Toto

I had a PM from Vork who is too busy to participate, but he made a point that I thought worth throwing into the pot:

Cretinist

Indeed, I was thinking that myself while reading this thread.

If this is indeed a reference to earthly human rulers, how does this effect Doherty's case? This seems like it could be a huge problem for Doherty's case, but not necessarily for Wells or Ellegård.

Tharmas

In this context I strongly recommend Sid Green’s article “Qumran and Early Christianity” reprinted on Peter Kirby’s website didjesusexist.

The article presents a comprehensive theory for Christianity’s origins that seems to combine the strengths of the hisoricist and mythicist positions while overcoming some of the weaknesses of each, and I believe it does so quite “elegantly,” that is, requiring a minimum of textual redactions, edits, or unusual interpretations.

He basically proposes that the Qumran sect represented by the Dead Sea scrolls were in fact Essenes who were awaiting the resurrection of their “teacher of righteousness.” When reports of this “second coming” began to circulate in the thirties messianic excitement spread throughout the existing infrastructure. I won’t attempt to summarize the article any further. It’s a well-written, short read.

I will however say that it answers one of my favorite problems with the historicist position. Suppose that the Jesus of the Gospel narratives lived and died basically as described. We then have an itinerant holy man deserted by all but a few of his followers crucified at some point around 36 C.E. Now only a few short years later, perhaps six or ten, we have Paul (or Saul as he then was) persecuting a fully established church complete (as we soon find out from his letters) with presbyterian infrastructure spread out over an extensive geographical area. How was that possible? Even today with our global media such a phenomenon would be remarkable. And if it had happened, why no mention in Josephus? I’m not talking about the TF. I’m talking about failing to mention this extraordinary growth of a brand new church, something on the order of writing a cultural history of the 1990s and failing to mention the growth of the Internet. Green shows how this could happen: the infrastructure was already in place, eagerly awaiting word of a resurrected Messiah. These were the Essenes (and of course Josephus does describe the Essenes).

Another major strength of the theory, in my opinion, is that it allows us to accept the majority of our existing New Testament texts from Paul through the Gospel narratives without having to assume excessive reworking, revisions, or edits. Green’s theory explains the apparent differences between Paul’s theology and that of the various later accounts as expressive of a natural progression more than any kind of real discontinuity.

Furthermore we don’t have to assume that any of the original authors, even those writing a biography of a man they believed to have lived in their grandfathers’ time, were consciously fabricating their accounts.

Geoff Hudson

1 Cor.2.8 (A correction to my previous post)

In a Jewish context, the spirit of darkness would be in everyone, as would be the spirit of light - the two being in different proportions as God decides (1QS.4)

Does any one think that "rulers of this age" is a subsequent overlay by a Christian gnostic editor?

All the references but two that Peter gave to "this age" are from 1 Cor.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

Or more likely, an overlay by a Christian editor who wants to make the document understood by opposing Christian gnostics? -an overlay whatever.

Geoff

Layman

Great Post, Kirby.

I agree with your conclusion that this passage should probably be interpreted as a reference to human rulers who executed Jesus. The linguistic evidence tends to favor a reference to humans. Especially the fact that "age" is singular, and reference to demonic powers consistently refers to the plural "ages." This is especially harmful to Doherty's theory which again and again stresses the supposed Platonic influence, which would not likely result in a reference to a specific time (this age) as opposed to a more timeless reference (all ages or of the ages).

But what clinches the argument for me is the context. Paul clearly has human wisdom set against God's wisdom here. And it was human wisdom from human leaders that killed Jesus.

I thought I'd offer you the opinions of some other commentators.

Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, at 127.

Another respected conservative commentatory disagrees. According to F.F. Bruce:

Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, at 118.

One additional point, though, is that even Doherty's translation does not preclude human involvement in Jesus' death. At best (for him) he disposes of a clear reference to the historical Jesus set at a specific time (his own age). Bruce alludes to this when he notes that "Pilate and others may have played their historic part in this" but that the spiritual powers were behind them.

As Craig Blomberg notes:

The NIV Application Commentary, 1 Corinthians, at 63.

Doherty is wrong. Paul places Jesus' death at the hands of human agents--not demons in the lower celestial realm--and places it within a specific time period--"this age."

Why not add this to your didjesusexist.com site?

Peter Kirby

I have since found additional commentaries and two whole journal articles devoted to the subject (both of the articles supported a human interpretation). I will publish something on DidJesusExist.com this year, interacting with the feedback I got on JesusMysteries. Basically, I see three issues: The Evidence of Terminology (what "rulers" and "age" mean), The Evidence of Similar Christian Statements (what Acts and Ignatius say), and the Evidence of Immediate Context (the point Paul was making).

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Issues one and two seem pretty close to each other, with the difference being a matter of emphasis or priority (giving Christian sources preference over nonChristians sources?).

In any event, I look forward to reading your article. Whatever conclusion you reach.

Peter Kirby

No, one is about the terminology used. The other is about the concepts used, like the ignorance of the archons who killed Jesus.

The former would concern other occasions that Pauline letters use "archon," for example, in Romans.

The latter would be like this:

For example, Origen interpreted the passage as referring to heavenly rulers (de Principiis 3.3), while Tertullian interpreted the passage
as referring to earthly rulers (Against Marcion 5.6): "But (the apostle) evidently did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant secular ones,
those of the princely people..."

There are several extracanonical texts that speak of Satan or demonic powers as being in ignorance concerning Christ during his life, such as Ignatius to the Ephesians 19:1, "And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord -- three mysteries to be cried aloud -- the which were wrought in the silence of God."

best,
Peter Kirby

MortalWombat

Peter,

If Paul were talking about earthly rulers being responsible for Christ's death, then why does he make it a point in Romans 13 to tell his followers to submit to governing authorities, who are considered by him "God's servants" and "established by God"?

Also, speaking of the writer of Ephesians (whether he knew Paul or not), in Chapter 6 verse 12, he seems to think that rulers and authorities are not earthly:

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.