, and they have been written down as a warning to us, upon whom the end of the ages has come. [eis hous ta telê tÃ́n aiÃ́nÃ́n katêntêken]"

2 Cor 4:4. "And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age [ho theos tou aiÃ́nos toutou] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Gal 1:4. "who gave himself for our sins that he might rescue us from the present evil age [ek tou aiÃ́nos tou enestÃ́tos ponêrou] in accord with the will of our God and Father"

Phil 4:20. "To our God and Father, glory for ever and ever [eis tous aiÃ́nas tÃ́n aiÃ́nÃ́n]."

Doherty is correct that "age" can be used to refer to the period of time before the apocalypse, which is natural enough since the early Christians believed that the end would be coming soon. However, this in itself does not show that the rulers in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are to be interpreted as angelic beings. The references in 1 Cor 1:20 and 1 Cor 3:18 show that Paul could describe human beings as being "of this age" or "in this age," which is telling because this is the immediate context of the passage under concern.

So, we have done a little survey of the scholarly literature and have examined the use of the terms in cognate ancient writings. There is not a scholarly consensus that would point us strongly in either direction, and the words used in the passage can be applied both to humans and supernatural beings. Thus far, then, it is a non liquet.

Is there anything else that could be brought foward in an attempt to establish the claim that 1 Cor 2 refers to spiritual beings? Doherty offers Colossians 2:15, "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." Doherty regards Colossians as a non-authentic letter, although it is possibly authentic (as writers such as W.G. Kummel argue). But I will not lead us on another tangent by replying that a later document should not be used to interpret Paul. I think it can be said that the Colossians passage, if it reflected the mind of Paul, would show that Paul did not have angelic beings in mind in 1 Cor 2:6-8. Why? In Paul's statement in First Corinthians, "the rulers of this age" are the ones who in control of the crucifixion and enjoy a temporary victory over Christ. However, in Colossians, the "cosmic powers and authorities" (note that the type of powers - cosmic as opposed to terrestrial - is clearly distinguished) are the ones who are subjugated to Christ on the cross. What is going on here? If both ideas reflect those of Paul, only one of them refers to the situation in the heavens, and the one which makes this explicit is Colossians. By elimination, First Corinthians refers to the situation on earth. In truly platonic form, the earthly happening is a distortion of the heavenly reality.

Even supposing that certain scholars are correct in assuming that heavenly powers are in view, does this show that Doherty's view of Christian origins is correct? Doherty writes: "It will not do to suggest that since earthly rulers are considered to be controlled by heavenly ones, the latter are seen as operating 'through' the former. Paul would not likely have presented things in this way without an explanation." This is anachronistic in the respect that it confuses us with the ancient recipients of the epistle--we would very much like to see Paul explain that he recognized both spiritual and physical powers in the crucifixion, but the recipients would not have needed Paul to say, "Oh, by the way, it was Pilate and Caiaphas who nailed up Jesus." Doherty also writes: "And once we get to the Gospel picture which first makes a clear reference to earthly rulers in the death of Jesus, any heavenly dimension which supposedly lies behind those rulers completely disappears." To which I can reply, "And Satan entered into Judas" (Luke 22:3). Plus, I don't see the logic by which this statement would exclude earthly rulers from the mind of Paul.

I believe, then, that I have responded to all the arguments put forward by Doherty in favor of his interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8. In sum, none of them are sound.

Finally, there is some evidence--while not being conclusive, is at least existent--which favors an interpretation according to which Paul's "rulers of this age" are earthly. Because the phrase itself is not clear, we must turn to the surrounding passages for the context. Here is the text in the NAB.

Chapter 1
17 7 8 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. 18
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside." 20
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21
9 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 26
10 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27
Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, 28
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, 29
so that no human being might boast 11 before God. 30
It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 31
so that, as it is written, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."

Chapter 2
1 When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, 1 I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. 2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3
I came to you in weakness 2 and fear and much trembling, 4
and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive (words of) wisdom, 3 but with a demonstration of spirit and power, 5
so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. 6
4 Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. 7
Rather, we speak God's wisdom, 5 mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory, 8
and which none of the rulers of this age 6 knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9
But as it is written: "What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him," 10
this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11
Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13
And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. 7 14
Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15
The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone. 16
For "who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Notice several phrases in this passage: "wisdom of human eloquence," "the debater of this age," "the wisdom of the world," Jews and Greeks, "human wisdom," "human strength," "human standards," "no human being," again "human wisdom," then soon after "wisdom of this age" in the passage of concern, then "rulers of this age" (the controversial phrase), then "human beings," then "human wisdom," then "natural person," and such. It is clear in this passage that Paul is speaking against those who consider themselves wise and powerful in this world and age--namely, human beings. A reference to fallen angels would be out of place here. The entire passage serves to present the contrast between God's wisdom and the wisdom of this world, the latter of which is clearly inferior and in ignorance of God's wisdom (unlike the Christian initiates). Verse 9, in the same passage, refers to "what hs not entered the human heart," just after describing how "the rulers of this age" did not know the plans of God when they crucified Christ. To switch from talking about "human wisdom" to the ignorance of the demonic powers and back again to humans, all without any indication to his readers that this is what Paul is doing, would be inexplicable.

I conclude that 1 Cor 2:6-8 does not provide any evidence for Doherty's hypothesis and that, while it is not conclusive, does count against the Jesus Myth interpretation of Paul.

best,
Peter Kirby<<<<<<<<<<<

Kirby then added this:

And I added this:

One additional point, though, is that even Doherty's translation does not preclude human involvement in Jesus' death. At best (for him) he disposes of a clear reference to the historical Jesus set at a specific time (his own age). Demonic agents could certainly have acted through human rulers.

As Craig Blomberg notes:
The NIV Application Commentary, 1 Corinthians, at 63.

NOGO

Layman,

No it would not.

Paul could, would, and probably did compare the fallen angels to humans which reject Jesus.

This is definitely not out of place. More on this below.

None of this really answers my original post.

Peter seems to be saying that since scholars cannot agree then we have to make up our own minds on this.

You state your case as fact in favour of the HJ. You biased the reader by adding the word "earthly" knowing full well that your position is simply not that good. Now that you admit that that is not so we can go on to what Peter suggests.


This my take on 1 Cor 2:8
Compare these two texts.


Ephesians 3
9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;
10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Corinthians 2
7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the begining to our glory;
8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this world has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;


First note that both texts speak of "mystery" and "hidden" which has been "predestined" versus "for ages" , also we have "our glory" in one and "God created all things" in the other and finally both texts speak of the wisdom of God.

These two texts are saying exactly the same thing

The conclusion is different but not contradictory.

In one the rulers rejected Jesus and killed him because they did not understand his purpose.

in the other it is through the church which the rulers who rejected and killed Jesus learn of the hidden mystery of God's wisdom.


The conclusion is obvious.

It is through humans who have accepted Jesus that the heqavenly rulers learn of the blunder that they committed.
Ephesians 3:10 cannot be understood without 1 Cor 2:8

spin

I would say that we see a mistranslation on all fronts. Yes, you're right about the core meaning of aiwn and I can't see why it is ever translated as "world/earth" and derivatives "of the world/earthly".

There is a fine and dandy word kosmos which is the usual word for world, as in Mt 4:8, which talks about the kingdoms of the world (=kosmos), and many other examples. (And Acts uses oikoumenh, the civilised world.)

Aeons are of course the food of gnosis. (And check out Acts 15:18, which talks of the beginning of the aeon.)


There is more to this word than what the translations let surface.


spin

Toto

William O. Walker Jr. in his [i]Interpolations in the Pauline Letters[i/] devotes a chapter to showing that 1 Cor 2.6-16 is an interplation. He summarizes three main comemporary theories about the passage - 1) it was interpolated by Corinthian "pneumatics", 2) Paul wrote it using the words and ideas of his opponents (the majority view) and 3) Paul himself incorporated the text, which was written by Corinthian pneumatics.

The basis for this is that the passage suddenly shifts from 'I' to ''we', from aorist to present tense, and from autobiographical reminiscence to general philosophy. The passages before and after it are the same literary type and flow smoothly together. The passage that appears to be interpolated uses different vocabulary, 'solemn mystery language'. The ideas contradict other parts of Paul's letters.

I will go into more detail if anyone wants. But if this is an interpolation, it solves the problem of the inconsistency with Rom 13 (also a probable interpolation.) It also undercuts Doherty's idea that Paul had a proto-gnostic view of the crucifixion occurring in a sublunar plane, with Jesus executed by demons. We have no evidence that Paul knew or cared who crucified Jesus.

Amaleq13

Paul clearly sets human wisdom against God's wisdom but he also sets the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of the rulers of this age against God's wisdom. As Peter (in agreement with Doherty) has shown, scholars disagree whether the latter should be understood to refer to human wisdom or that of the demonic powers believed to rule the world.

"that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" (1Cor2:5-8, YLT)

Mathetes and Spin seem to suggest the phrase "this age" requires us to assume Paul is expanding the wisdom in question well beyond his fellow contemporary humans. It would seem that Paul (or whoever wrote the passage) is not just talking about the wisdom of currently living humans but, according to Doherty's interpretation of aiwn, he is also including all of recorded history. Understanding this to be a reference to human rulers ruins an apparent pattern of expansion in the statement. The author expands his consideration from the wisdom of men to the wisdom of this age then ends with a reference to the rulers. If the rulers are the demonic powers that ultimately controlled "this age" rather than human leaders, the author can be understood as continuing that expansion rather than strangely retreating from the expanded reference to "this age" to focus on a specific group of humans.

wisdom of humans --> wisdom of all recorded history --> wisdom of the demonic forces dominating it all

Regarding the claim that Paul never refers to the ignorance of the demonic forces, it would seem more relevant to consider whether he ever refers to their knowledge of the "hidden wisdom of God". It would make sense for Paul to assume that these demonic powers would have considerable knowledge of the world/age they controlled but I see no reason to assume he would believe they knew the "hidden wisdom of God".

I agree with Layman that interpreting this as a reference to demonic powers does not eliminate the possibility that Paul believed Jesus was killed by humans but it does eliminate it as a definitive argument against Doherty's theory. Once again, the ambiguity of the text fails to conclusively support the views of either side.

If Paul has an historical figure of the recent past in mind, why is he so consistently ambiguous in his references?

NOGO

Why is Rom 13 an interpolation?

GakuseiDon

I don't think Paul is that ambiguous, except in that one key phrase "rulers of this age". From the quotes supplied by Kirby, you can see that Paul uses the words "heavenly powers" elsewhere, so we can see that Paul could have referred to them if he wanted to.

So why hasn't Paul singled out Jewish or Roman authorities? Because he was a Jew writing to a Roman controlled region, and doing so may have opened up a can of worms, politically.

I suppose that you could argue that Paul should have written "earthly rulers", but that would assume that the group he was writing to didn't know itself who "the rulers" referred to.