Peter Kirby

I went to the library today to see if I could find out more about the "consensus of scholars" on the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8. I checked out all the commentaries that were there on 1 Corinthians. Unfortunately, some of these commentaries did not touch upon the issue (e.g. Talbert), but some of them did, so here are the quotes. I am quoting these authors here in order to provide a look at the lay of the scholarly landscape and not for the use of their arguments.

Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton write: "The second question, concerning the rulers of this age, does not affect translation into certain languages such as English. But translators into many other languages may have to decide whether the rulers are human or nonhuman. Verse 8 does not settle this question; the rulers of this age may be either people like Caiaphas, Pilate, and the Roman emperor, or the supernatural powers of evil which are ultimately responsible for Christ's death (compare Col 2.10, 15). A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 46)

Ellingworth and Hatton provide a footnote: "However, M. Pesce's detailed Paolo e gli arconti a Corinto (Brescia 1977) argues that the 'rulers' are the Jewish authorities. So do A.W. Carr, 1976, 'The rulers of this age--1 Corinthians 2:6-8,' New Testament Studies 23.20-35; and T. Ling, 1956, 'A note on 1 Corinthians ii.8,' Expository Times 68.26. Against this view, W.J.P. Boyd, 1957, '1 Corinthians ii.8,' Expository Times 68.158." (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 46)

Robertson and Plummer write: "Some Fathers and early writers, from Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 6) downwards, understand the ARCONTES TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU to mean demons: cf. KOSMOKRATORAS TOU SKOTOUS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU (Eph. vi. 12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius; ELAQEN TON ARCONTA [T. AIWNOS] TOUTOU . . . O QANATOS TOU KURIOU. See Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 156 f., 230 n. But this interpretation is wholly incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Angels, whose rule over certain departments in God's government of the world belongs only to this dispensation, and ceases with it (KATARGOUMENWN), and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption (Gal. iii. 19; I Pet. i. 12). See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 5." (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, p. 37)

William Orr and James Walther write: "There seems to be no convincing reason to interpret 'this world's rulers' as being any other than those who actually took part in the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus, and the wisdom they did not know was that their action would have a result exactly opposite to their intention: the ignominy of the cross was turned into the glory of redeeming lordship." (1 Corinthians)

Orr and Walther refer to a 1972 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature 91 by Gene Miller.

Leon Morris writes: "With unwearied persistence the apostle points out that the wisdom of which he speaks is not the wisdom of this age. He has been stressing this for some time and he now adds or of the rulers of this age. In antiquity, Origen took this to refer to the demonic powers behind world rulers, an interpretation which Chrysostom rejected, and this difference of opinion has persisted through the centuries. Among modern commentators Conzelmann, for example, sees a reference to the demons, while Orr and Walther think of earthly rulers. The 'demonic' view sees Christ as engaged in a gigantic struggle with evil forces of the unseen world, a view which is undoubtedly to be found in Paul's writings (e.g. Rom 8:38-39; Col. 2:15; cf. 2 Cor 4:4). But it may be doubted whether this is his meaning here. Three points are especially important. One is that throughout this whole passage the contrast is between the wisdom of God shown in the gospel and the wisdom of this world. To introduce now the thought of the wisdom of demonic powers is to bring in an extraneous concept, and one that is out of harmony with v. 9, which clearly refers to humans. Paul could scarcely have expected his readers to grasp this without one word of explanation. A second is that it was the rulers of this age who are said to have crucified Christ and this same word rulers, archontes, is repeatedly used of the Jewish and Roman leaders (Acts 3:17; 4:5,8,26; Rom. 13:3, etc.). The third is that it is explicitly said that they carried out the crucifixion in ignorance (Acts 3:17; 13:27; cf. Jn 16:3), but, by contrast, the demons are often said to have known who Jesus was when people did not (Mk. 1:24, 34, etc.). Paul habitually ascribes power to the demonic forces, but not ignorance. The very concept of a struggle between demonic forces and the power of God implies that the demons knew what they were up against. Paul's use of this age probably points to the transitory nature of the office of rulers, over against the truth of the gospel, which is permanent. This transitoriness is also in mind in the concluding who are coming to nothing (the verb is katargeo; see on 1:28). The rulers are being rendered completely ineffective; their vaunted power and wisdom are made null and void." (1 Corinthians, pp. 53-54)

[NB: the third argument is worthless in the context of a Jesus Myth debate.]

Thus, in my very incomplete look at the literature, we find these writers in favor of a terrestrial interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8: M. Pesce, A. W. Carr, T. Ling, Archibald Robertson, Alfred Plummer, William Orr, James Walther, Gene Miller, and Leon Morris.

Based on my own survey and the work of Earl Doherty, we find these writers in favor of a 'demonic powers' interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8: Conzelmann, W. J. P. Boyd, C. K. Barrett, Paula Fredriksen, Jean Hering, Delling, and S. G. F. Brandon.

This is a count of nine against seven. Moreover, the tally in favor of Doherty's interpretation included both the authors that I found and the authors that Doherty mentions, so the method of tallying was skewed in Doherty's favor. Ellingworth and Hatton claim that a majority of scholars favors a 'demonic powers' interpretation, but this may not be true, and it would be in any case a rather slim majority. My conclusion is that there is not enough scholarly agreement on this issue to use scholarly opinion in favor of either interpretation.

Therefore, we have to use our own minds and evidence to make a ruling.

I suppose that it would be helpful to provide a survey of the use of the Greek terms ARCW (ruler) and AIWN (age) in the New Testament. The exact word used in 1 Cor 2:6-8, A)RXO/NTWN, is found three other times in the New Testament.

Luke 14:1. "And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the rulers, [who was] of the Pharisees, [TW=N A)RXO/NTWN [TW=N] FARISAI/WN] to eat bread on [the] sabbath, that *they* were watching him."

John 7:48. "Has any one of the rulers [TW=N A)RXO/NTWN] believed on him, or of the Pharisees?"

John 12:42. "Although indeed from among the rulers [E)K TW=N A)RXO/NTWN] also many believed on him, but on account of the Pharisees did not confess [him], that they might not be put out of the synagogue:"

The word for rulers is also found in another verse in the authentic Paul, Romans 13:3. "For rulers are not a terror to a good work..." [hoi gar archontes ouk eisin phobos tôi agathôi ergôi] The context shows that Paul is speaking of earthly rulers in this passage from Romans, as Doherty acknowledges.

Thus, while "Archon" can sound technical and esoteric to us (it's found in the computer game Starcraft to refer to a powerful Protoss unit), in Koine Greek it is the normal term for a leader or ruler. Of course, that does not in itself say whether these rulers in First Corinthians reside on earth or in the heavens in the mind of Paul! Indeed, there are some cases in which ancient Christian writers refer to demonic powers, one of which is found in Ephesians.

Eph 2:2. "in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air [TON ARCONTA THS EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS], the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient."

Note that this passage clearly refers to Satan; ruler is in the singular and qualifies itself by referring to the kingdom of the heavens (i.e. Satan), while no such qualification is found in 1 Cor 2:6-8. There is a different passage in Ephesians to which Doherty appeals, although the specific word archon is not found in this passage:

Ephesians 3. [9] to de Anebê ti estin ei mê hoti kai katebê eis ta [10] katôtera merê tês gês; ho katabas autos estin kai ho anabas huperanô pantôn tôn ouranôn, hina plêrôsêi ta panta.

Here is the Darby translation:

[9] and to enlighten all [with the knowledge of] what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things, [10] in order that now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God,

Here is the NAB translation:

[9] and to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, [10] so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

What is this passage saying? Certainly the author does not restrict the church from enlightenment of people on earth, but the author extends the church's role to have a cosmic significance in saying that the existence of the church shows even to the powers in the heavens what was wrought by God through Christ.

How is this passage relevant to the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8? This passage does show that angelic beings can be regarded as "principalities" or "authorities," but it does not show that such terminology is being so used in the First Corinthians, since there are also other passages in the New Testament that refer to archons in an earthly sense. All that the Ephesians passage does is to show the possibility that the phrase "rulers" in a Christian mouth might refer to non-physical beings. Whether that possibility holds true in any particular case would have to be decided by an examination of that case and its context.

Is it impermissible to use Ephesians to shed light on an earlier work by another author, Paul in First Corinthians? This seems now to be a somewhat moot point, because I don't believe the Ephesians passage would require a change in the way that one interprets 1 Cor 2:6-8 even if Ephesians were by Paul (pending any comments that convince me of such). But it is interesting to me that people who object to interpreting Paul through the Gospel of Mark or the Acts have no problem using a different work that is also not by Paul (assuming they agree with inauthenticity for Ephesians) to 'read into' Paul's language something which is not justified from Paul's words alone.

Gregg writes: "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." However, if Ephesians is not authentic, there is absolutely zero evidence that Ephesians was written before the Gospel of Mark.

Gregg writes: "Paul and 'Mark' were not contemporaries." When would say that Paul died, and when would you say that the author of Mark was born? And how would you justify those opinions?

Gregg writes: "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.)" I have noted the error of this statement on this board recently. "For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2)

Toto writes: "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." There is no evidence that the author of Ephesians had studied under Paul, as someone other than an understudy can write falsely under Paul's name. To say that the author of Ephesians thought like Paul on the issue is to beg the question of whether Paul is referring to spiritual powers in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

The passage outside of the New Testament that is often cited in this context is Ignatius in Smyrnaeans 6:1.

"Let no one be deceived; even things in heaven and the glory of the angels, and the rulers visible and invisible, even for them there is a judgment if they do not believe on the blood of Christ."

Mhdeis planasqw: kai ta epourania kai h doxa twn aggelwn kai oi arxontes oratoi te kai aoratoi, ean mh pisteuswsin eis to aima xristou, kakeinois krisis estin.

Here, however, the author recognizes a distinction between two kinds of rulers: visible and invisible. This passage does not show that 1 Cor is to be interpreted as referring to invisible powers any more than it shows that 1 Cor is referring to visible powers.

In sum, then, a survey of the use of the word "rulers" in other Christian writings shows that it could be used to refer to earthly rulers as well as to heavenly rulers. The word in itself does not disambiguate the sense. To call it "a technical term for the spirit forces" is to go beyond the evidence, as it is not the only term used for spirit forces and, being used frequently for earthly rulers, has not been shown to be some sort of technical term.

Now what about the word usually translated as "age"? Toto writes: "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." Toto is following Doherty: "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."

The first thing to note is that the word used in 1 Cor 2:6-8 is AIWNOS, which is a Masculine Singular Genitive noun, not the plural 'the ages'. I would agree that earthly rulers were not meant by Paul here if the phrase had been 'rulers of the ages'. But that is not what Paul says. Paul speaks of rulers TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU, "of this age."

Let me quote from the other places in Paul's writings where this term appears. To save some time I have omitted verses where the phrase for "forever" appears (eis tous aiônas).

1 Cor 1:20. "Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? [pou sunzêtêtês tou aiônos toutou;] Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?"

1 Cor 2:6. "Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age [sophian de ou tou aiônos toutou], nor of the rulers of this age [tôn archontôn tou aiônos toutou] who are passing away."

1 Cor 2:8. "and which none of the rulers of this age [tôn archontôn tou aiônos toutou] knew for, if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

1 Cor 3:18. If anyone among you considers himself wise in this age, [ei tis dokei sophos einai en humin en tôi aiôni toutôi,] let him become a fool so as to become wise.

1 Cor 10:11. "These things happened to them as an example, and they have been written down as a warning to us, upon whom the end of the ages has come. [eis hous ta telê tôn aiônôn katêntêken]"

2 Cor 4:4. "And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age [ho theos tou aiônos toutou] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Gal 1:4. "who gave himself for our sins that he might rescue us from the present evil age [ek tou aiônos tou enestôtos ponêrou] in accord with the will of our God and Father"

Phil 4:20. "To our God and Father, glory for ever and ever [eis tous aiônas tôn aiônôn]."

Doherty is correct that "age" can be used to refer to the period of time before the apocalypse, which is natural enough since the early Christians believed that the end would be coming soon. However, this in itself does not show that the rulers in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are to be interpreted as angelic beings. The references in 1 Cor 1:20 and 1 Cor 3:18 show that Paul could describe human beings as being "of this age" or "in this age," which is telling because this is the immediate context of the passage under concern.

So, we have done a little survey of the scholarly literature and have examined the use of the terms in cognate ancient writings. There is not a scholarly consensus that would point us strongly in either direction, and the words used in the passage can be applied both to humans and supernatural beings. Thus far, then, it is a non liquet.

Is there anything else that could be brought foward in an attempt to establish the claim that 1 Cor 2 refers to spiritual beings? Doherty offers Colossians 2:15, "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." Doherty regards Colossians as a non-authentic letter, although it is possibly authentic (as writers such as W.G. Kummel argue). But I will not lead us on another tangent by replying that a later document should not be used to interpret Paul. I think it can be said that the Colossians passage, if it reflected the mind of Paul, would show that Paul did not have angelic beings in mind in 1 Cor 2:6-8. Why? In Paul's statement in First Corinthians, "the rulers of this age" are the ones who in control of the crucifixion and enjoy a temporary victory over Christ. However, in Colossians, the "cosmic powers and authorities" (note that the type of powers - cosmic as opposed to terrestrial - is clearly distinguished) are the ones who are subjugated to Christ on the cross. What is going on here? If both ideas reflect those of Paul, only one of them refers to the situation in the heavens, and the one which makes this explicit is Colossians. By elimination, First Corinthians refers to the situation on earth. In truly platonic form, the earthly happening is a distortion of the heavenly reality.

Even supposing that certain scholars are correct in assuming that heavenly powers are in view, does this show that Doherty's view of Christian origins is correct? Doherty writes: "It will not do to suggest that since earthly rulers are considered to be controlled by heavenly ones, the latter are seen as operating 'through' the former. Paul would not likely have presented things in this way without an explanation." This is anachronistic in the respect that it confuses us with the ancient recipients of the epistle--we would very much like to see Paul explain that he recognized both spiritual and physical powers in the crucifixion, but the recipients would not have needed Paul to say, "Oh, by the way, it was Pilate and Caiaphas who nailed up Jesus." Doherty also writes: "And once we get to the Gospel picture which first makes a clear reference to earthly rulers in the death of Jesus, any heavenly dimension which supposedly lies behind those rulers completely disappears." To which I can reply, "And Satan entered into Judas" (Luke 22:3). Plus, I don't see the logic by which this statement would exclude earthly rulers from the mind of Paul.

I believe, then, that I have responded to all the arguments put forward by Doherty in favor of his interpretation of 1 Cor 2:6-8. In sum, none of them are sound.

Finally, there is some evidence--while not being conclusive, is at least existent--which favors an interpretation according to which Paul's "rulers of this age" are earthly. Because the phrase itself is not clear, we must turn to the surrounding passages for the context. Here is the text in the NAB.

Chapter 1
17 7 8 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. 18
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside." 20
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21
9 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 26
10 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27
Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, 28
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, 29
so that no human being might boast 11 before God. 30
It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 31
so that, as it is written, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."

Chapter 2
1 When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, 1 I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. 2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3
I came to you in weakness 2 and fear and much trembling, 4
and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive (words of) wisdom, 3 but with a demonstration of spirit and power, 5
so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. 6
4 Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. 7
Rather, we speak God's wisdom, 5 mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory, 8
and which none of the rulers of this age 6 knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9
But as it is written: "What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him," 10
this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11
Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13
And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. 7 14
Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15
The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone. 16
For "who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Notice several phrases in this passage: "wisdom of human eloquence," "the debater of this age," "the wisdom of the world," Jews and Greeks, "human wisdom," "human strength," "human standards," "no human being," again "human wisdom," then soon after "wisdom of this age" in the passage of concern, then "rulers of this age" (the controversial phrase), then "human beings," then "human wisdom," then "natural person," and such. It is clear in this passage that Paul is speaking against those who consider themselves wise and powerful in this world and age--namely, human beings. A reference to fallen angels would be out of place here. The entire passage serves to present the contrast between God's wisdom and the wisdom of this world, the latter of which is clearly inferior and in ignorance of God's wisdom (unlike the Christian initiates). Verse 9, in the same passage, refers to "what hs not entered the human heart," just after describing how "the rulers of this age" did not know the plans of God when they crucified Christ. To switch from talking about "human wisdom" to the ignorance of the demonic powers and back again to humans, all without any indication to his readers that this is what Paul is doing, would be inexplicable.

I conclude that 1 Cor 2:6-8 does not provide any evidence for Doherty's hypothesis and that, while it is not conclusive, does count against the Jesus Myth interpretation of Paul.

best,
Peter Kirby

PS - Can someone translate this Latin for me? Who is it that speaks of secular princes, according to Tertullian: Marcion or Paul?

Secundum autem Marcionem nec apostolus hoc loco patitur ignorantiam adscribi virtutibus creatoris in gloriae dominum, quia scilicet non illas vult intellegi principes huius aevi. Quodsi non videtur de spiritalibus dixisse principibus, ergo de saecularibus dixit, de populo principali, utique non inter nationes, de ipsis archontibus eius, de rege Herode, etiam de Pilato, et quo maior principatus4 huius aevi Romana dignitas praesidebat.

PPS - Has anyone else read Crime and Punishment? My sister gave me a copy, and it is excellent.

Toto

Peter - I think that Paul may have been deliberately obscure. But I still think that if Paul were referring to a recent crucifixion under a known ruler, he would have named the ruler, and not used the gnostic sounding "rulers of this age."

I still think that this issue tends to support Doherty. He does have a majority of translators on his side, and the proponents of earthly rulers have to work harder to justify their reading. (There also seems to be a conflict over whether Jewish or Roman rulers are meant.) The reasons given by Orr and Walther seem to be that of course we know that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, so that was who Paul meant. Morris has to look ahead to Mark to claim that Paul would not have spoken of the ignorance of these demons.

But it is not a clear issue. It appears that many historicists interpret this passage to refer to demon rulers.

Peter Kirby

Why is that?

There is nothing particularly Gnostic about this phrase, although you are welcome to post any evidence to that effect. Is your reason for this that "rulers of this age" sounds archaic in English? It may not have sounded so strange in Greek, which is why I titled the thread "Today's Leaders."

Were there any arguments made by Doherty that I missed?

So is it okay to appeal to the majority on an issue to circumvent a detailed discussion?

This is discouraging. I am sure that my thoughts could be dismissed if I said just a couple of sentences, but when I spend several hours researching something, now I "have to work harder" and I can be dismissed in that way.

I agree that Paul in 1 Cor 2 does not say whether Jewish or Roman rulers (or both) are meant.

Let me repeat that I was not providing the quotes because I agree with the statements therein but rather so as to provide an overview of scholarly opinion, which I wouldn't do if Doherty and others did not make a big point over an alleged consensus.

Actually, Morris has three arguments, the first of which seems to hold up. I already pointed out that the third argument is worthless in the context of a Jesus Myth debate (which naturally is not the context of his commentary).

Doherty seems to think that it is clear enough that it provides evidence for his hypothesis--I have explained why I disagree.

Usually their interpretation is that it refers to worldly leaders under the direction of demons--but, it must be admitted, historicists can be wrong! And to appeal to their "reluctance" or bias against the interpretation by virtue of maintaining the existence of a Jesus is, in addition to being a variation on the appeal to authority, probably not relevant because for most historicists (or at least the ones that wrote their commentaries before the internet) the Jesus Myth theory is not an issue.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Difficult out of context, but here is a stab at Tert's Latin:

"However, not even according to Marcion does the apostle at this place allow an ignorant statement to be inserted into the lord of glory by the works of the creator, because certainly he does not wish those leaders of this age to be understood. But he does not seem to have spoken concerning spiritual leaders, that is concerning the church, or about the people of the rulers, certainly not between nations, or about his magistrates themselves, about King Herod, even about Pilate, and by how much Roman rank was protecting the rulers of this age."

Not sure this makes sense.....

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Geoff Hudson

1COR. 2 – Peter wrote:

This applies to the extanct passage. There are at least two layers of editing onto the original Jewish letter. There is a Gnostic Christ layer with its wisdom and “knowing” expressions, and there is a later literalistic Jesus layer with its cross. If you factor these out, you are left with text that I believe to be close to the original Jewish document.

I have embedded the actual text of Is.64.4 in v.8, to show that the original writer of 1Cor.2.8 was quoting an unmodified version of Is.64.4. and that the later editors were up to their usual tricks. The same applies to Is.40.13 in v.16.

The passage was originally all about the preaching of the Spirit, its power in the preaching, and not being able to perceive God without having his Spirit. The Spirit spoke through the preacher. There was no idea of a “testimony about” or a “message”. We also have an old Jewish friend - the spirit of darkness. There is of course plenty of extanct "Spirit" language.

[ ] = PROPOSED EDITOR’S CHANGES (READ AS OUT)
{ } = PROPOSED ORIGINAL TEXT (READ AS IN)


1 COR. - CHAPTER 2


(1)When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence [or superior wisdom] as I proclaimed to you [the testimony about] {the Spirit of} God.

(2)For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except [Jesus Christ} {the Spirit} and him [crucified] {glorified}.

(3)I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling.

(4)My [message and my] preaching [were] {was} not with [wise and] persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your [faith] {belief} might not rest on men's [wisdom] {eloquence}, but on [God's] {the Spirit’s} power.

(6)We [do, however, speak a message] {preach} [of wisdom] {the Spirit} among the [mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers] {spirits} of darkness, who are coming to nothing.

(6)[No,] We [speak of] {preach} [God's secret wisdom,] a [wisdom that has been hidden and] {Spirit} that God destined for our [glory] {purification} before time began.

(7)None of the [rulers] {spirits} of darkness [understood] {heard} [it] {Him}, for if they had they would not have [crucified] {rejected} [the Lord of Glory] {Him}.

(8)However, as it is written: "[No eye has seen, no ear] {No-one} has heard, no [mind] {ear} has [conceived] {perceived, no eye has seen} [what] {any} God {besides you} [has prepared for] {who acts on behalf of} those who [love him] {wait for him}" –

(10)BUT GOD HAS REVEALED [IT] {HIMSELF} TO US BY HIS SPIRIT. [The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God].

(11)For who among men [knows the thoughts of] {reveals} a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no-one [knows the thoughts of] {reveals} God except the Spirit of God.

(12)We have not received the spirit of [the world] {darkness} but the Spirit who is from God, [that we may understand what God has freely given us].

(13)This is what we [speak] {preach}, not in words taught us by [human wisdom] {the spirit of darkness} but in words taught by the Spirit [, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words].

(14)The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them[, because they are spiritually discerned].

(15)The [spiritual] man {with the Spirit} makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has [known] {understood} the [mind] {Spirit} of the Lord that he may instruct him?"

(16)But we have the [mind of the] {Spirit} of God.

Geoff

Toto

Hi Peter - I did not mean to dismiss your hard work. When I said that the supporters of the earthly rulers had to work harder to support their reading, I was in fact thinking of Morris' first argument:

'I think this is a stretch because, from Paul's point of view, (or what Doherty and others say is Paul's point of view), these demonic powers are an integral part of this world - its rulers in fact - so there is nothing extraneous about the concept. So I read this as a very strained attempt to force the phrase to mean something other than what the more obvious interpretation is, an interpretation that goes back to Origen.

I do find Paul to be obscure in places, and I assumed that was a deliberate tactic on his part, (we see through a glass darkly) but I could be wrong. Doherty was the first writer I found who made sense of what he wrote, as opposed to just chalking things up to "mystery".

I feel that I have to rely on the majority of translators, since I myself do not read Greek. I think it is relevant to note that historicists would automatically read this phrase as referring to the Romans (or the Jews) by virtue of reading the Gospel stories back into Paul's letters. The comments that you posted do not show any other good reason for this translation. This may be why Doherty is quick to announce that a majority of translators favor the cosmic reading.

I cannot claim to have studied Ephesians in depth. I was relying on Mack, who said that it was written shortly after Paul's death by a follower, but he did not provide a source for that assertion. (It may be based on internal evidence, in which case it would just be a circular argument.) Do you regard him as reliable?

I think your best argument for the powers being terrestrial is

However, as I understand it, there is more than one heaven (in fact, there are 7 in his cosmology). Doherty is assuming that Paul's Christ was crucified in a sub-lunar sphere. That still leaves higher spheres where Christ can subjugate "cosmic" authorities.

Peter Kirby

OK. Thanks for this reply.

This world has human rulers, as Paul knows, and the thrust of the entire passage is to contrast the false "strength" and "wisdom" of humans with that of God. In verse 5, Paul says that he hopes "that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God." In verse 6, Paul refers to the "wisdom of this age," which is most naturally interpreted as the same false wisdom of man that Paul has been talking about for several sentences previous. In the same verse, Paul refers to "the rulers of this age," who are connected with the same false "wisdom of this age," which Paul nowhere associates with anything other than humanity. Then Paul says that the rulers had crucified JC without knowing the wisdom of God, and Paul immediately speaks of what has not been known to "the human heart." In the following passage, Paul again speaks about the inadequacy of "human wisdom." A reference to the ignorance of demonic powers, when the whole passage is speaking about the ignorance of humans, is out of place. Fortunately, we do not have to subscribe to the demonic powers interpretation, as there is no evidence for it.

You have used the word "force" more than once, without any justification. Explain the reason that one would have to "strain" in order to doubt that "rulers of this age" refers to demons in the heavens as Doherty claims. Such a reading is not obvious to me and other readers; the church father Origen had a penchant for spiritualizing or subtle interpretations.

Doherty is a great writer, easily one of the best popularizers in the history of New Testament scholarship. But that doesn't make him right.

It has not been shown in any kind of valid way that a majority of translators prefer a spiritualizing interpretation. Doherty says so, and one book says so, but my own reading does not confirm that. Even the book that Doherty cites lists more articles against the 'demonic powers' interpretation than for it.

From what I have read of those who interpret the passage as referring to demonic powers, they do an even worse job of providing sound reasons. S. G. F. Brandon, for example (in History, Time and Deity), whom Doherty quotes, does not engage at all the scholarship which points in the other direction and does not provide any kind of argument for his own interpretation.

Burton Mack is one of my favoirite authors, but he isn't free of faults. There is no external evidence saying that Ephesians was written by an understudy of Paul--the only patristic tradition of which I am aware says that Paul himself wrote it, which is of course subject to doubt.

This is what I would consider to be forced and very strained. There is absolutely no indication in Paul or any other writer that there were somehow two different spiritual Jesui being crucified on two different spritual planes, with the demons experiencing two different situations during those crucifixions. If that had been the belief of early Christians, it would surface somewhere in later literature, but there is not a scintilla to be found to that effect. Moreover, it does not jive at all with platonic worldview (which Doherty is always appealing to) to have the events on one non-physical sphere to be reflected in the events on another non-physical sphere, unless someone can provide references to that effect.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Bede,

Thank you for providing a translation. In case you were curious, here is the context:

Against Marcion, Book Five

[7] Sed iam nec mihi competit
principes huius aevi virtutes et potestates interpretari creatoris,
quia ignorantiam illis adscribit apostolus, Iesum autem et secun-
dum nostrum evangelium diabolus quoque in temptatione cogno-
vit, et secundum commune instrumentum spiritus nequam sciebat
eum sanctum dei esse et Iesum vocari et in perditionem eorum
venisse. Etiam parabola fortis illius armati, quem alius validior
oppressit et vasa eius occupavit, si in creatoris3 accipitur apud
Marcionem, iam nec ignorasse ultra potuit creator deum gloriae
dum ab eo opprimitur, nec in cruce eum figere adversus quem
valere non potuit, et superest ut secundum me quidem credibile
sit scientes virtutes et potestates creatoris deum gloriae Christum
suum crucifixisse, qua desperatione et malitiae redundantia servi
quoque scelestissimi dominos suos interficere non dubitant.
Scriptum est enim apud me satanam in Iudam introisse. [8] Secun-
dum autem Marcionem nec apostolus hoc loco patitur ignoran-
tiam adscribi virtutibus creatoris in gloriae dominum, quia
scilicet non illas vult intellegi principes huius aevi. Quodsi non
videtur de spiritalibus dixisse principibus, ergo de saecularibus
dixit, de populo principali, utique non inter nationes, de ipsis
archontibus eius, de rege Herode, etiam de Pilato, et quo maior
principatus4 huius aevi Romana dignitas praesidebat. [9] Ita et cum
destruuntur argumentationes diversae partis, nostrae expositiones
aedificantur. Sed vis adhuc gloriam nostram dei tui esse et apud
eum in occulto fuisse. Et quare adhuc eodem et deus instrumento
et apostolus nititur? Quid illi cum sententiis prophetarum ubique?
Quis enim cognovit sensum domini, et quis illi consiliarius fuit?
Esaias est. Quid illi etiam cum exemplis dei nostri?

Here is the ANF translation.

The parable also of the strong man armed, whom a stronger than he overcame and seized his goods, is admitted by Marcion to have reference to the Creator:254 therefore the Creator could not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome by him;255 nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope with. The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that we must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation and excessive malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even hesitate to slay their masters. For it is written in my Gospel256 that "Satan entered into Judas."257 According to Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under consideration258 does not allow the imputation of ignorance, with respect to the Lord of glory, to the powers of the Creator; because, indeed, he will have it that these are not meant by "the princes of this world." But (the apostle) evidently259 did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant secular ones, those of the princely people, (chief in the divine dispensation, although) not, of course, amongst the nations of the world, and their rulers, and king Herod, and even Pilate, and, as represented by him,260 that power of Rome which was the greatest in the world, and then presided over by him. Thus the arguments of the other side are pulled down, and our own proofs are thereby built up. But you still maintain that our glory comes from your god, with whom it also lay in secret. Then why does your god employ the self-same Scripture261 which the apostle also relies on? What has your god to do at all with the sayings of the prophets? "Who hath discovered the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? "262 So says Isaiah.

I have since found this translation (Evans 1972).

Also if that
parable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger than
he has overcome, and has taken possession of his goods,e is, as
Marcion has it, taken for a parable of the Creator, in that case
the Creator could no longer have remained in ignorance of your
god of glory while he was being overcome by him: nor could he
have hanged upon a cross that one against whom his strength
was of no avail: and so it remains for me to argue that the virtues
and powers of the Creator did know, and did crucify the God of
glory, their own Christ, with that desperation and overflowing
of wickedness with which also slaves steeped in villainy do not
hesitate to murder their masters: for in the gospel as I have it, it
is written that Satan entered into Judas,f But according to
Marcion not even the apostle in this passage permits of ignorance
against the Lord of glory being ascribed to the powers of the
Creator, because in effect he will not have it that they are referred
to as the princes of this world. And so, as it appears that he was
not speaking of spiritual princes, then it was secular princes he
meant, the princely people—which was not reckoned among the
nations—and its rulers, the king Herod, and even Pilate, and
him in whom sat in authority the major principality of this world,
the majesty of Rome. In such a way, while the argumentations
of the opposite faction are pulled down, my own expositions are
built up. But you still claim that our glory belongs to your god and
has been kept secret with him. Why then does your god, like
the apostle, still rest his case upon the same document? What
has he, here and everywhere, to do with the statements of the
prophets? For who hath known the mind of the Lord, and who hath been
his counsellor?g Isaiah said it.

So it appears that Marcion had appealed to Paul in support of the idea that the god of this world (the demiurge and OT god) did not know that Jesus Christ was from a higher God and thus took action in ignorance. Tertullian seems to think that the passage more clearly refers to secular rulers as being responsible for the crucifixion.

best,
Peter Kirby

Tharmas

There is though a critical tradition, that goes back at least a few years. I grabbed my Dartmouth Bible of the shelf (1950!) and found this:

"...There has also been a question whether Paul himself wrote it or one of his disciples after his death. It differs from the other Epistles in its relative lack of personal references, contentious material or church business..."

Meanwhile and back to the subject at hand, thank you very much Peter for putting together this compendium of critical readings. It helps to put things in perspective to have a collection in front of you.

While I agree with Toto that the tendency to read in spiritual meanings was almost instinctive in those days, in the end I tend to side with you Peter that in the case of this passage from Corinthians the plain sense of the rhetorical construction itself seems to suggest that the ‘rulers of this age’ are physical rulers.

It is not only a contrast between the divine on the one hand and the earthly on the other, but a parallel construction between the low-born and foolish on the one hand (who turn out to be more Godly and wise) and the noble and high-born on the other (the rulers who foolishly kill the divine).

I note however that these rulers are unspecified in time and place. This of itself proves nothing; I’m just pointing out that Paul is referencing a most generalized and stylized version of the Passion narrative. Whether Paul knew a more detailed version is not important for my argument.

As a statement, however, doesn’t what Paul is saying (assuming physical rulers) somewhat contradict the development of the Gospel story? Don’t the Gospels end up with rather neutral “rulers” (aka Pilate) while it is the common people (aka the Jews) who call for Jesus’ execution? Might not this seeming contradiction motivate commentators to discover a “spiritual” interpretation in Paul’s message?

In other words, Paul seems to imply a primitive gospel narrative in which the worldly-wise rulers execute Jesus but in the end the “ignorant” masses triumph because He is resurrected to them in spirit. Later commentators were confronted with a detailed Gospel narrative in which the worldly Pilate can find no guilt in Jesus but agrees to his execution at the clamor of the ignorant masses; it was found necessary to “adjust” Paul’s meaning to conform.

I’m not necessarily trying to draw conclusions. I’m just speculating.

Gregg

An announcement:

I've made the decision to withdraw from these debates about MJ vs. HJ until such time as I'm able to do more research and be more confident of my facts. I am simply making too many basic errors in my posts. There are others here who are much better equipped to argue for the mythicist case than I am, so for the time being I leave it in their capable hands.

Gregg