TedM

No, I'm curious as to what Jake finds to be the top 2 or 3 reasons for believing that Paul's epistles being 2nd century forgeries. I think it is simpler to analyze an argument when it is stated in detail. Stating a generic conclusion based on many details (ie, something such as "the LXX is used to create NT history") isn't very helpful because it usually is full of arguments with different degrees of likelihood.

ted

Toto

Top reason for believing Paul's letters were 2nd c. forgeries: there is no record of them before the second century, when Marcion conveniently produced them to bolster his own position. There are no references to them or Paul before the second century.

Another top reason: the Gnostic ideas in Paul's letters that are more a part of the second century than the first.

Detering's article here is a good summary of slightly more complex reasons, including literay and historical references.

TedM

Thanks Toto.

Vorkosigan

I would, Jeff, if your objection was relevant to the mythicist case. But unfortunately not only is it irrelevant, it doesn't even understand the claim that Doherty-style mythicism is making. Further, it incorporates historicist assumptions about the way the texts work. Your claim here:

• "The only issue that really matters is whether there are any instances of any ancient author who uses either ARCWN or ARCHONTES of supernatural beings and who describes them as acting or carrying out their designs, which show that anyone in or before the 1st century time ever thought of these powers as doing so without human instruments or by means of human agency."

Archons inhabited some other reality in which they most definitely had power to work on events in that reality. They did not require a human agent when they weren't working on earth.. Doherty's claim is that Jesus wasn't executed on earth, but in one of the celestial spheres between earth and heaven, in a realm where the archons had the power to order events.

Your "challenge" assumes the historicist case -- namely, that the events described in Paul happened on earth and that ARCONTES therefore must be interpreted as referring to events that happened through human agents. If that was the claim, why you might have a case. When archons attempt to order events on earth they worked through human agents. But Doherty's whole point is that these events didn't happen on earth. So your argument turns out to be a test of nothing.

Further, it assumes a certain context -- other Greek writings -- for the way we should think about ARCONTES. But of course the proper context of Paul is Paul himself. If Paul writes 59 times about the crucifixion and never mentions that it took place in Judea, then the 60th time is governed by the first 59 times he mentions Jesus' death, not by what some other author wrote. What is going on here is analogous to venue-shopping in the legal system, where a lawyer looks for a friendly venue. Here you have gone context-shopping for a context that supports the historicist case, while ignoring the local context of the text itself: Paul's own writing.

Vorkosigan

jgibson000

Well, let's note that your argument about non mention of the place can be used to disprove your case. Since Paul never states in 59 out of the 60 times he mentions the crucifixion that it took place in a non eartly realm, then to assume that he does in the 60th time is also unwarrented, and is a conclusion whose truth can be asserted only by assuming in advance, and without warrant, the truth of mythicist claim.

But be that as it may, the issue isn't about what, if anything, can be made from the fact that Paul repudtedly does anywhere mention a locale for the crucifixion (which by the way is true in 1 Cor 2:8 as well). It's what he means by the term he uses in 1 Cor 2:8 for the perpetrators of the crucifixion. And saying that this can be determined by what can be made of the non mention of the locale of the crucifixion outside of 1 the mention of that event in 1 Cor 2:8 is as untrue. Tbe only thing that is relevenat fordetremining the meaning of this term is to examine how the term was used.

Oh please. The only context I have been casting about in is the context of the Hellenistic usage of ARCONTES. I have not done this with any conclusions made in advance, or any presumtions derived from the hisrtoricists persepctive, of what it must mean, and I am open to the possibility that Hellenistic authors could have envisiaged ARCONTES, when they thought about how ARCONTES carried out their designs, as doing so without human agency. The question I have been asking -- and am asking evidence for -- is did they? I have based my conclusions that they did not on what they actually say, not what I want them to say. And I really resent your suggestion that I have done otherwise.

Now as to your claim the only context we should be looking at is Paul's own writings, let me note that Paul didn't write in a vacuum. Nor was he using a special language that was his alone and no one elses'. He was using the language that he learned from others, a langauge that was spoken also by those to whom he wrote. So the notion that we shouldn't look to a larger context, let alone the context of Greek usage, to determine the meaning or the semantic range of the words that Paul uses is, as any linguist will note, nonsense.

But let's accept your restricted criterion that Paul's context is only Paul (leaving aside the question of how we'd determine the meaning of word that Paul only uses once) and that what Paul means by ARCONTES in 1 Cor. 2:8 is soley to be determined by his usage of that term elswehere.

I note then that on your criterion, we must conclude that Paul cannot possibly mean "spiritual authorities", but on the contrary must mean "human authorities", for "human authorities" is indisputably the meaning it bears in every other of the instances in which he uses it.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

Vork, daemons inhabited the air. There was no "other reality". This is a modern idea that you are imposing on the text. Paul's "archon of the powers of the air" was called that because daemons lived in the air.

Gods lived above the firmament, but not daemons. What evidence do you have that they lived in another reality? WHY do you even think that?

There IS no celestial sphere between the earth and heaven. This is from Ted Hoffman:

Carrier has noted that the "sublunary sphere" was a catch-all phrase referring to the realm of the earth, everything below the orbit of the moon... Per Aristotelian cosmogony, the purpose of the spheres was to rotate and hold the planetary bodies. There being no body between the earth an the moon, the ancients would have had no reason to believe there was another sphere between these two bodies.

mikem

I've studied Plato. He says nothing about crucifixion.

Vorkosigan

Then the same argument applies to your arguments about ARCONTES, Jeff. Only I'm on safer ground -- a man who says that the crucifixion happened in another sphere of reality in several places, and who never mentions it took place on earth, probably does not mean it in that place either.

Yes. Apparently he means Jesus was killed in another sphere of reality.

Your claim is that the term ARCONTES implies human agents, which in turn implies action on earth (unless you are making the novel claim that those humans acted in another sphere of reality). Hence, Paul's lack of reference to location in every other reference to the crucifixion is VERY relevant. Whoever wrote the authentic epistles of Paul has no concept of an earthly death of Jesus.

Jeff, that usage is not relevant here, as your argument refers entirely to those usages that took place on earth. Hence, as I noted, it is not only irrelevant but completely misunderstands Doherty's claims. The reference to context shopping is a reference to the way your thought on the problem is shaped by the way historicists view the data in Paul. It is not a slur on your personal integrity, but a point about social shaping effects.

Hey no shit. So let's look at the other Christian epistles -- because that is where Paul derived his terminology, and that is who he was talking to. And lo and behold, there is no earthly crucifixion there.

Nice twist! I didn't say that Paul's use of ARCONTES was determined by the use of that term elsewhere in Paul. I pointed to other references in Paul to refer to the death of Jesus. In no other reference in Paul is an earthly death for Jesus posited. Hence, there is not one here either. It is perfectly possible that meanings for words will vary across the internal context of the letters....so we look at the event being referred to -- words after all have more than one meaning.

Nice try, though. It is perfectly possible that Paul refers to earthly rulers in one spot and heavenly archons in others -- because the context within Paul is different for those remarks. The context in question is that of Jesus' death, which is never referred to as an earthly event in Paul. Or in the other early epistles. Both the Pauline context and the early Christian context clearly affirm that Paul's use is non-earthly.

We know that when archons acted on earth, they acted through human agents. But Doherty's claim is that they weren't acting on earth -- hence your whole argument collapses (a point implicitly confirmed by your abandonment of it). Please supply relevant context from Paul that shows he thought the events of Jesus' death occurred on earth.

As you would say, I will be waiting.

Michael

TedM

If I might jump in, normally when a person is described as having descended from a specific earthling, having been born of a woman, into a known earthly culture, having bled, suffered, and died on an earthly object and in a city found on earth, and then buried, it is assumed that the person died on earth and not somewhere else. Especially if he never alludes to it happening elsewhere.

This is how Paul described Jesus. Citations found here http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...op20/id24.html

ted

GakuseiDon

Vork, where does Paul say that the crucifixion happened in another sphere of reality? And what sphere of reality are you talking about? "Another sphere of reality" is a modern concept that you are imposing on Paul. If you mean the sub-lunar realm, then keep in mind that this includes the earth.

I think that Doherty has conceded on the concept of "demons operating in another sphere of reality". In fact, I'll start another thread on this.