krosero

I have to step in here because Ted, your making mischief out of nothing. I said that there was "wide debate" about Paul's exact meaning to make a safe claim, since saying that there was a small debate, or no substantial debate at all, would be a controversial claim in this thread. I had no idea that you would use it this way.

Someone familiar enough with scholars' positions about archontes in this passage could, if so inclined, argue the negative, i.e., only a few scholars are in disagreement with the majority with regard to this passage. I would not make that claim because I'd need far more familiarity with the topic to argue that negative. I have not contradicted Jeffrey in anything but an accidental way -- because I was, ironically enough, granting for the sake of argument your claim about the existence of some kind of controversy. Granting points for the sake of argument is standard practice when you want to make another point, which I was making about the way you laid out "facts." Then you chose to lay hold of some kind of phantom support for your position on my part.

But one good thing comes out of this: I now see that "wide disagreement" is too much of a claim to stand in as a fact; and I was trying to lay out only the facts. I should have stated, "There is disagreement about Paul's exact meaning." End of story.

Kevin Rosero

Ben C Smith

I do not have Brandon in front of me, nor have I been following that part of the debate closely enough to comment on possible motivation. Sorry.

Ben.

krosero

All these attacks of yours are coming because you’re don’t even realize what my argument is, or even realize when I have conceded points for the sake of argument. You think, for instance, that I’ve challenged your assertion that “several” scholars believe Paul is referring to spiritual powers working through human rulers, but if you look back, you’ll see that I was granting that your use of the word “several” was at least a weak acknowledgement on your part of the historicist position (in other words, you said that several scholars argued for a demon interpretation, which implies that several others do not, and that you honestly acknowledge this to be the case). I was trying there to acknowledge SOME good parts of your representation of facts.

You mention “critical scholars”, which is your way of arguing that whoever goes with your interpretation is critical, and whoever doesn’t is biased. But look at what I actually said: “[your] #2 [argument] does not lay out the fact that archontes can refer to human rulers (though I grant you that this is implied weakly by your use of the word "Several").” I was referring to the word in general and not making specific claims about this passage, still less about who was making those claims or whether they were critical scholars.

I have always granted for the sake of argument that Barrett, Fredriksen, Hering, Delling, Brandon and possibly others preferred to see Paul as speaking about spiritual powers working through human rulers. As Doherty notes, it was Ellingworth who reported that, "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here”. From this I inferred that other authors (whether critical or not) preferred to see Paul as speaking about human rulers alone. Hence I stated that there was disagreement along these lines.

So the irony is that most of what I know about the range of scholarly interpretations of this passage might very well come from Doherty, and that I’ve granted these scholars’ positions (and only challenged the implication, inadvertent or otherwise, that they excluded human agency) for the sake of argument, because I see the whole mythicist angle on “rulers of the age” as so unproductive – yet you have read me as somehow fighting for the strong claim that Paul meant only human rulers in this passage. I have always been an agnostic on this issue, and will remain so until I have time to turn to it.

For now I know that if there were direct evidence in the ancient world for archontes crucifying anyone in a heavenly realm, we would have heard about it by now. Moreover, if there were direct evidence that Paul could only have meant demons, we would know about it.

You often say that there is no proof and that we're all looking for the argument to the best explanation, but you certainly sound sometimes like you're brandishing direct evidence. When I asked you if you were claiming that archontes referred solely to demons, you said, as quoted above, “That is what the word means.” The Liddell Scott lexicon, as I know you know, reads:

So I read Paul, on the surface, as saying that Christ was crucified by “rulers, commanders, chiefs, kings” (one of whom, as noted by LSJ, could be Satan or presumably a demon).

You tell me that scholars should have just “simply stuck to what the word meant” rather than seeing earthly rulers as involved in any way (you called the latter nothing more than apologetics). But obviously the LSJ, and the rest of the ancient attestation of earthly archontes, are not apologetics. And you acknowledged elsewhere in your last post that “of course” there was ancient evidence for the earthly meaning of the word. If your position is that the “rulers of the age” can mean more than just the demons, and that we derive the meaning from the immediate context of the passage and the general context of every text pertaining to the question of Jesus' existence, then we’re in agreement and there is nothing more to say.

But feel free to offer your favored lexicon definition, or to repeat all that you and Earl have said so many times about context. I’ll be waiting for something new.

EarlDoherty

One of the reasons why I have been checking in every few days is because I know from experience that it only takes about that long for someone to be misrepresenting me, sometimes in glaring fashion.

On the question of my representation or misrepresentation of what scholars believe on the question of “rulers of this age”, I have noted x number of scholars who regard Paul’s “archontes” as referring to demon spirits. Rick and Ben accuse me of not making it clear to the (uninitiated) reader that such scholars still believe (even if they can’t show that Paul either says so or means so) that such demons were working through human rulers.

Well, even if I do not attach to the scholars I quote a disclaimer in capital letters that they really inhabit Rick’s “middle ground”, if you would simply read the following paragraph which comes right after my quoting of Brandon, I think even the uninitiated reader would take from it what I am accused of deliberately leaving out:

However, Brandon (like everyone else) fails to address the question of how Paul could have spoken in such terms if he had the tradition of Jesus' recent death in Judea before his eyes, providing not so much as a hint of qualification to this supernatural picture. 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. 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.

(This is from the website, supp. Article No. 3. The paragraph in The Jesus Puzzle, p.102) is virtually word for word, except for the addition at the very end of: “or in the case of John, retires into the distant, allusive background.”)

And I can’t believe it (or maybe I can) all this fuss over my quote of Van Voorst. This is equivalent to the proverbial theological exercise of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! I still don’t see Ben’s point (and believe me, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, although I thank Gerard for his defense). I quoted Van Voorst accurately: “Moreover, we should not expect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature, which was not written for primarily historical purposes.” Leaving aside the “exact” which is simply Van Voorst throwing up smoke (since we don’t get historical references at all, exact or otherwise), here’s how I parse this statement:

In answer to the Argument from Silence, VV is saying: “We don’t find historical references in early Christian literature…” Why? Because: “We should not expect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature…” Why? Because: “It was not written for primarily historical purposes.” If the final statement is to have any meaning, let alone serve to argue VV’s point, it has to imply “writings not written for primarily historical purposes [as VV has styled them] should not be expected to supply historical references.” That’s all. Ben introduced the nicety involving the word “only”, not me, a nicety which is totally irrelevant and again, is akin to the proverbial theological hair-splitting. VV is saying: “The early Christian literature is not written for primarily historical purposes and therefore we should not expect it to supply historical references.” That is how any normal reader would take VV’s point and my understanding of it. I dispute that statement, not on any grounds as to what other writings, or writings in general, should be expected to contain, but whether VV’s way of presenting it, and the counter-argument he thinks he is presenting, is valid. This is a good example of why I don’t bother with so much of what is posted here against me, or against the mythicist case in general. It is a good example of exactly what VV was doing, failing to address the main issue involved and seizing on insignificant, irrelevant or simply misunderstood details or claims, and thinking that these are going to do the job, if you make enough noise with them.

I am reminded of a picture in my World War II book of two German soldiers at the battle of Kirsk in 1943, when the German army was in retreat in Russia after the debacle at Stalingrad. They are infantry attached to German tanks in the battle and they are jumping up and down and hugging each other because the tank beside them just scored a hit on a Russian M-34 in the distance. Putting that picture in context, the Germans suffered a crushing defeat, had the vast majority of their own tanks in Russia destroyed at Kirsk, a campaign that was a major step on their rout from Russia which eventually ended at Berlin in total destruction of the German army. Get real, guys! If you’re going to spend a whole thread page arguing something, make it about something significant, preferably the real issue at hand.

Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

With emphasis added:

If you're going to spend half of your post responding to someone, make it to the person whose argument is at stake.

I haven't said a word on the matter.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jgibson000

But, curiously, most of the scholars you speak of as taking take Paul's ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 as referring to "demon" spirits (let alone to "evil spiritual beings" as you actually claim is the referent of ARCHONTES with which these scholars have felt "constrained to agree") do not do what you say they do.

Hering certainly does not. Nor does Barrett (see p. 70 of his Commentrary). Nor does Ellingworth/Hatton. Nor does Delling. And it is highly questionable that Brandon does.

So even apart from the question of whether to be fair to them you had to show that they also believe that ARCONTES used human agents, you have misrepresented them. You have presented them as saying something they do not say


Four questions, then.

1. Whether it was deliberate or not, why then did you leave out the material in works of the scholars you quote (and always within the very section of their works you do quote) that shows they are not saying what they appear to be saying given the way you quote them and the context in which you have placed your quotes?

2. Who has suggested that "since earthly rulers are considered to be controlled by heavenly ones, the latter are seen as operating "through" the former"? If no one, then isn't your stement not only a red hering, but an equivocation?

3. Is the issue really what can be deduced about "heavenly rulers" from what is said about earthly ones? Isn't it what can be deduced from what is said about "spiritual" ARCONTES in literature in which ARCONTES as viewed spiritual beings and the fact that they are never spoken of as acting in the way that ARCONTES are said to act in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 apart from human agency and through human instruments.

Haven't you go the whole thing bass akwards?

And if so -- that is to say, if you have got the issue wrong in what you write above -- is it really the case that in reading your "disclaimer" any reader, let alone the "uninitiated (:huh one", would take from it both (1) that you were there not "denying", but rather were affirming, if only implicitly, "that these scholars also have in mind that the demons are working through earthly rulers, and (2) that in what you wrote above it was perfectly cleat, if not self evident, that you were not claiming that Ellingworth, Herring, Brandon, etc, support you on the matter of demons and not humans being the "direct crucifiers" of Jesus?

4. Why will it "not do" to say (let alone "suggest") that "since earthly rulers are considered to be controlled by heavenly ones, the latter are seen as operating "through" the former -- especially if part of the mental furniture that was always within the house of the concept of ARCHONTES = unearthly pweres was that they never acted as they are purportedly said to act in 1 Cor 2:6-8 apart from and without using human agents, and that earthly rulers were controlled by heavenly ones??

You have yet to produce any evidence whatsoever, your claims that it can be found in the Ascension of Isaiah notwithsanding, that the idea that ARCHONTES (which are otherwise never spoken of in Jewish literature as "spiritual beings" until the second century) as acting apart from human agency was not the default assumption about how they carried ouit their will when they act as they are purportedly said to act in 1 Cor 2:5-9. And if it was the default assumption, why would Paul have to explicate it in any way to make the point that the ARCONTES he refers to crucified Jesus on earth through human hands?

How you know the mind of Paul, and what he would have been likely to do or not do, especially when he is using terms the meaning of which was already known, is beyond me.

It does, does it? I suppose Luke's specific construction of his Gospel to show that the crucifixion is the time and place when the devil found the "opportune time" to continue his assaults on Jesus that he had begun in the wilderness indicates no awareness on Luke's part of how much the Devil stood behind the crucifixion of Jesus by earthly rulers

And should we believe -- despite what J.M. Robinson, Ernest Best, and others have shown about how much a belief in a Satanic hand in the destuction of Jesus plays out in Mark's conflict stores, in the rejection on the part of the disciples of the way that leads to the cross, and in causing the particular "bindness and obtuseness" and hard heartedness on the part of the religious and political establishement that joins them together and leads to the collusion that brings about Jesus' execution -- that in Mark the heavenly dimension idea has "completely disappeared"?

Sheesh.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Even if Morris has done what you say he's done, are you saying that Morris was the cause of what others have done? If not, is what Morris allgedly has done Morris representative of what the others allegedly did? If so, perhaps I should judge all Kenyans based upon your behaviour.

Who said anything about eager? I came to my conclusion on the basis of the method you used -- and therefore proclaimed as legitmate -- to determine the reason people acted the way they did (i.e. judge their intentions based on the results of their acts). Are you saying your methodology is flawed?

Jeffrey Gibson

EarlDoherty

I hope I will not confuse anyone by following up on my earlier message a few posts above, but putting it on a different thread (on my "Refutations" article), since the point I wanted to follow up on related to that thread, and not this one.

Earl Doherty

jgibson000

Are you absolutely certain that Earl has reproduced the quote accurately? Yes or no.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Leaving aside the fact that a number of them have already been cited (among whom were, curiously, at least two whom you authoritatively and apodictically claimed were supporters of the "demons" interpretation!), I'll be happy to give you a list of these scholars.

However, seeing as you set the rules in this game when you

(1) noted that it was my responsibility to produce the bibliographical data on where their discourse on ARCONTES was to be found, and

(2) demanded, as you did, that I deal comprehensively with these scholars by producing the text of this discourse when you produced your list of scholars who allegedly held to the "demons" interpretation,

that it's the one who receives the list who has the responsibility and the obligation to "deal comprehensively" with the names on the list and produce full and exact quotations of what these scholars actually say and the proper biblographical data vis a vis where what they say can be found,

I will agree to do so only if you agree that upon my doing so, you will then produce in a timely fashion (1) full and exact quotations of what these scholars actually say and (2) the proper biblographical data vis a vis where what they say can be found.

Fair is fair.

Jeffrey Gibson