The pathetic effort to make Pilate the archon of THIS aeon

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

But then Paul would say that these ''Roman'' archons are held deliberately by God in an obscure state of not-knowledge, so that they can kill Jesus without knowing his identity.

Paul never said that Jesus, while on earth, was seen as a god. On the contrary, Paul described him as humble and of no reputation. And Romans 1:4 suggests Jesus was revealed Son of God only because & after his alleged resurrection.

This is like to say that if a Judas didn't exist, he had to be invented, because otherwise Jesus couldn't be killed.

I do not know if a Judas was part of the arrest of Jesus. I agree that Judas was not necessary for the arrest of Jesus.[/quote]

Your hypothesis seems to assume that these ''Roman'' archons are basically innocent in killing Jesus. The idea of their presumed innocence is not Pauline, ma comes from Gospel (Pilate is a good guy, there).

I did not say that. Certainly the Romans and the chief priests had reasons to crucify Jesus (see http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html), but not because they knew he was divine.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,

Against this, “the angels, when they are concerned with the world of men, may relate to the fate of nations as a whole, but never to the individual king, ruler or government.”

I mentioned Satan only, not demons. Furthermore the alleged participation of Satan in the arrest of Jesus leading to his crucifixion is mentioned in Lk 22:3 & Jn 13:27.

There is not difference beetween Satan and demons: both are spiritual forces. The Gospels are not the epistles of Paul. Dale Allison's words prove that the less probable interpretation is to see spiritual archons behind human authorities, because Pilate is not the entire Roman Empire.

@Bernard

Where did I say Pilate is a nation and the Roman Empire?
Where did I say Satan is the archons (plural)?
Where did I say Satan manipulated the human Pilate?

Your same words:

But it is possible Paul would have thought of Satan as one of the rulers, one who could use humans from afar to kill people as in the book of Job and Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:5 "to deliver such a one [a bad Christian] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh...".

http://historical-jesus.info/68.html

I did not say that. Certainly the Romans and the chief priests had reasons to crucify Jesus (see http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html), but not because they knew he was divine.

I insist: you are concluding just that (that the Romans were essentially innocent because they didn't know who Jesus was divine). As when you say that ''the Romans and the chief priests had reasons to crucify Jesus'' you are introducing wrongly the Gospels in the epistles (and that is not my intention, if we want to talk about the archons of this age).

The Roman authorities can't be the ''archons of this age'' because otherwise this would make the former as innocent people (not knowing innocently who was really Jesus) and there is not reason for God to make them deliberately innocent, even more so because in Romans 13 Paul is assuming that the Roman authorities are cruel authorities and exhorts to obey them even if so, because it is Will of God.

The Roman Pilate can't be the 'archon of this age' because 'this age' refers to a so great temporal space that it can't be ruled by a so insignificant historical person as Pilate.

"that" and "this" are translations of the same Greek word 'τούτου', as also in 2 Corinthians 4:4 "god of this Aeon".

You are wrong: τούτου is in the epistles, but ἐκείνου is found in Mcn according to Klinghardt and Vinzent: ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου.

[Giuseppe]

To Secret Alias:

But that this is the most likely source of early Christianity's two powers (including the god of this/that age statement) is without question IMHO.

It is not a mistery that I am an 'ignoramus' and have a 'pathological hatred against religious authority' etc, but I don't like your easy dogmatism.

Boccaccini defines Judaism as 'the monotheistic religion of Yhwh''. Also he sees a conflict between two divine features at the origin of the first Gospel: the Justice of God versus the Mercy of God.

But for him these are not two ''powers'', but only two features of the same deity.

And for me that was not a problem for Paul.

Paul was only expecting the arrival of the Messiah Jesus (after his resurrection) in the imminent time.

The Justice of God means: the destruction of this world is near because the violent Messiah is at the gates.

The Mercy of God means: the Parousia is delaying because God wants to concede more time of conversion for the sinners.

It is clear that more and more the Messiah Jesus was delaying his first arrival on this Earth, then more and more the unique apology was: Jesus isn't arriving because he is more Mercy than Justice. Marcion is late because for him Jesus is ONLY MERCY, not JUSTICE.

It is clear that more and more someone is sincerely apocalyptic (as the earliest Christians) then more and more he emphasizes that Jesus is only JUSTICE and not MERCY.

Therefore the first gospel didn't introduce a Jesus ''god of this world'' who is going to be converted by the ''god from heaven''.

The first gospel introduced a Jesus sinister SON OF MAN who paradoxically didn't what he was programmed to do: to destroy rapidly this corrupted world.

You can see this clear trajectory from Paul to Marcion:

PAUL: the coming Messiah will destroy violently this world of sin because he is only the Justice of God.

MARK: the Messiah is already came but surprisingly he forgives the sinners in extremis before of the imminent violent destruction of this world.

MARCION: the Messiah is already came but he could only forgive and never condemn the sinners, because he has no interest about the fate of this archontic world.

MATTHEW, LUKE, JOHN: the Messiah is already came but he forgives and will forgive the sinners (by the proto-catholic Church) until his Parousia will happen in an indeterminate future.

The evidence of the priority of Mark is seen in his being on the middle way between the ardent apocalypticism of the origins and the failed apocalypticism of the later times.

[Giuseppe]

The obvious corollary is that Marcion was not a sincere apocalypticist. Paul was surely so. And Mark was still, despite of the first clues of failure, a sincere apocalypticist. But Marcion and the authors of Matthew, Luke and John were not sincere apocalypticists.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

There is not difference between Satan and demons: both are spiritual forces. The Gospels are not the epistles of Paul. Dale Allison's words prove that the less probable interpretation is to see spiritual archons behind human authorities, because Pilate is not the entire Roman Empire.

Dale Allison's words do not prove anything. They are just one scholar's opinion.
Sure, Pilate is not the entire Roman Empire. But the archons would be the Romans, generally, represented by Pilate, and also the chief priests, with possibly some involvement from Satan. At least gLuke & gJohn involved Satan into Jesus' arrest. So an involvement of Satan is not far-fetched, but we will never know if Paul thought that way.
"archons" is used by Paul for Roman authorities in the epistle to the Romans (13:3). These archons were definitively humans.

I insist: you are concluding just that (that the Romans were essentially innocent because they didn't know who Jesus was divine). As when you say that ''the Romans and the chief priests had reasons to crucify Jesus'' you are introducing wrongly the Gospels in the epistles (and that is not my intention, if we want to talk about the archons of this age)

The Romans crucified someone who was a troublemaker, was thought as a king in waiting by some Jews, etc. Certainly, I think the Romans were not as innocent and passive as described in the gospels.
Paul's epistles have Jesus having been a human on earth (repeatedly), crucified as "Christ" (= anointed/chosen one) in "Zion" (heartland of the Jews, among Jews) (http://historical-jesus.info/6.html). So it is not far-fetched to accept that Jesus was crucified as "king of the Jews" in Jerusalem, through the Romans (who were then the only ones who could crucify).

The Roman authorities can't be the ''archons of this age'' because otherwise this would make the former as innocent people (not knowing innocently who was really Jesus) and there is not reason for God to make them deliberately innocent, even more so because in Romans 13 Paul is assuming that the Roman authorities are cruel authorities and exhorts to obey them even if so, because it is Will of God.

I do not know why you insist on that innocence. The Romans did their job on Jesus, that is execute him. They had reasons to do so, outside knowing or not knowing Jesus was Divine.
Romans 13 does not say Romans are cruel authorities, just that they punish the bad ones.

The Roman Pilate can't be the 'archon of this age' because 'this age' refers to a so great temporal space that it can't be ruled by a so insignificant historical person as Pilate.

Pilate was far to be insignificant in Judea. The chief priests were far to be insignificant in Jerusalem and among Jews.
I do not think "this age" has to mean a great temporal space, but also just "our times" (see 1 Corinthians 3:18)

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

I do not know why you insist on that innocence.

I insist: If you have in mind only 1 cor 2:6-8 and Romans 13, then you are concluding essentially that the human ''archons of ths age'' are innocent: in 1 Cor 2:6-8 because they crucify who they thought was a criminal, and in Romans 13 because Paul says that the Christians must obey them.

I think instead that it is clear that God wants to make deliberately ignorant the archons in 1 Cor 2:6-8 because they are not innocent, but corrupted beings, just as the archons (but not 'of this age') referenced in Romans 13 are clearly assumed as not innocent people: and despite of it, the Christians have to obey them. Paul would obey to Nazis authorities only because God wants so.

[Giuseppe]

1 Cor 2:9 :

However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--

If God has prepared the esoteric knowledge of Jesus only for the people ''who love him'', then the logical consequence is that the 'archons of this aeon'' dont' love God, hence they are not innocent and therefore are held rightly in the ignorance about the real identity of the Son.

The human killers of Jesus would be not innocent for Paul, and therefore (the effect, not the cause) they are held in the ignorance about the Son: Paul has to explain why and the explanation is surprisingly missing.

While the explanation of the assumed not-innocence of the 'archons' is not missing but implicit in the name himself: ''archons of this age''. Demons are by definition not-innocent.

[Ben C. Smith]

Paul's epistles have Jesus having been a human on earth (repeatedly), crucified as "Christ" (= anointed/chosen one) in "Zion" (heartland of the Jews, among Jews) (http://historical-jesus.info/6.html). So it is not far-fetched to accept that Jesus was crucified as "king of the Jews" in Jerusalem, through the Romans (who were then the only ones who could crucify).

....

Certainly, I think the Romans were not as innocent and passive as described in the gospels.

Is there not a bit of a tension between earthly rulers (ἄρχοντες) providing no cause for fear to those who do good in Romans 13.1-7 and earthly rulers (ἄρχοντες) having crucified the Lord of glory in 1 Corinthians 2.8?

The wording of Romans 13.3 does not even seem to countenance the possibility of an errant verdict, a case of mistaken identity, or justice gone slightly awry. Indeed, the author of Romans 13.1-7 gives no indication that s/he has ever even thought of the obvious retort: if the rulers are no cause for fear to those who do good, then why did the rulers crucify our Lord?

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Exodus original made explicit that Jews knew of two powers.

You also have De 32 which has Elohim dividing the earth among the sons of God and YHWH's portion is the Israelites.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

if the rulers are no cause for fear to those who do good, then why did the rulers crucify our Lord?

Because they did not know Jesus was "our Lord". Furthermore, because that crucifixion was seen by Paul as a sacrifice for atonement of sins, that would make the Romans "facilitating" that sacrifice, and not bad.
Also, in Romans 13, Paul is anxious to have the Christians in Rome not to disobey civil laws & authorities and also to pay tax.
I do not think he was thinking then at what the Romans in Judea did to Jesus. His thoughts were somewhere else.

Cordially, Bernard