Malachi151

It seems to me that much of Doherty's argument relies on Ephesians, but Ephesians is now widely considered pseudo-Paul. What impact does this have on Doherty's argument?

The passages in Ephesians, if they were real Paul, would seem to seal the argument to me, but if they are not real Paul, then it seems to leave it open to much more debate and and I don't really find anything that strongly shows that Paul was talking about a crucifixion in the heavens or that he was talking about spiritual rulers when he mentioned "rulers of this age".

GakuseiDon

I don't think it would have any impact on Doherty's argument, since the author of Ephesians, even if not Paul himself, may have been a mythicist along the lines of Paul (assuming that Paul was a mythicist).

Malachi151

Well, but that's the problem, at least part of it. Does this hurt Doherty's case for showing that PAUL was a "mythicist"?

If we can show that the writer of Ephesians was a "mythicist", but that writer isn't Paul, then Christians and just politely set that book aside and move on. They can say, well, looks like the Council missed one, one of the gnostics got through the vetting process. That's bad news for them, it certainly hurts the Bible, but not in the way that showing PAUL never thought Jesus had come to earth.

Malachi151

Also, what about passages like Romans 1:

What about this? Doherty doesn't really handle it very well IMO. This is hard to just explain away.

gstafleu

None. Doherty's argument is not that just Paul is silent, it is that all early Christian literature is silent. Plus it is not just that it is silent, in several cases it actively contraindicates an HJ.

Gerard

Malachi151

But its not that simple. You have to explain the passages that seem to describe a human Jesus who was on earth. The two passages from Ephesians help make the argument that 1 Corinthians 2 is talking about "spiritual rulers", as opposed to earthly rulers.

jgibson000

No they don't.

Ephesians 2 speaks of the the "ruler" (τὸν ἄρχοντα) "of the realm of the air" ( τῆς ἐξουσιας τοῦ ἀ�*ρος), whereas Paul in 1 Cor 2:6 speaks of the "rulers (ἄρχοντες) of this age" (τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτo).

That is to say -- especially in the light of (1) the author of Ephesians identifying "the ruler of the realm of the air" as the devil in 4:27 and "the evil one" in 6:11 , (2) the use by the Rabbis and Hellenistic writers of "age" to mean "things existing in time" , and (3) the fact that τούτo in 1 Cor 2:6 is emphatic and serves thereby to designate the "age" as both distinct from the wage to come and the present earthly order, "the state of things now present in the word, including the ethical and social conditions which are as yet unchanged by the coming of Christ (see Robertson & Plummer) -- Ephesians is not speaking of the same things as Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

Moreover, as 2 Enoch 29.4,5 shows,"the air" spoken of here is not a supernatural realm. Rather it is is in fact thought of as the region under the firmament. And as W. Wink has argued (Naming the Powers (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 84), the "realm of the air" ” is not the locale of demons but the world atmosphere, the matrix of inauthentic living". So even Ephesians is not speaking of a heavenly/otherworldly power.

And in the light of Ephesians 1:3, where ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, “in the heavenly realms,” designates the place where blessings are received, the "rulers referred to in Eph. 3:10 can hardly be demonic forces.

On this, see R. G. Bratcher, E.A. Nida, A Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians (or via: amazon.co.uk). New York : United Bible Societies, 1993 (UBS Handbook Series; Helps for Translators), S. 78

See also H Odeberg, The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Lunds Universitets Aersskrift. N.F. Avd. 1, Bd 29. Nr. 6. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1934), who argues on pp. 12, 13 that "the heavenlies" are not the equivalent of heaven in its denotation as the celestial regions in distinction from other parts of the universe but represent the whole of spiritual reality in which the Church participates, and so can be taken as the realm of the Church in Christ.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Humans did not live under the firmament. Ergo...
The spirits that dwelt under the firmament did not have corruptible flesh. Ergo...denying that the region under the firmament was a supernatural realm doesnt negate the basic argument by Doherty: that denial simply shifts the argument to the ballpark of modern meaning of supernatural vs the ancient/platonic conception of the same.
But we do know that the ancients viewed the earth as located on the lowest layer relative to the moon and the stars, which they viewed as unmoving and unchanging - unlike the earth which, because of changing seasons and disease and death, was regarded as corruptible. I would argue that the ancients dualism consisted not of the natural vs supernatural but the corruptible vs the incorruptible.

Doug Shaver

It supports it. The relevant premise of Doherty's argument is not that Paul believed in a mythical Jesus, but that Paul and every other known Christian writer of the first century believed in a mythical Jesus.

jgibson000

Where then did they live?

A non sequitur if there ever was one, let a fine example of the assertion of an irrelevant thesis, since the issue at hand is whether the ARXON and the ARXONTAI mentioned in Eph. 3 and 2 respectively are the same as those Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

What "basic argument of Doherty are you talking about?

More importantly, denying "the basic argument of Doherty" -- what ever it is -- is not what is primarily at issue. Rather it is whether the ARXON/ARXONTAI of Ephesians help us to understand who the ARXONTAI of 1 Cor. 2:6-8 are.

Do you have anything relevant to say on that point?

And here I thought it was what the author of Ephesians was describing in chps 2 & 3. Silly me.

Lowest layer of what? And will you please provide primary evidence showing (a) who these "ancients" you speak of are and (b) that they did indeed believe what you say they did?

And in doing so you'd be asserting a false dichotomy.

JG