Ted Hoffman

Look, we have been through this. Kirby's survey indicated as follows:
Scholars that support my interpretation
1. Conzelmann 2. W. J. P. Boyd 3. C. K. Barrett4. Paula Fredriksen5. Jean Hering6. Delling 7. S. G. F. Brandon. 8. Paul Ellingworth9. Thackeray 10. Schmiedel. 11. J. H. Charlesworth and *cough* 12. Earl Doherty.

Scholars that support your interpretation
1. M. Pesce 2. A. W. Carr 3. T. Ling 4. Archibald Robertson 5. Alfred Plummer 6. William Orr 7. James Walther 8. Gene Miller 9. Leon Morris.

I am afraid not. That is part of the interpolated passage.

Rick Sumner

I'll have to take that long-winded post that answers everything but my question to mean that you aren't aware of any.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

As indicated by your new brackets "likely" is a new addition. WIth that dropped, it is quite clearly referring to uses of the phrase that don't seem to exist. If you've since decided that what "You think" was wrong, then I suppose the issue is resolved.

The problem is one frequently run into when discussing ideas linked to the Jesus-Myth theory: Platonism becomes an ad hoc. Nobody seems to have read any Plato, but nobody has any problem appealing to him.

Regards
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

I think I was right.
Neo-platonism.
Tell that to Clement of Alexandria and his pupil Origen. Or tell it to Plotinus, who considered himself a student of Plato.

The fact is, the expression ton archonton tou aionos toutou and its variant archontes was used sometimes to refer to earthly kings and rulers while at the same time referred to spirit forces that ruled the lowest level of the heavenly world. In Hellenistic times, the latter meaning took hold and even Jews believed that calamities and other undesirable earthly phenomena were machinations of these sprit forces. In AoI, Isaiah believed that satan incarnated as a human being and went down to earth to spread lawlessness.

Doherty cites J. H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p.66:
I expect this phrase and thought to be found in neo-platonic writings and early Christian writings that had undergone hellenistic influence. And We do - in the works of Paul and so on (scholarly 'poll' above tells it all).

Ignatius in Smyrneans 6:1 uses archon in a spiritual sense. Marcion and Origen regarded the archotons as evil spiritual beings. Platonic thought had different kinds of being plus a layered universe (as opposed to the stoics and skeptics). That is why I would expect to find the expression in works of theologians with a platonic background. But I don't read greek so even though I am secure in my conjecture, I can't do much in the way of proving it (assuming that Origen is not enough).

Peter Kirby

It may please you to know that "Neo-platonism," a modern term, is used of that thought which begins with Plotinus (third century). Doherty refers to "middle platonism" in his book as the background first century Christianity.

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon

If you could prove it, then sure.

But for now, what we have are examples of HJers saying that "archons" killed Christ. So why can't Paul be saying it too? If you remove all assumptions of a MJ, you'll see that there is no reason to suppose otherwise, at least for that passage

I wouldn't mind sitting down with you and having a beer, under any circumstances, Ted! You're an interesting guy.

Ted Hoffman

I am happy to note. Thanks.

GDon,
"Proving" is a big word here. Scholars cannot agree. But in the other thread, I think you have to admit its quite odd that Paul never mentioned clear historical references regarding Jesus and that he was constrained to rely on the OT and divine revelation for info regarding Jesus...

Let me ask you: after all the discussions we have had here and elsewhere over the Jesus Myth theory, has your opinion regarding the theory shifted in any way in the past one year?

I mean, from the following section of your post, you give equal weight to either interpretation:
You are basically admitting that HJ/MJ assumption is what determines what archons means. Is that correct?

But the majority of scholars supporting a 'spiritual' interpretation, like Fredricksen, are HJ scholars. How do you explain that? Are you perhaps apprehensive that admitting a MJ interpretation will 'take away' a HJ from your paradigm thus forcing you to re-examine everything afresh?

No offense intended - just curious.

Rick Sumner

Then you should have no trouble finding a usage of the phrase in Platonic thought. Thus far, I've seen it nowhere save Christian writings. You can't say Christian usage was sourced by Platonic thought found only in Christian usage.

1) See above. 2) That they are familiar with Plato doesn't mean you are.

See above.

This is irrelevant. We want to see a usage of the phrase in Platonic writings.

Then, again, you should have no problem finding the phrase in neo-Platonic writings. Let me know when you have done so. Until then, all you've done is presupposed that it is there.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

My point was that Early Christian theologians/ apologists employed Platonic ideas (in terms of cosmogony and nature of being and matter) in their explanations of the nature of Christ and divinity. An example is Origen.

My point was not about the expression being found in "Platonic writings" but about writings of Christians and theologians who were familiar with, and appreciated the Platonic way of thought. Paul for example tells us in Philippians 2:6-11 that an unnamed god assumed human form. Paul also spoke of the sphere of the flesh (kata sarka). These are ideas that are consistent with the Platonic way of thought.

Yes, I strongly presuppose the phrase has been used in them. I would suggest we seek the phrase in them rather than in writings that have 'certainly' been influenced by a HJ gospel tradition. That is all.

Rick Sumner

[QUOTE=Ted Hoffman]

Kata sarka, as referring to the "sphere of the flesh" does not appear in any Platonic writing, to my knowledge. You can't take Barret's conclusion (sphere of the flesh) against Barret's premises (roughly equivalent semantic range).

If you would ignore the semantic range, you must come up with a new argument, and not simply follow Doherty in citing it incorrectly. An argument suggesting that it invariably has the same meaning. Otherwise, you run into a serious problem, as every usage of kata sarka relating to familial relations is, quite clearly, literal. All of them--from Paul, to Acts, to Clement.

And you didn't say that the "idea" was in them, you stated that the phrase was.

Then I'll dismiss your conclusion as nothing more than unevidenced imagination--a conclusion reached despite a lack of evidenced.

Regards,
Rick Sumner