Peter Kirby

This is according to John Abrowus:

JOHN
> Romans 13:1-7 is not found in Marcion's edition of the New Testament,
> and is therefore likely spurious. It is at odds with the Pauline
> injuction to be separated from the world. It represents an age where
> great accomadation had been made between the church and Rome. "Rulers
> hold no terrors for them who do right . . . (the ruler) is the
> minister of God for your own good." this is inconcruent with a
> Pontious Pilate who was alleged to have delivered up innocent Jesus
> to scourging and execution.
>
> Other scholars have argued that Rom. 13:1-7 is a later interpolation
> into the main body on other grounds. James Kallas, "Romans 13:1-7: An
> Interpolation," New Testament Studies, 11 (1965), 365-66. If indeed
> this is an interpolation, it does not remove the parenesis from the
> discussion, but this does remove it from a privledged position as a
> useage of Archon "also found in another verse in the authentic Paul."

I think that there is an ethical tension here: are the leaders working for our benefit, or have they killed the innocent Jesus? But it is a tension that a Christian could ignore or be comfortable with. Many Christians are fully aware that worldly authorities killed Christ but discourage insubordination to worldly authorities.

He seems to think that some "rulers and authorities" are not earthly, not all. This is highly relevant for establishing plausibility--but totally useless when we realize that the Greek word for "ruler" is used thousands of times for a human being in antiquity.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Koester does not seem to think Rom 13:1-7 is really valid Paul either:

From History and Literature Vol II p. 146

"The debated advice that one should be subject to political authorities (Rom 13:1-7) rejects political engagement (if this is indeed Pauline and not a piece of Hellenistic-Jewish paranesis interpolated here at a late date).......

Is there a seam here?

• Rom12
  17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[4] says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
  "If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
  if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
  In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[5] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
  
  Rom13
  8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[1] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "

Asha'man

I think Tharmas has hit the nail on the head here.

As Koy is so fond of pointing out, Pilate found Jesus innocent, and washed his hands of the whole affair. Jesus was killed by a Jewish mob. (Or, that is what the Gospels would have us believe….)

If Paul has any knowledge of the story we see in the Gospels, he should have said something completely different than “rules of this age.”

CJD

After all has been said here, I still find myself wondering why it must an either/or instead of a both/and. Given the assumed nature of the cosmos in Jewish thought (ie., the relationship between the physical world and metaphysical world), Paul could have easily been referring both to the human rulers of his age as well as the demons that possessed them. This same line of reasoning exists, for example, in the ancient Gen. 6:2 pericope, where the "sons of god" (demon-possessed kings) unjustly seize women as they saw fit.

But none of this seems to fit the context of 1 Cor. 2. As in 1:20, Paul is picking on those who are greatly esteemed in the culture—those who are deemed wise by the majority. What Paul is saying in 2:8, then, is so very simple: if the most influential people in society knew that Jesus was the Christ, they would not have killed him. They did not know he was the Christ because, as the apostle writes in v. 14, "The natural man [of whom he just contrasted with the believers earlier in this chapter] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." So, then, we come full circle. 1) The 'rulers of this age' are mortal men who 2) were blinded by demonic darkness.

Regards,

CJD

Gregg

Problem is, you have to think not just in the context of 1 Corinthians, but in the context of everything Paul wrote and everything the early Christians wrote, including Hebrews. And the implication is clearly that the early Christians believed Christ was crucified by demon spirits in the sublunar heavenly realm.

Why does Paul say "NONE of the rulers of this age" ? Why he is never specific? Supposedly only a few people, Pilate and the Jewish council, were directly responsible for Jesus' death. But by your interpretation, Paul accuses ALL earthly rulers of crucifying Jesus. You might say that this is poetic license, because Christians are fond of saying people "still" crucify Christ today. So maybe Paul's saying that any given earthly ruler would have crucified Jesus if he'd had the chance. But this doesn't really jibe with Paul's admonitions to obey earthly rulers because they are "appointed by God."

You're correct, I think, in seeing SOME (in fact, a lot of) overlap between the sublunar heavenly realm, which was ruled by the demonic spirits, and the earthly, physical dimension. In the mind of Paul and many of his contemporaries, the sorry state of the world and of human affairs was largely due to the influence of these powerful demonic spirits. Nevertheless, I see no indication that Paul is saying the demonic spirits influenced earthly rulers to crucify Jesus. Rather, the demonic spirits themselves did the crucifying.

Gregg

Gregg

I'm sorry, I wrote this at 2 a.m., so naturally I made a mistake. By the Gospel accounts, ONLY the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death. They FORCED Pilate to agree to his execution (which is completely implausible in itself). So again, Paul is really stretching the poetic license if he's blaming earthly rulers in general for Jesus' crucifixion.

Gregg

CJD

Greetings, Gregg.

I do think that the "overlap between the sublunar heavenly realm, which was ruled by the demonic spirits, and the earthly, physical dimension" is indeed latent in most of Paul's works.

A few nits re: your views on this matter:

1) I am starting with the premise that there are multi-layers going on here, because it seems like Paul's statement in 2:8 is loaded (seen within its epistolary context).

2) So, he does take poetic licence by alluding to the universality of guilt with respect to the Christ's crucifixion.

3) But he also directly accuses the princes of this world of blindness and ignorance, precisely because it is they who are deemed in this to be clear-sighted and wise. The context of the passage in question almost demands this.

4) I disagree that the synoptics leave the entire blame for the crucifixion on the nation of Israel. The role of Pilate in the matter was pivotal. True, historically the man was known to be a shifty coward, but he nonetheless had the power to stop the mob in its tracks. In the end, Pilate is just as much to blame because he (according to the text) crucified the Messiah out of expediency (fear of an uprisal and word getting back to the Caesar). Maybe the Israelites were to be held more accountable, but that is only because they should have seen who Jesus was. From the early Xian point of view, no doubt, both the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) and the eventual downfall of the pagan Roman Empire (c. 4th cent.) were executions of judgment upon those who had a hand in the 1st century murder.

5) Finally, the 1 cor. 2:8 pericope has historically been translated with earthly overtones: Most notably, the Vulgate: " . . . quam nemo principum huius saeculi cognovit . . . ," that is, "which none of the pre-eminent ones of this age knew . . ." The hic clearly denotes "this". Principum can be rendered princes, rulers, sovereigns, emporers, etc. just as easily. But note that the word itself was commonly used in the Roman military to describe the second line of soldiers in a centurion's company. That is to say, that this group was the first and pre-eminent group of grunts under the commander. Saeculi, while not literally meaning "world," it does not include anything "other-worldly." It's just a universal term meaning "people of any age." Which substantiates much of the Xian talk, as Gregg has already noted, that sees the guilt of the crucifixion to be universal; i.e., "If I were alive back then, I would have crucified him, too." or, "It was for the sins of his people [the modern xian included] that he was crucified," etc.

— Wycliffe: "which noon of the princes of this world knew; . . . "

— skipping up to the Reformation, we have the Geneva Bible which reads: "None of the princes of this world knew . . ." Remember, the translators, as good humanists went back to the sources (ad fontes)—not Jerome.

— Here's Luther's: "welche keiner von den Obersten dieser Welt erkannt hat; . . ." That is, "which no uppermost of this world has recognized . . ." Almost as vague as the original Greek if not for the "this world" bit.

— we then come to the Authorized Version: "Which none of the princes of this world knew: . . ."

— The ESV (the improved RSV, IMO): "None of the rulers of this age understood this . . ."

— CEV: "The rulers of this world didn't know anything about this wisdom."

Regards,

CJD