GakuseiDon

Ignatius, Origen and Marcion all believed in a Jesus who walked this earth. If they, like Paul, believed that archons meant spiritual beings yet still believed in a HJ, doesn't this suggest that Paul also did? Or, if they got Paul wrong, why is what they believed relevent?

Isaiah has lots of HJ details as well as mystical ones. Note how he says:
7:10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth.

Check Chap 11, where Isaiah talks about Mary, Joseph, the Virgin Birth, etc, and compare what you quoted above (about Satan and demons crucifying Jesus), and you can see how Isaiah is describing events on Earth and the similarities in Heaven:

18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.

19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).

20. In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:

21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days.

As I said, compare that with what you quoted.

Lots of other historical details. Again, compare with what you quoted, esp "likeness of man" clearly being identified as someone being on Earth. In Chap 3:

... the going forth of the Beloved from the seventh heaven had been made known, and His transformation and His descent and the likeness into which He should be transformed (that is) the likeness of man, and the persecution wherewith he should be persecuted, and the torturers wherewith the children of Israel should torture Him, and the coming of His twelve disciples, and the teaching, and that He should before the sabbath be crucified upon the tree, and should be crucified together with wicked men, and that He should be buried in the sepulchre...

17. And the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will come forth and send out His twelve disciples;

18. And they will teach all the nations and every tongue of the resurrection of the Beloved, and those who believe in His cross will be saved, and in His ascension into the seventh heaven whence He came:

19. And that many who believe in Him will speak through the Holy Spirit...

"Isaiah" speaks of parables regarding visions of the Lord in the OT Isaiah. The author seems to be trying to convey the same mystical style of that book. But he certainly ties it into a Gospel Jesus. What does Doherty say about those parts of the AoI?

Nonsense. Do you even read this stuff?

This is 7:9-12:
9. And we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and the angels of Satan were envying one another.

10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here ont he earth.

11. And I said unto the angel (who was with me): "(What is this war and) what is this envying?"

12. And he said unto me: "So has it been since this world was made until now, and this war (will continue) till He, whom thou shalt see will come and destroy him."

Nothing about Christ being crucified. The fighting was between the angels of Satan "envying one another". Was Christ one of these? In fact, Isaiah places the crucifixion on Earth, and the ones who do it are the Jews, under the influence of Satan. Read the end of Chap 1, then Chap 2, you can see that Isaiah spends a LOT of time talking about how various Jews "served Satan and his angels and his powers", including Sammael.

(Ed) Read some on the history of AoI. Sounds like the original core was possibly Jewish, with Christian additions, dating well into the 2nd C CE. But how does Doherty work out which were the original sections, and which were the interpolations? What is his methodology? What does he date the various parts to?

(Ed) Interesting article at jewishencyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=263&letter=I
So, the historical aspects were 1st C CE? Or just the historical stuff is 2nd C CE?

Interesting also that the article has the "seven heavens" as being a Jewish idea.

Amaleq13

Not at all since there is no necessary connection between the two concepts and we have nothing in Paul similar to the explicit historical references made by the others. That they shared certain specific beliefs with Paul does not make it reasonable to retroject their other beliefs onto him.

At best (from your standpoint), this evidence precludes JM proponents from claiming that an expressed belief that Jesus was killed by spiritual beings requires a mythical Jesus.

AFAIK, he describes no specific methodology.

"This is a difficult document to analyze in any exact fashion, since the several surviving manuscripts differ considerably in wording, phrases and even whole sections. It has been subjected to much editing in a complicated and uncertain pattern of revision. But a couple of passages seem to indicate that in its earlier strata, the Vision speaks of a divine Son who operates entirely in the supernatural realm." (The Jesus Puzzle, p106)

GakuseiDon

Yes, I agree. That's why I wondered why JA brought this up. The AoI also has Christ being killed by spiritual forces, yet pins the crime on the Jews operating under the influence of demons. Even if AoI is a heavily redacted letter, the final form shows that the idea wasn't incompatible with the HJers of that time.

Thanks for that, Amaleq. From the jewishencylopedia article I linked to earlier, the earliest strata has Isaiah raising to the 7th Heaven to meet Enoch, Abel and God, and nothing about a Divine Son. But without Doherty giving his reasoning, it is hard to argue.

Ted Hoffman

You missed the point. It was the usage of the word archons - their beliefs are irrelevant.
Missed the point.

AoI provides us with the region where Isaiah saw satan warring with his 'angels', first heaven, second heaven, seventh heaven, firmament etc, are only referenced to support the idea that some early christians viewed the world as arranged in layers - in a platonic framework. A god could thus be crucified by demons in the lower layers without necessarily reaching earth.

This helps us 'locate' where the archons killed Jesus. That is all.

Having this platonic framework in mind, its not difficult to see how Paul's mythical Jesus (a previously unnamed god) could have descended to be killed by the archons at a lower sphere (kata sarka) where demons (archons) could kill him. Then he rose back again to the upper spheres and was exalted by being named Jesus - a name that, upon hearing, everyone would rush to genuflect.

This 'sacrifice in heaven' is different from the ransom soteriology in the gospel though they are similar in principle. Paul explains it in depth in Hebrews (sacrifice in heaven) where he draws paradigmatic parallels with the High Priest in Exodus who carries out an act of sacrifice.

You are yet to respond to the difficulties I noted in the earlier thread, for example, interpreting archons (plural) to mean Pilate (singular) etc.

Amaleq13

Is Paul's reference to "the third heaven" in 2 Cor 12:2 enough to establish that he had such beliefs?

Ted Hoffman

I think that "enough to establish" would be overstating the case. The mythicist case relies on an overall argument, not one passage. I'd say "yes it corroborates the idea" though I think Paul is referring to himself in that instance.

GakuseiDon

They are relevent if they talk about archons in an Earthly context. Let's look at what Ignatius says, in his letter to the Ephesians:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html
In fact, his comments dove nicely with Paul's letter to the Ephesians 3:9-10 that you referred to before.

The AoI has Satan kill Jesus via the Jews. The similarities with Paul in the AoI are even more astounding.

It says nothing about where Jesus was killed, only that Satan wasn't located merely on Earth. But was that ever in question?

If you want to use the AoI to locate where Jesus was crucified, ignoring the very EXPLICIT reference to AoI's locating it on Earth seems a very Freke & Gandy thing to do.

The fact is, both AoI and Ignatius use the same language as Paul. However, they also provide explicit statements about historicity. If they hadn't, they could easily have been declared JMers, and this is what makes Doherty's case weak. While it doesn't prove him wrong, as I've said before if the apparent MJers are using the same language and terminology as HJers, then how can you point to those parts of an article in support of an MJ? I give an example below, where Paul and AoI are saying basically the same thing.

It's possible. But quoting from AoI, which has Him descend all the way to earth, seems a strange way to go about it. In fact, I would say that it is proof against you.

Shall I quote from AoI again?

Here:
Compare that with Paul in 1 Cor 2:7-8:
AoI has Satan killing Christ via the Jews, so you tell me, JA. Aren't AoI and Paul remarkable close in what they are saying, esp the way they are saying it? Keep in mind that Paul also refers to "third heaven", and there seems to be an equivalence here too great to ignore. This seems to be another nail into Doherty's thesis, the beast that will not die (even though it's dead!)

(Editted to add pithy remark)

Ted Hoffman

Archons are not flesh and blood men (hence 'spiritual').
Do you agree? If you do, thats it then. If you don't, explain.

AoI has both HJ and MJ elements and you know AoI was redacted. If you will be getting Doherty's book, deal with the arguments he makes in it. He argues that HJ elements are the hands of a later redactor. The primitive elements are consistent with a MJ as we find in 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas.

Talking of Jesus being "pierced", archons "laying their hands upon him" and "hung on a tree" are primitive expresions we find in Psalms 22 and other early documents. These vague and 'primitive' expressions are not consistent with a Jesus who was crucified on a cross by Pontius Pilate.

Do you agree that AoI was redacted? If you do, you cannot discount a later redactor inserting HJ elements. If you don't, we don't have a starting point.

On the contrary. Please stop missing the point. I am willing to wait for your rebuttal to Doherty's thesis because this is becoming meaningless.

GakuseiDon

JA, "archon" just means "ruler" or "prince". So, no, I don't agree. Can you give me your definition, please? Was Pilate an archon?

Tell me who killed Christ according to AoI: was it Satan and his angels; the Jews; or both?

I agree that it was redacted. I cannot discount a later redactor inserting HJ elements.

Please understand what I'm trying to say. EVEN IF AoI was redacted, and ASSUMING the final redacter was a HJer who put in the HJ elements: what we have is a HJer who is quite happy to use JM terminology. If that is the case, how can Doherty ever determine where a HJer is writing something and where a MJer is writing something, without assuming it in the first place?

If a HJer can redact a letter and talk about spiritual forces killing Christ (as in AoI), then how can Doherty point to Paul claiming the same and say "This was written by an MJer?" It seems to me that he can't.

Tell me, why did the redactor in AoI leave in the primitive elements? If it correlated to his existing beliefs, how do you know he didn't copy them an earlier HJer?

BTW, how do you explain the strong similarities between Paul and the final redacted version of AoI with regards to "the archon of the ages killing Christ"? Don't you find that interesting? Would you agree that Paul, in the 1 Cor passage is basically saying the same thing as the HJ redactor?

Ted Hoffman

If Paul regarded Pilate as an archon, he would have referred to him as an archon, but he refers to archons - so what you should be asking me is whether Pilate (singular) was archons (plural) as Paul states.

Problems with Interpreting Archons as referring to Pilate:

1. Archons is plural, Pilate is singular.

2. Paul could have known that not all the leaders of the world were responsible for Jesus' death therefore could not have blamed all of them.

3. Archons is not interchangeable with Pilate the way "US President" is interchangeable with "George W. Bush" therefore he could not have used archons to mean "Pilate".

Ignatius, in Smyrneans 6:1, uses archons is a spiritual sense. Origen did too. Fredricksen, Barrett, Hering, Delling, Elingworth, Brandon etc believe archons was used by Paul in a spiritual sense.

We have been through this. Kirby did a survey of scholarly opinion and said 9 scholars lean towards an 'earthly meaning' against Doherty's seven. I noted that against Doherty, Kirby excluded Thackeray, Paul Ellingworth and Schmiedel. That's 10 in favour of Doherty and 9 contra (or at least a tie).

So, lets just say you can choose who to believe on the issue.

Common sense dictates that one cannot add primitive elements to a story like Jesus being crucified on a tree instead of being crucified on a cross, like Jesus being pre-existent (as opposed to being born), phrases like "Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus'" indicate to us that Jesus was a mythical saviour figure - who died and was named Jesus.

The earlier AoI also lacked elements like Joseph and Mary whose insertion are accompanied by interruptions in the flow of the narrative as scholars in Kirby's site indicates.

To answer your question: Satan and his angels killed Christ. Anything else is the hand of an interpolator - because we know that the Gospel tradition came later than primitive traditions which had a nameless god descending to be crucified and being exalted by being named (as we seen in Phillipians).
First of all, please note that the evaluation has to be done on a case by case basis. Making a general rule of thumb may not work because we have works like GJohn which have Christ logos combined with an earthly one.

But the following reasons can be used to argue why, when we find HJ references in a text that has primitive MJ references, we conclude interpolation:

Because a mythical Jesus preceded a MJ as we see from Jewish Personified wisdom to Christ Logos.
Because later Church tradition embraced a HJ especially after establishment of the Canon and imperialization(?) of Christianity.
Because later Christians could not have inserted a spiritual Jesus into documents given a HJ had pervaded every nook and cranny.
If we have interruptions in the flow of narrative occasioning the mixture of HJ and MJ as we have in AoI, we are even more confident.

Based on the above, if gospel HJ references are found together with primitive references, we know a redactor sat down and tried to 'correct' what they saw as an anomaly.

A HJer, by definition, wouldn't do that. Pilate "killed" Jesus. The Nicene Creed is testimony to how much an MJ needed eradication.

Also, note that Paul's argument about the flesh never going to heaven contradicts the gospels empty tomb story (Jesus resurrected stark naked) and eating after his resurrection (there are toilets in heaven) etc.

Because of editorial fatigue which undermines thoroughgoing redaction.

Because, by definition, he is a redactor. And because we know a MJ is not associated with Mary, Joseph and earthly references like saints.

No. The redactor would refer to Pilate.