Toto

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I think Doherty is basing his reading on his entire interpretation of Paul's thinking and the contemporaneous idea of levels of reality controlled by demons. He has written a book about it and expounded on the matter at greater length on the JM list. His interpretation of this phrase is supported by scholarly opinion, even if that opinion is not described as a "consensus."

Burton Mack (probably Doherty's source on Ephesians) gives the dating of Ephesians, but I do not have the reasons for that dating. I doubt that a different date would change Doherty's translation of the phrase in question. Mack dates the letter to the 70's and sees it as proof that Paul had a school of followers who carried on his teaching and authority, although he sees some variation in theology and thinking.

I don't know of any external evidence that suggests Luke-Acts was written by someone with a connection to Paul - all of the evidence seems to be against it. That has been the subject of several threads here.

Gregg

Peter, while the fact that Paul didn't write Ephesians must be taken into account, this is rather like comparing apples and oranges. It's one thing to compare and contrast the letters of Paul with those of other Christian letter-writers of the period (and it's certainly a legitimate exercise), it's quite another to read Paul through the lens of the Gospels.

Here is some of what Doherty has to say about the issue:[quote]There has not been a universal scholarly consensus on what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 2:8, but over the last century a majority of commentators (see below), some reluctantly, have decided that he is referring to the demon spirits. The term aion, "age," or sometimes in the plural "ages," was in a religious and apocalyptic context a reference to the present age of the world, in the sense of all recorded history, since the next age was the one after the Parousia when God's Kingdom would be established. One of the governing ideas of the period was that the world to the present point had been under the control of the evil angels and spirit powers, and that the coming of the Kingdom would see their long awaited overthrow. Humanity was engaged in a war against the demons, and one of the strongest appeals of the Hellenistic salvation cults was their promise of divine aid in this war on a personal level.

Thus, "rulers of this age" should not be seen as referring to the current secular authorities who happen to be in power in present political circumstances. Rather, Paul envisions that those in the present age who have controlled the earth and separated it from heaven, the evil angelic powers, are approaching their time of "passing away" (2:6). They did not understand God's purposes, namely their own destruction, when they inadvertently crucified "the Lord of glory."

Ephesians 3:9-10 echoes these hidden purposes of God, and declares that they have now been brought to light:

"9. . . the application of this mystery which has been hidden for long ages in God the creator of the universe, 10so that through the church the wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavens, in accordance with his eternal purpose which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Here the rulers are clearly identified as the ones in heaven. And we might note that the writer is consistent with general Pauline expression in allotting the task of revealing God's long-hidden mystery to the "church," to men like himself, not to any recent historical Jesus. That last phrase refers to the workings of Christ in the higher spiritual world, his redeeming actions within God's eternal realm and time. In other words, the world of myth.
A prominent first century Christian idea was that Christ by his death had subjected all the spirit powers and authorities, both good and bad, to his control. In this light, Colossians 2:15 again places Jesus' crucifixion in a spiritual milieu, for it is difficult to see any historical scene on Calvary contained in this idea:

"On the cross he discarded the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment; he made a public spectacle of them and led them as captives in his triumphal procession."
Ephesians 6:12 also speaks of the fight which is not against human foes, but against the "cosmic powers, authorities and potentates of this dark world, the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens." These were even thought of has having political organizations like rulers on earth. They were certainly well placed and capable of executing a spiritual Christ who had descended from the higher divine realm into their territory, and we will look in a moment at a document which paints this picture of the Son descending from heaven to be crucified by the evil angels.
Scholars who balk at this interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify (e.g., Anchor Bible, p.164), are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archon in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the gnostic Marcion.

Modern scholars like C. K. Barrett (First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72), Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ, p.56), and Jean Hering (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.16-17, a brief but penetrating analysis), have felt constrained to agree. Delling in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, p.489) notes that the spirit rulers are portrayed by Paul as "treating the Lord of glory as prey in ignorance of the divine plan for salvation." They operated in the spiritual realm, which S. Salmond (The Expositor's Greek Testament, Ephesians, p.284) describes as "supra-terrestrial but sub-celestial regions." Paul Ellingworth, A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46, states: "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here."

S. G. F. Brandon (History, Time and Deity, p.167) unflinchingly declares that although Paul's statement "may seem on cursory reading to refer to the Crucifixion as an historical event. . .the expression 'rulers of this age' does not mean the Roman and Jewish authorities. Instead, it denotes the daemonic powers who . . . were believed to inhabit the planets (the celestial spheres) and control the destinies of men. . . . Paul attributes the Crucifixion not to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders, but to these planetary powers."But, Peter, "rulers of this age" might have been quite common parlance in Christian circles, with Paul being in little or no danger of being misunderstood by anyone familiar with the Christian worldview and teaching.

And again, I don't understand how we can simply consider Paul in isolation from other Christian writers who were writing at essentially the same time. In order to get the most complete and accurate understanding of the Christian worldview at that time, we have to consider ALL the letters. The gospels, coming later, are vital to getting an overall picture of the CONTINUING evolution of Christianity, but to say that comparing an early-to-mid-first-century Pauline letter to a letter by another early-to-mid-first-century writer is the same thing as interpreting Paul through a late-first-century-to-early-second-century GOSPEL just isn't accurate. They are different kinds of writing, and while the Gospel might have been influenced by Paul, but there could have been no influence in the other direction. Paul and "Mark" were not contemporaries.

I think it would be unlikely that Christians at that point would have been in disagreement on 1) whether Christ was a real person or a cosmic redeeming figure, and 2) whether the authorities Christ put under his feet were the heavenly powers or the earthly powers (of course, some may have felt it was both--as above, so below). These appear to be basic, fundamental teachings among those who believed in Christ as a redemptive figure and not merely a Revealer. Thus, I think it is valid to regard the passage from Ephesians as supporting the view that Paul, too, is talking about heavenly powers.

On the other hand, I find it logical that even among those who believed in Christ's sacrifice, there might be disagreement as to the exact nature of that sacrifice, particularly if the sacrifice was not something that had taken place on earth in recent history. The writer of Hebrews, for example, doesn't say anything about the cross or crucifixion, or even "hanging on a tree"--his Christ enters a heavenly sanctuary, a spiritual equivalent of the Temple, where presumably he is slaughtered like a sacrifical animal. (In such a scene, a cross would be out of place.)

In closing, some food for thought:

We know about the Greek Platonist worldview (which, among other things, held that the world was under the control of the demonic powers and authorites of the lower heavens) and we know that a great many people at the time held to some version of it. Paul and the early Christian writers certainly seem to.

We know that there were dying/rising savior god cults at the time whose gods had conducted their saving activities in either the distant, primordial past or in a spiritual dimension. So far as we know, none of these cults claimed that their god had recently lived on earth as a human being, nor did they feel that the god's saving act was any less efficacious for it.

We know that for a great many Jews at that time, the notion of God, or even a divine being containing the essence of God, becoming flesh--or of a flesh and blood man dying and then being raised into the Godhead--was blasphemous. Yet we have no evidence of Paul or other Christian writers having to defend this idea--a very unlikely situation when Christianity was in competition with Judaism for converts.

We know that the early Christian writings are remarkably silent on details of the historical Jesus' life, words, etc. The writer of Hebrews doesn't even seem to think his death took place on a cross. Instead, they all seem to speak of Jesus as a purely spiritual figure. Paul even repeats a Christological hymn that says Jesus wasn't given the name Jesus until after God raised him. (What did they call him before? Steve?)

We have all the claims from Paul that he derived his Gospel from scripture and revelation, not from being told about a recent historical event. We have the early Christian writers always going back to Scripture when they want to say something about Christ or to make a point about Christian doctrine, instead of just talking about Jesus' actual life, teachings, execution, and resurrection.

We have Paul saying that his vision of the resurrected Christ wasn't any different from those who'd supposedly seen the resurrected Christ before his ascension.

In light of all this, Peter, it just doesn't seem too big a stretch to me to think that if the writer of Ephesians thought that the rulers Jesus defeated were the demonic powers and authorities of the lower heavens, then that's probably what Paul believed too. However, I will make this allowance--since Paul describes Jesus' sacrifice as a crucifixion, a Roman form of execution (again, not all the early Christian writers do) it could be that Paul did have a double meaning in mind when he referred to the "rulers of this age." As above, so below--as Jesus had defeated the demonic rulers in the heavens, so he would also cast down the secular powers and authorities (i.e., Rome) at the end of the age.

Gregg

Radorth

Doherty on Gospel dates:


"My own preferred dating is to see Mark no earlier than perhaps 90, with the others following by 125, and Acts not appearing until around 150, perhaps even a little later. This, of course, refers to the earliest versions of the Gospels, which did not enjoy any notable circulation at first, and which were not finalized in any canonical form until after Justin."

I'm sure it is his "preferred dating" since earlier dates tend to screw up his theory.

Rad

Peter Kirby

Gregg,

You've provided a nice overview of the Jesus Myth viewpoint. However, I am tired at the moment and do not want to enter into what could only be a protracted exchange if I attempted to respond to all your thoughts properly. I do not think that the Jesus Myth idea is a bad one; it is just one in which I do not believe right now.

Toto,

My reason in posting is that I recalled that someone--I know not who now--had pointed to the 1 Cor 2 passage as evidence that Paul held the death of Christ to have taken place in the heavens at the direct instigation of demonic powers. In support of that point, I have seen offered the general mythicist viewpoint (which indeed does demand that the 'demonic interpretation' be adopted), the appeal to a scholarly majority (which a Jesus Myther must recognize as a fallacy), and the attempt to read a post-70 document as evidence for the interpretation of Paul (of which Doherty wouldn't approve in the case of Mark or Luke-Acts). There has been no evidence that engages the passage of 1 Corinthians as it stands and shows that it refers to the activity of spiritual beings. Thus, while the passage has not been proven to contradict the Jesus Myth viewpoint, neither has it been shown to provide evidence for such a position. If you would agree that the passage in itself wouldn't provide a basis for Doherty's hypothesis, then we would be in agreement.

good night,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - while I would not always rely on the consensus of scholars, when the majority of experts on the meaning of a term in Greek translate it one way, I have to give that some weight. It does appear that the majority of scholars interpret ton archonton tou aionos toutou as the supernatural powers who control the world.

In addition, it appears that the attempt to force the term "rulers of the ages" to refer to the Roman officials who crucified Jesus in the gospel is based on reading the Gospel stories back into Paul. The term "rulers" is used to refer to Roman and Jewish officials, but there seems to be agreement that "the ages" is a religious and apocalytpic term that refers to all recorded history up to this time, as opposed to the coming age when God's kingdom will be established.

But I don't think this passage has to mean that Jesus was crucified in the heavens. (These demonic forces could have been behind the Romans who whoever crucified Jesus.) But if "demons" were responsible for his crucifixion at some unstated time, that raises all sorts of questions about when this happened and where. It seems that if Paul had meant to refer to Jesus' crucifixion by Roman authorities in recent times, he would have said so more explicitly.

The sources that you cited appear to be straining to force this passage to refer to secular Roman officials. Morris tries to use the demons who recognized Jesus in Mark to argue that Paul could not have meant demons here because these demons did not know who they were crucifying - a clever argument, but what basis does it have?

As for using a post 70 document, if you are referring to Ephesians, the only reason for using it is that it reflects the same world view as Paul had, and was presumably written by someone who studied under him or thought like him on this issue.

In short, I think the passage provides some support for Doherty's hypothesis, but is not completely dispositive.

Gregg

Oh, I certainly wouldn't say the passage by itself provides a basis for Doherty's hypothesis. It's just another bit of evidence. This is essentially a circumstantial evidence case (as I've said in a post in another thread, people today unfortunately tend to confuse a "circumstantial evidence" case with a "weak" case). As you point out, when you start adding all the other stuff in, the idea that Paul is referring to secular authorities (or at least to secular authorities exclusively) gets more and more tenuous.

I need to think a bit longer on the idea that it's not valid to use a post-70 document as a basis for interpreting Paul, whether the document is a letter or a gospel. I need to get the datings of these darn letters straight! I still see a letter as something very different from a gospel. It's not the same thing to say, "Paul here is referring to this gospel incident (the Last Supper, Judas' betrayal, the post-resurrection/pre-ascension appearances)" and to say, "This passage in Ephesians shows that there was a belief in a struggle against heavenly powers (and it's certainly not the only source of evidence for the prevalence of this belief), and while this may not "prove," and may not even provide solid evidence for, the idea that Paul too is referring to these same heavenly powers, it certainly does suggest this as a real possibility, and adds yet another bit of circumstantial evidence to support the overall mythicist case."

Gregg

GreggLD1

Peter,

In thinking about this issue some more: While I can't speak for Doherty, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that he would totally reject ANY effort to try to understand Paul's beliefs through the Gospels. What Doherty objects to is those who read the Gospels as histories and try to read Gospel events into Paul: i.e., when Paul says "the Lord Jesus on the night he was (the word "betrayed" is more accurately translated as "delivered up") broke bread..." he's referring to a meal a physical Jesus shared with his earthly disciples, in which he established the practice of the Eucharist, just before being betrayed by Judas; or when he writes about the resurrected Christ's "appearances" he's referring to the pre-ascension appearances as described in the Gospels, even though he omits the women, the order is nothing like those of any of the contradictory Gospel accounts, and he argues that his vision is no different than the others, even though it's supposedly post-ascension.

Since Doherty believes that "Mark," at least, still regards Jesus as an entirely spiritual being and is writing pure allegory, it's still possible for "Mark" and probably the other Gospels (especially John, which has been described by some as practically a "gnostic" gospel) to shed light on early Christian beliefs in general and help us get a clearer picture of what Paul might have believed. So no, we really can't use the Gospels to *directly* interpret Paul, but they do provide a few more "pieces for the puzzle" just as Ephesians does.

Gregg

Radorth

Doherty's leaps of faith (in bold).

What is most disturbing about Doherty’s hypothesis is the extraordinary, completely unsupported presumption that Paul had no access to any story of Christ in any form, either written or verbal. What ever happened to Q? How old is Q? Why could not the story have been communicated to him verbally? No, Doherty’s theory rests on this assumption: No written gospels as we have them, no historical Jesus.

But let us look at some other of Doherty’s amazing assertions, which are little short of lies at worst, and hyperbole at best.

Before Ignatius, not a single reference to Pontius Pilate, Jesus' executioner, is to be found.

Huh? Of course there is, in Titus.

Ignatius is also the first to mention Mary;

Ah no. She is mentioned in Acts, well shown to be written by Luke, a friend of Paul’s. Therefore Acts must be bogus, to Doherty. (Conspiracy on top of conspiracy) And again, how is it Paul did not know anything about Mary just because it is not written somewhere?

Joseph, Jesus' father, nowhere appears. The earliest reference to Jesus as any kind of a teacher comes in 1 Clement, just before Ignatius, who himself seems curiously unaware of any of Jesus' teachings. To find the first indication of Jesus as a miracle worker, we must move beyond Ignatius to the Epistle of Barnabas. Other notable elements of the Gospel story are equally hard to find.

Why should we find anything if it was common knowledge? And this statement is false anyway. Hebrews makes absolutely no sense without a historical, crucified Christ. In fact none of Paul’s epistles make any sense without a historical Jesus. No problem for Doherty. He just concocts a story in Paul’s mind, or presumes Paul saw Jesus crucified symbolically. And all the fine detail of the 4 Gospel stories? No problem there either. Mark made it up, Matthew added, Luke “slavishly copied” and even John simply plagarized. I only allege one conspiracy myself- of Jesus-mythers making irrational assumptions and claiming 35 separate conspiracies by Christians simply because they think miracles are irrational. (Ironically, one NT critic, Richard Carrier asserts that miracles and resurrection happen every day).

This strange silence on the Gospel Jesus which pervades almost a century of Christian correspondence cries out for explanation. It cannot be dismissed as some inconsequential quirk, or by the blithe observation made by New Testament scholarship that early Christian writers "show no interest" in the earthly life of Jesus. Something is going on here.

Read “and if I pile enough half-truths together, maybe folks will join the witch hunt, and I can save the world from Jesus.” And why should the Christian writers talk about the early life of Jesus any more than they did? (And they did) They were writing on parchments with primitive instruments, and had plenty else to say. Typically skeptics complain we ought to know more about what Jesus ate, although we know that too. This question reminds me of the equally inane and rhetorical “why didn’t Paul go visit Calvary?” We don’t know that he did not. All we know is he did not talk about it. He does seem rather busy trying to evangelize the whole world and writing about major problems/ revelations to the newly formed churches.

No first century epistle mentions that Jesus performed miracles. In some cases the silence is striking. Both Colossians and Ephesians view Jesus as the Savior whose death has rescued mankind from the demonic powers who were believed to pervade the world, causing sin, disease and misfortune. But not even in these letters is there any mention of the healing miracles that the Gospels are full of, those exorcisms which would have shown that Jesus had conquered such demons even while he was on earth.

And isn’t it amazing that the Gospel writers just made up all the miracle and exorcism stories, if their work was based on Paul’s “revelation.” Why does the logic not work both ways? Gospels being invented after the epistles makes no sense at all. And again, why should Paul talk about common knowledge? It makes far more sense that he would not. Further, Luke does record the apostles casting out devils in the name of Jesus, just as he told them to. And even if Acts was written much after the fact (unproven assertion) it could still be recording events right after the resurrection. Once again, why should we believe Paul did not speak to any Christians about casting out devils or do it himself in the name of Christ? Why these leaps of faith and logic?

. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is anxious to convince his readers that humans can be resurrected from the dead. Why then does he not point to any traditions that Jesus himself had raised several people from the dead? Where is Lazarus?

Er, why repeat the obvious? If he was anxious for skeptics to believe in a historical Jesus and resurrection, we would have found this busy inventor making up stories and inserting them in his epistles, which would look pretty dumb IMO. And how much whining would we hear from Earl then? “Vouching!! Vouching!!” would be the cry then I think. In fact, I think it wouldn’t matter to Earl Doherty what Paul wrote or did not write. When Paul mentions “the Lord’s brother” Doherty does a gratuitous tap dance around the clear meaning of the phrase, saying that it could have been anybody at all. In short, Doherty twists the scriptures to say whatever he needs them to say, or ignores them altogether. Otherwise just a few of them blow his theory to smithereens.

More later.

Rad

GreggLD1

Well, Rad, since it's impossible for me to trust anything you say, I'll leave this post, your next post, and all subsequent posts to others.

Gregg

Toto

The statement

is false. Carrier is a member of Internet Infidels and committed to the position of metaphysical naturalism. If Radorth read something indicating that Carrier thinks miracles and resurrections happen daily, Radorth misread or misinterpreted it. Which is how he treats most sources.

Otherwise what do we have here?

Why couldn't Paul have read Q to learn about the historical Jesus? Well, Rad, please point out some biographical data in Q. You can't? That's because Q contains sayings, not history.

The rest of this is not worth even responding to.