Solo

Same here. This verse has been always very interesting to me ...en morphe theou huparchon ouk harpagmon hegesato... why ''harpagmos" ? one of my tentative readings of this "robbery" bit is that is a shot at the gnostics who think they know God while down here on earth. I have some other hunches about this verse, and I wonder if they are the same ones as those who read Greek better than I had when deciding it would be safer to excise it from the RSV.

What's your feel ?

Paul, I believe, was the one who made the phenom of Jesus unique, and pioneered the idea among the gnostics (some of whom were evidently celebrated as Jesus' honorary brothers), that the gnosis was all for naught if it ended up as a childish view of the world. By John's time this tactic of Paul became the grand strategy of the Church. The old gnostic/Jewish mystic belief in equal access (or near that) to the supernatural and in a technique that could get mortals ascend to heaven and get back (descend) with immunity against death was fast being replaced. In the Johannine gnosis, only one did descend from heaven, and only one ascended. The best you, a mortal human, can be to that, is a martyr.

Jiri

jgibson000

Since it wasn't what Stephen said, I don't know how I can ignore it

I am quite aware of that. But even leaving aside that Jake was speaking of a dress and not a skirt (let alone a kilt or a sarong or some version of a CITWN), that it was not Jake's intent to call me a Scotsman/Paicfic Islander, etc. etc..

Interesting that you should say this, since what I employed when I said "well, slap a dress on me and call me ..., etc" was an "artistic expression" (albeit a variation on one -- see http://www.newsreview.com/reno/Content?oid=oid%3A17468).

On top of that, the name I used in that expression was Dora, not Dorothy. So, leaving aside the question of whether you are the one who is tone deaf to artistic expression, it seems certain given this and your apparent inability to read correctly the sources you have been citing, that you are somewhat blind when it comes to viewing correctly what people actually write.

Now, can we get back not only (a) to the issues of (1) whether your claim that the authorities you have cited as ones who assert that ARCONTES in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 = "demons" is correct and (2) why showing what the authorities you have cited as believing that ARCONTES in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 = "demons" is my job and not yours, but (b) to the question that, notably, you've continually left unanswered, even though it's been put to you several times, of what a belief on the part of the ancients that ARCONTES/demons never acted in the manner in which the are said to act in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 without or apart from human agents, would do to the claims of MJers re Paul's view of who Jesus was and where the crucixion took place?

Jeffrey Gibson

jakejonesiv

Hi Bede,

Thanks for the reply on the Bible translations.

Of course, I understand that you are busy.

I will make the other question simple, and I would like to get your opinion.

IYO, did Paul believe in Christ's pre-existence?

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

As much as I love relentlessly pedantic quibbles about a joke*, I would prefer that this discussion be kept alive by the participants choosing to avoid childish bickering in order to focus on the evidence relevant to the argument.

That would be just swell and I thank you all in advance,


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator


*I believe Jake's comment, rather than an accusation of some sort of transgender issue, was pointing out that one could not know whether or not to use "Dora" unless one was first informed as to whether the individual was, in fact, wearing a dress.

Toto

Could you be more specific? You refer to a supplemental page. I can't find any indication that 4:4 is central to Doherty's case for a MJ.

Rick Sumner

It is, I suppose, a testament to the PC revolution that you missed a metaphor that even ten years ago would have been readily apparent. It was a comparison was to a collage, not an allusion to "cut" and "paste" features of many software applications.

And the fault is not that you failed to reproduce Kirby's words, it's that you failed to attribute it to him. You clearly don't have access to Moore's book, so why are you quoting it as though you do? If you're going to quote a book as cited by someone else, it should be mentioned as such, firstly, because if Peter has misrepresented or misquoted Moore, it should be him who owns that (in this instance, he hasn't, but you had no way of knowing that without checking the reference). Secondly because taking both a citation and application of a third work from another's work without due attribution borders dangerously on plagiarism. This is somewhat grayer here, since the application of it is explicit in the quote, which is why I note only that it borders on it. There are certainly other instances where the same approach would fall squarely within the charge of plagiarism-- I would not, for an example you might better relate to, present Doherty's application of Barrett on kata sarka without attribution to Doherty. Thirdly, because it gives the false impression that you were familiar with the book in question--including it in your argument carries with it implicit agreement to defend the citation if challenged, which is something you could not do, unless you intended to do so disingenuously.

Finally, what taking such quotes as support for your argument amounts to is both the point of the metaphor and the fault of the approach. Without having checked the reference, without being able to contextualize it, presenting it amounts, in essence, to proof-texting. It's a specious methodology and bad habit to get in to. Best to head it off at the pass, lest you find yourself in more serious trouble with such an approach next time.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jgibson000

OK. So, if not Kirby's notes, what was/were the source(s) for the list of scholars and authorities whom you've claimed as asserting that Paul believed that ARCONTES he mentions in 1 Cor. 2:6-9 are "demons"?

It's obvious (and you yourself have so much as said with respect to a number of them) that for many -- if not most of your citations, it's not the actual works themselves.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me, as you should have done, with the actual text of Brandon and not a second hand and incomplete summary of what he reputedly has said.

How so? Doesn't their taking this nullify the notion which is vital to the MJ claim that Paul did not believe that the crucifixion of Jesus did not take place on earth and at a very specific time in human historty? If not, why not?

Leaving aside the question of whether Marcion actually believed that it was solely demonic powers that were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion, let alone that he believed that the crucifixion did not take place on earth and at a specific time (a point you've yet to establish), we still don't know for certain (and cannot know without having before us the actual, and not Earl's version of the, words of Brandon on 1 Cor 2:6-8) whether he can, as you claim, be adduced as a supporter of the idea that ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 = "demons".

So are you going to produce his exact words or not? After all you should be able to since you are the one who claims confidently to know exactly what he has said on the matter. How could you do this unless you read him?

Can you demonstratre this claim? So far as I can see, when the matter of the referent of ARCONTES is discussed by anyone other than an already commited MJer, the issue of whether there was an HJ or not never enters into it What is appealed to and brought forward as evidence for the conclusions reached is solely lexical and wholly other considerations.

:huh:

again :huh:

I haven't? I would argue that I am the only one here who is comprehensively addressing the references you've given (even though it's not my job to do so) What else can all that I've set out on Thackeray or Ignatius or Charlesworth or Origen or Robertson & Plummer (and now, see below, on Hering) , be called except that?

And where can we find your "comprehensive" addressing of the issues on ARCONTES raised by Thackerary or Schmiedel or Robertson & Plummer or Brandon or Barrett or Ignatius, etc. whose works you've referenced but don't seem to be able to actually cite/quote?

You are welcome. And thanks you for once again not admitting (1)that you (and Earl) were absolutely wrong to cite him as someone who thinks that the ARCONTES in 1 Cor . 2:6-9 are "demons" and (2) that you hadn't actually read him.

Now while I'm waiting for you to provide me with the actual passage from Brandon that you cite, I think it's worthwhile to see if your (and Earl's) claims about what Hering says on the matter of ARCONTES in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 are correct.

Here (with some contextualizing material) are Earl's remarks on Hering:

And you have aped him in this on any number of occasions.

But what does Herring actually say? Well, let's see, shall we?

Here is a scan of what appears on pp. 16ff of his commentary on 1 Cor.. Materials in italics his footnotes to sentence that they follow

2 7-6 gives us a glimpse of this instruction which was reserved for 'adults'.' To understand these verses we must first ask who are the ‘rulers of this age' ('hoi archontes tou aiwnos toutou'). With Origen [De principiis, 111.3.2 MPG XI, col. 315 AB; cf. Contra Celsum, VIU, Ch. 5] and Theodore of Mopsuestia [Archontas de tou aidnos toutou legei de tas pono!ras dunameis. Ei de houtoi ignoesan, poIlw mallwn oi anthropoi di' wn oi daimones ton kurion estauriwsan.' (He [Paul] calls the evil powers 'archontas'. If these themselves were ignorant how much more were also the men by the intermediary of whom the demons crucified the Lord.) (emphasis mine] and in contradistinction to Chrysostom [MPG LXI, col. 55], we think that this expression must be linked with 'archiwn tou kosmou toutou' (Jn 12:13, 14:30, 16:11), where there is no question that supernatural powers are meant. If this is so, there is then here no reference to Pontius Pilate or the Roman emperors, but to powers of the invisible world. This seems to be supported by:

(a) the parallel text of Colossians 215, where Christ triumphs by the Cross over hostile powers, called 'archai kai exousiai'; as wellas by Romans 8:38, where the 'archai' (along with other supernatural powers) are mentioned as being likely to hinder the work of Redemption;

(b) the fact that the Roman Empire was looked upon by the Apostle as a providential and beneficent power (Rom 13:1-7);

(c) possibly also by the use of the verb 'katargein' (2:6), which is sometimes a technical astrological term for the nullifying of an astral influence by a superior power [Cf. Reizenstien Poimandres (Leipzig, 1904), p. 353].

(d) the fact that they diffuse a wisdom, i.e. teaching, which is in no way characteristic of the political powers.

We are concerned, then, with astral powers, directly related to the 'stoicheia' = 'the elements' of Galatians. [ (though) the supernatural character of the 'exousiai' does not prevent them making use of the political powers, without the latter necessarily being conscious of the fact; on this see 0. CULLMANN, Kdnigsherrschafit Christi und Kirche int N.T., pp. 44-8 (in Theologische Studien, ed. K. BARTH, No. 10, 1941). A French edition of this work appeared as Cahier Biblique of 'Foi et Vie' in 1941)].

There is nothing to show that the Apostle ranked these among the beings which were evil by nature, like the 'daimones' of 10:20-22 or like Satan or Beliar. (emphasis mine] All we are told is that they were opposed to the Gospel. But they would not have been, had they possessed divine wisdom. For in such a case, they would have known that it was not in their own interests to crucify the Lord, since his death struck a terrible blow at their rule (Col 211).

So .. what's the verdict on whether you and Earl have represented accurately and faithfully whar Herring says about the ARCONTES spoken of in 1 Cor. 2:6-8?

It is entirely negative.

Not only does he explicity deny that these ARCONTES are "demons". He also notes (as, interestingly, Theodore does as well), that they carried out the crucifixion of Jesus on earth through human instruments.

Why is it, do you think, that Earl didn't tell us this and that you were unaware of it?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Again, it is Dorherty's case that [B]Paul belived in an MJ[/B] that I'm, and have from the start of this thread been, talking about.

And I'm very puzzled that you can't find where and how he uses Galatians 4:4 as a major piece of evidence for that claim.

Here's the section in which he does this:

*******

Born of Woman

The second Pauline passage most often appealed to in support of Paul’s knowledge of an historical Jesus is Galatians 4:4-5.

. . .God sent his own Son, born of woman, born under the Law (literally, becoming or arising out of woman / the law) to purchase freedom for the subjects of the law, in order that we might attain the status of sons.

This passage, too, with the verses that come after it, does not have to be read as it always has been. It needs a closer examination.

First, let’s detach and look at the principal phrase, “God sent his own Son.” There is no problem in taking this in the sense of the present-day revelation of the spiritual Christ by God to apostles like Paul. This is borne out by verse 6, which says that “God has sent (exactly the same verb) into our hearts the spirit of his Son. . . .” This is hardly the coming of the historical Jesus of Nazareth into the world, but the arrival of the spiritual Christ in the current phenomenon of divine revelation.

Verse 7 piles the evidence of Paul’s meaning even higher: “You are therefore no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then also by God’s own act an heir.” If Paul had had the acts of an historical Jesus in mind when he spoke of freedom and attaining the status of sons (verse 5), why does he now revert to calling such things the result of an act of God? If, however, he has in mind the revelation of the Son and his acts in the spiritual realm, the idea of the agency of God becomes fully intelligible. And Paul continues his characteristic focus on God in verses 8 and 9.

Further, in the Greek of verse 5, the subject of the verb “purchase freedom” (literally, redeem) remains God. In other words, Paul has introduced Jesus into the present period, but he has failed to follow through by expressly having him do the redeeming while he is here! Again, if Jesus is only being revealed in the present time, God’s role remains primary.

Finally, the two qualifying phrases, “born of woman, born under the Law,” are descriptive of this Son, but not necessarily tied to the present “sending.” The International Critical Commentary (Burton, Galatians, p.216f), points out that the way the verb and participle tenses are used in the Greek, the birth and subjection to the law are presented as simple facts, with no necessary temporal relation to the main verb “sent.” In other words, the conditions of being “born of woman” and being “made subject to the law” (Burton's preferred meaning) do not have to be seen as things that have occurred in the present. Paul has simply enumerated two of the characteristics of the spiritual Christ which are revelant to the issues under discussion. (There are those who maintain that these two qualifying phrases may be later redactions, which is always possible.)

Burton also notes that the word usually translated as “born” (genomenon) is not the most unambiguous verb to use for this concept; a form of gennaō, to give birth, would have been more straightforward. Instead, Paul uses a form of ginomai, which has a broader meaning of “to become, to come into existence.” “Out of woman,” of course, implies birth, but the point is, the broader concept lends itself better to the atmosphere of myth, if that is what Paul has in mind. And his “born of woman” is not only something that was said of certain mythical savior gods, like Dionysos (and various other products of Zeus’ mythical dallyings), it is a detail he could well have based not on history, but on the source he uses for all he says about the Son: the Jewish scriptures. The famous passage in Isaiah 7:14,

A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. . .

was taken by Jew and early Christian alike to refer to the Messiah. Paul links this idea with Jesus being “subject to the law.” The latter was a paradigmatic feature which Christ had to possess, so that he could stand in parallel with those whom Paul is addressing, those who had themselves been “subject to the law”—until Christ abrogated it in this new age of revelation and faith.

Again, as in the Romans 1 passage, if Isaiah referred to the Messiah as “born of woman,” Paul would have concluded that in some way there must have been a spiritual world archetypal process to which this scriptural passage pointed. There would have been little difficulty in accepting this, given the overriding philosophy of the day which saw all things on earth as counterpart copies of primary manifestations in the higher spiritual realm. And as the mythical stories of all savior gods contained human-like features, including “births” from women, such a characteristic of the spiritual Christ would not have seemed out of place.

A glance back to the sentiments of Galatians 3 should confirm that, however Paul saw Christ as “born of woman, born under the law,” he didn’t see him as arriving in the present time through that “birth.” The key verses are 3:23 and 25:

Before this faith came, we were close prisoners in the custody of the law, pending the revelation of faith . . . Now that faith has come, the tutor’s charge is at an end.

Clearly, the present event of salvation history is not the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whose life and death are once again missing from the picture. Rather, it is the arrival of faith in the response to the missionary movement represented by inspired apostles like Paul. Here Paul is consistent with the way he expresses himself in many other places.

As for the intermediate verse 24 (the lacuna in the quote above), the New English Bible translates it as “the law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come,” which illustrates the tendency to read Gospel preconceptions into the epistles. But an alternate translation is provided in a footnote: “a kind of tutor to conduct us to Christ.” This reflects the simple Greek words “eis Christon” (to Christ). Thus we can easily arrive at the meaning “leading us to faith in Christ” or to his revelation, or to the time of such things.

Earlier, in verse 19, Paul speaks of “the arrival of the ‘seed’ to whom the promise was made.” Since Paul has just defined this “seed” as Christ himself, some claim that this is a clear reference to the arrival of Jesus in the historical sense. But they overlook the fact that such a definition was made in order to link the gentiles to Abraham through Christ, so it is the present-day believing gentile who can be in mind here. Besides, it would be awkward to say that it is to Christ that “the promise was made.” In any event, the case has already been made that when early Christians speak of Christ “coming,” this can readily be taken in a spiritual sense.

****

Jeffrey

Toto

Doherty's case that Paul and other early Christians believed in a mythical Jesus is presented in his book, and is based on the totality of the evidence and lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. I still fail to see that 4:4 is central or vital to his case. It is more a problem for his case, that he has to work around one way or another.

Toto

As a matter of courtesy, it is best that you address people as they ask to be addressed, especially if they make a point of it.