Droge argues this way:
Do they designate mundane political authorities,supernatural powers, or perhaps some combination of the two?
The problem is compounded by the fact that the expression, “Archons of this Aeon,” occurs only twice in all the letters attributed to Paul,and both instances fall in our passage. Otherwise, the plural ἄρχοντες (“rulers”) is found only at Rom. :–, where Paul admonishes hisreaders to obey all civil authorities, whom, he says, God appointed for their benefit , because such “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (:). Many commentators, especially those of a conservative bent, choose to read the Archons of :– through the lens of Rom.:. For example, Joseph Fitzmyer takes Paul to be saying that “God’s wisdom, hidden in a mystery, was incomprehensible to rulers such asPilate, Herod Antipas, or Caiaphas.”
Nowhere, however, does Paul, or the tradition Paul alleged he received, ever claim that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, Herod Antipas, or Caiaphas. Furthermore, even if Paul had meant such earthly rulers, he had no need to use cosmolog-ical language to express this; he could have simply written something like, “a wisdom that Pilate (or Herod or Caiaphas) did not know, for if he had known, he would not have crucified the Lord.” There would be no need to say anything about its being “hidden in a mystery” or to refer to Jesus as the “Lord of Glory.”
In any case, how could mere civil authorities have been expected to comprehend such mysterious wisdom in the first place? What could they possibly have made of it? And even if they had understood it, how would that have changed anything? Earthly rulers simply make no sense in our passage, quite apart from the question whether :– is an interpolation. Not only is the important qualifier “of this Aeon” (
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) missingat Rom. :, so is any hint that these authorities are in the process of“being abolished” (καταργούμενοι), as stated at :. In fact, it is crucial to Paul’s point at Rom. : that they not be. No, the “Archons of this Aeon” can only refer to an order of supernatural beings, to the only entities who had anything to lose by the crucifixion, and who were tricked into acting in accord with God’s secret plot. Simply put, the Archons must designate the hostile powers of the sublunary world. They were the ones who crucified the Lord of Glory.
He draws parallels to AoI:
It is not entirely clear in the interpolated material who was responsiblefor the actual crucifixion. The “Adversary”? The “Children of Israel”?The “Ruler”? Or did they all conspire together? In any event, the inter-polation looks like a later attempt to historicize what had once been a cosmic version of the crucifixion, one in which the archontic powers of the lower world crucified Christ “in the Firmament,” not “in Jerusalem.”Even so, the parallels with Cor. :– remain striking, for it is stillthese powers of the Firmament – in so many words, the “Archons ofthis Aeon” – who bear ultimate responsibility for the crucifixion. Thetheme of their ignorance is also strikingly similar. They did not reallyknow who Christ was and would not realize what they had done untilthey witnessed his ascent
in glory.
This comes very close to the viewof our passage, where the Archons are likewise ignorant of what theyhad done. Indeed, we are told that had they known better, they wouldnot have been so foolish as to “crucify the Lord of Glory” and therebyseal their own doom. The reference at Cor. : to the Archons “beinga bolished” (καταργούμενοι) signals their subjection and the loss of their former powers. The same is presumed at
Ascen. Isa. ., when Satan and his angels worship Christ in glory.
But he argues that AoI was not dependent on Paul:
Nor is there any indication that the author or compiler of the Ascension of Isaiah was dependent on our pas-sage. Nowhere is Paul’s authority invoked, and, despite the striking con-ceptual similarities with our passage, the different vocabulary used for the sublunary powers is equally striking.
He claims that this was a counterpoint to a prior story of Christ's physical passion
in Jerusalem:
Insofar as this myth is conceived of as a cosmic, rather than historical, drama, it was probably deployed as a counterpoint to its historicized version, namely, the story of Christ’s physical passion in Jerusalem.
Saying that this is "clear" because of the docetic character of the passage:
We see this clearly at Ascen. Isa. ., where the malevolent powers of the Firmament “think that he is flesh and a man.”
Yet Christ was not actually human, his appearance was merely a disguise by which the powers of the Firmament were tricked, and even in the interpolated material there is no indication that Christ suffered any pain during his crucifixion.
But is it clear? Not really. Docetism doesn't imply a counter to a crucifixion in Jerusalem that places it somewhere less earthly. There are texts considered to be docetic in nature (e.g., Gospel of Peter) that clearly place it in Jerusalem. The discussions around it don't center on the location of the crucifixion. They center on the reality of the body of Jesus, the reality of his suffering, or sometimes whether it was Jesus up on the cross, questions of the nature of Christ and the passion story of the gospels. While it is possible that there were also different versions of docetism with different locations, not explicitly attested (possibly excepting the hypothetical substratum of AoI?), the claim above -- it was probably deployed as a counterpoint to its historicized version, namely, the story of Christ’s ... passion in Jerusalem --- is not supported. If we lay all the stress on the word "physical," we save the statement but destroy the argument. Nobody's disputing that docetism was in some sense anti-physical.
Immediately he says:
It is almost certain that the crucifixion myth of Cor. :– is similarly docetic.
Quoting:
See already Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament , vols, trans.Gerhard Krodel (New York: Scribners, ), :: “The Gnostic idea that Christ’s earthly garment of flesh was the disguise in consequence of which the world-rulers failed to recognize him … lurks behind Cor. ..”
While an impressive quote, there is nothing else said in support of it being "almost certain."
He does provide this outline of what he sees as the points of the passage, in a later context:
() the theme of the ignorance of the pow-ers in failing to recognize Christ, or to realize what they were actually doing; () their attempt to crucify him being the very means by which their control over the lower world was broken; and () that it is knowledge of this that constitutes redemption from enslavement to them.
Which does help understand the way that he interprets the passage.
There is the outline of an argument above, much of which I haven't commented on.
Are there other key points
in favor of the interpretation?
(As opposed to key points
of the essay, which involves more than just a claim of this interpretation, of course.)
