Ted Hoffman

Sorry for that double post.
Jeffrey, I dont think you've read Herring correctly.
Rick, I have Doherty's book wherein he lists the sources that support the mythicist interpretation of archontes, and where I borrow from Kirby, or where I am citing him, I have attributed the ideas to him, accordingly.

Jeffrey, I think I will just hang on and wait to see you take a stab at the references provided one by one. Then we can review the issue of archontes after you are done. This fragmented, pick-and-choose approach which you have adapted is not economical timewise.
Now, take a stab at the next source in that long list. Dont tell me you are afraid of having your fears confirmed - after all, this is right up your alley; you should be able to get the sources and silence Doherty once and for all, and expose him for who you keep claiming he is.
Don't squander thic chance Dorothy. Both your minions and the mythicists are watching.

jakejonesiv

Hi Jiri,

Here is the definition of pre-existence that IMO is supported by the Pauline material, as well as other NT texts.

It is the belief that the entity we refer to as Jesus Christ existed in a real sense, with identity, before coming down from heaven.

Jake Jones IV

JoeWallack

Participally 4.4 Street




JW:
So you are asking me to call his name Jeffrey and not telling me. Perfect.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...14/005580.html

"If you follow the Internet Infidels Discussion board, you'll know that
I've been spending some time over the holidays taking on a few of the
big whigs of the Jesus Myth school (Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier) by
noting that they have a distinct tendency to cook and misrepresent the
evidence they appeal to in making various arguments for their views.

When asked by IIDB members to support this claim, I pointed to the
particular section, quoted below, in Richard Carrier's review of Earl
Doherty's _The Jesus Puzzle_ [see
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uspuzzle.shtml)
where Carrier discusses the meaning of KATA and applies his conclusions
on this matter to the question of what KATA SARKA means in Rom. 1:3,
and then noted that the linguistic analysis put forward there not only
shows a woeful incompetence in matters Greek, but is a text book example
of someone cooking the evidence of the source one has used for the data
one discusses -- in this case, the entry on KATA in LSJ
(http://tinyurl.com/7hbks), which I also pointed to (and quoted in
full)-- in order to support a particular (and apparently a preconceived)
conclusion.

Curiously, some denied that the LSJ article on KATA was the source that
Carrier had employed as the basis of his remarks. More importantly, and
even more curiously, those who admitted that LSJ **was** the source and
basis of Carrier's remarks claimed that they were unable to see what. to
my eyes, is transparent when one holds up and compares what Carrier says
about KATA against/with what is said about KATA in LSJ, namely, that
Carrier's remarks are those no one skilled in Greek would make, that
they were contradicted by much of the data contained in the very source
he uses as the basis for his remarks, and that to make his case, Carrier
has not only neglected to tell anyone this; he has also distorted,
misread, and/or misrepresented the evidence from LSJ that he does quote
and appeal to.

And so I have been asked to support my claims that the linguistic
analysis put forward in Carrier's discussion of KATA and KATA SARKA in
Rom. 1:3 does indeed shows a woeful incompetence in matters Greek and is
indeed a text book example of someone cooking the evidence of the source
one has used for the data one discusses

Now I know how I am going to do this. I'll be pointing out such things
as how the issue is skewed from the beginning in a misrepresentation on
Carrier's part of what it is that scholars have actually claimed Paul's
point in Rom 1:3 was (that Jesus has Davidic ancestry, how Carrier has
engaged in the root fallacy, and how he ignores of all the evidence in
LSJ that both conflicts with what he says and demonstrates that KATA
with the accusative did not have only one basic ("literal") meaning or
implication.

But I'd like to see how others here would demonstrate what is wrong in
Carrier's "argument". I'd like to see both how you would show both that
he has indeed cooked his evidence and and how you would note that the
way he argues and presents the "data" shows that he has no idea what he
is talking about.

Would you then do me the favour of stating this on list?

With thanks in advance.

Yours,

Jeffrey"


JW:
What is your Primary Objective in this Thread Jeff? Is it:

1) To Demonstrate that Mr. Doherty and Mr. Carrier "cook and misrepresent the evidence they appeal to in making various arguments for their views".

2) To Objectively determine the Significance of 4.4 to the MJ argument.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

At the risk of your complaining that I'm a one note Johnny, the above is another example of your tendency to engage in bifurcation.

Why do you insist, as I take you to be doing, that there are only two possible objectives that I might have when factually and logically there could be/are more, and that even if there were only two, that it is a case of either one or the other when it is more likely that it is a case of both/and?

Jeffrey Gibson

Rick Sumner

I happily invite the reader to draw their own conclusions, bearing in mind several things:

1) Your source is not Morris. We know this because your citation is patently false--he does not discuss Origen on p.54.

2) Whatever your source is provides information running from page 53-54.

3) Peter Kirby does so, in a discussion of precisely the interpretation under debate.

I am quite confident that, unless you live next to a library, Morris isn't within five hundred feet of you. So your source isn't Morris. Consequently, your citation of him is disingenuous. Again, I invite the reader to investigate themselves.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

S.C.Carlson

It was my mistake to exegete a joke and apparently I'm still paying the price, but my point was that his joking request to be called "Dora" (not "Dorothy") is only valid when he's wearing a dress.

Stephen

Solo

Hi Jake,
I personally have little doubt Paul believed something quite close to that. And yes Jesus Christ of Phil 2:6 en morphe theou certainly could be said to have had "identity", if you mean the trinitarian one.

I think the church that came after Paul remained substantially true to , what I believe was uniquely, his idea, i.e. that Jesus Christ on earth [perceived kata sarka] was human, fallible and therefore mortaland at the same time, [perceived kata pneuma] an eternal, infallible, glorious manifestation of God. But isn't that self-contradictory ? But yes, that is the whole point, Paul would have said: God manifests himself to reason only in paradox. Therefore we cannot reach God by reason [or the law] but by pistis Iesou Christou. And of course, he would have meant that both ways, by the faith of the earthly Jesus trapped in the flesh that his suffering would be redeemed, and the faith of those who follow Jesus as the Christ.

Jiri

jgibson000

Well that is, I suppose, an advance on never having read him but still confidently proclaiming that you know what he's said.

But please point out to me what it is about Hering's statement that "There is nothing to show that the Apostle ranked these [i.e., the ARCONTES] among the beings which were evil by nature, like the 'daimones' of 10:20-22 or like Satan or Beliar" or his note that the supernatural character of the pwers referred to in i Cor 2:6-9 "does not prevent them making use of the political powers" that I misunderstood and did not read correctly?

Let's be clear then on two things.

First, quite contrary to what appears to be the impression you initially tried to give when you first listed the names of scholars whom you claimed supported the "mythicist interpretaion" of ARCONTES, you are now admitting that you yourself have never actually read the works you cited, that none of your claims about them have been derived from your personal consultation with what they have written on 1 Cor 2:6-8, and that you really have no idea whether what Earl has claimed these scholars have said about the ARCONTES mentioned in 1 Cor 2:6-8 is what they in fact did say.

This not only shows that you really have very little right to adopt the tone of authority that is characteristic of your posts on what NT scholars believe or don't belive; it gives us good reason always to doubt the veracity of any claim you make about what NT scholars say or believe. matters does not encourage anyone to ever

Second, and far more importantly, "the mythicist (or at least Earl's) interpretation" of the ARCHONTES mentioned in 1 Cor 2:6-8 is not just that they are "demons", as you seem to be claiming.

It is that they are demons who carried out Jesus' crucifixion (a) without human aid, (b) at no specific time in human history, and (c) in a heavenly not an earthly realm.

It should be noted then that, despite your claims to the contrary, there is not a single one of the scholars whom Earl (or Peter Kirby) lists -- and, notably, not a even among those who do actually believe that the ARCHONTES spoken of in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are demons -- who supports that interpretation.

So up the spout goes your (and Earl's) claim that the MJ hypothesis has any scholarly support, at least on this point.

If you have hard evidence to the contrary -- and by hard evidence to the contrary I mean actual quotes that you yourself have gathered from looking directly at, and personally transcribing the words that appear in, the works of any author you appeal to -- I'd be very grateful to receive it.

Perhaps not, even if I have been using a "pick and choose" approach.

But I remind you again that citing what the scholars you list actually say about the ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 is not, and has never been, something that I'm obliged to do. This is and has always been your job. You claimed that Brandon and Delling and others said X. It's your job to show, when asked to do so, that they did -- especially when we have reason to believe, as we most certainly do, that they did not express the view you (and the source you rely on) attribute to them.

So any time wasting that's occured in this exchange is largely your fault. not mine. After all I'm the only one here who is doing anything to see what the authors in question actually said and whether your (and Earl's) claims about what they support are correct.

Jeffrey Gibson

jakejonesiv

Hi Rick,

I took up your suggestion to investigate for myself. <edit by JJ>. It does say "In antiquity, Origen took this to refer to the demonic powers behind world rulers" on page 53 of the work cited.

<edit by JJ4> I am looking at The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians by Leon Morris, Second edition 1985, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Reprinted 2000. ISBN 0-8208-0064-5.

Here is the passage in question (with a sentence before and a sentence after), with the page break indicated

<Edit by JJ4> Were you disputing page 54 when it is actually on page 53? Is that the issue that concerned you? Probably just a typo. Or maybe someone was using another edition. All in all it doesn't seem to be a big deal. If I remember correctly, Ted attributed the quote of Morris to Kirby when he mentioned it.

Jake Jones IV

Rick Sumner

Edit to capture Jake's edit
Wrong post. Look here. Ted cites Morris as though he is working from the text. He is not.

Origen is mentioned only on page 53, and then contrasted with Chrysostom, which then leads to a discussion of modern scholarly debate.

What is being discussed on p.54 is that modern scholarly debate, not Origen, who was really provided more for color than anything.

Contra Hoffman, Morris does not discuss Origen's interpretation of 1Cor2.6 on page 53-54, he only discusses Origen on p.53, and fleetingly at that--merely a statement of fact. So why does Ted think that Origen is a point expanded upon for two pages?

Regards,
Rick Sumner