Under the earth = above the earth?

[Giuseppe]

Ephesians 4:8-12
8Scripture says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train, and gave gifts to men." 9Now, the word ‘ascended’ implies that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth. 10He who descended is no other than he who ascended far above the heavens, so that he might fill the universe. 11And these were his gifts: some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip God’s people for work in his service, to the building up of the body of Christ. [NEB/NIV]

What are "the lower parts of the earth" ?

I remember that Seth killed Osiris, according to Plutarch, "in the extremities of earth". Idem for Attis according to Julian.

Can "the extremities of earth" coincide with the "lower parts of earth" ? The idea meant here may be not the Sheol (for Ephesians) just as not the sublunary realm for Plutarch (and Julian).

Simply some unknown part of earth, where no man could go.

[Giuseppe]

Philippians 2:10

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,

It seems that the idea of a three-layers cosmology is possible in Paul.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ephesians 4:8-12
8Scripture says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train, and gave gifts to men." 9Now, the word ‘ascended’ implies that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth. 10He who descended is no other than he who ascended far above the heavens, so that he might fill the universe. 11And these were his gifts: some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip God’s people for work in his service, to the building up of the body of Christ. [NEB/NIV]

What are "the lower parts of the earth" ?

I remember that Seth killed Osiris, according to Plutarch, "in the extremities of earth". Idem for Attis according to Julian.

Can "the extremities of earth" coincide with the "lower parts of earth" ? The idea meant here may be not the Sheol (for Ephesians) just as not the sublunary realm for Plutarch (and Julian).

Simply some unknown part of earth, where no man could go.

Well, your idea may garner some support from recent commentators, such as Peter T. O'Brien for the Pillar series (footnotes renumbered):

A descent into Hades. Although this interpretation of Christ’s descent into the realm of the dead has had a long and considerable influence in the history of the exegesis of Ephesians, it has less support today.1 The early fathers associated Ephesians 4:9 with 1 Peter 3:19 (‘he went and preached to the spirits in prison’), which they interpreted as Christ’s ‘harrowing of hell’. But there is no obvious reference to Hades or hell here in Ephesians. On the traditional view a descent into Hades is from the earth to the underworld or realm of the dead. Although Romans 10:6, 7 and Philippians 2:8–10 (‘under the earth’) have been drawn in to support this view, the contrast here in Ephesians 4:9, 10 is between an ascent to heaven and a descent from there. The unusual expression ‘the lower parts of the earth’ is better interpreted as ‘the earth below’2 than as the abode of the dead. Paul’s contrast is ‘not between one part of the earth and another, but between the whole earth and heaven’, and this fits with the twofold cosmology of the letter, where ‘all things’ is made up of ‘heaven and earth’.

1 This includes E. G. Selwyn (on 1 Peter), F. W. Beare, J. A. Robinson, C. E. Arnold, and A. T. Hanson.

2 In ταὶ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς the genitive τῆς γῆς (‘of the earth’) is a genitive of apposition (‘the lower regions, the earth’); so most recent commentators. It has also been pointed out that if Paul had three levels of the universe in mind he might well have used the superlative, ‘the lowest parts (κατώτατα) of the earth’, for which there was good precedent in the Psalms (63:9; 139:15), rather than the comparative. Further, the cosmology of Ephesians is two-storied: the distinction is regularly drawn between heaven and earth. Finally, Christ’s triumph over the powers, according to Ephesians, occurs not in a descent to the underworld, but in the course of his victorious ascent. For further details and bibliography, see Barth, 433–34, and W. H. Harris, ‘ “The Heavenlies” ’, 80– 85. For a different view see W. J. Dumbrell, Search, 300.

I am skeptical of Protestant scholars like O'Brien demythologizing biblical passages, but I honestly have not looked into this enough yet to mount a good argument for or against it, though the line from the Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2.10 ("under the earth") is suggestive to me.

(Unrelated, but I think this is one of the commentaries, by the way, which was at the center of a plagiarism controversy just recently.)

[Giuseppe]

What surprised me today is the reading of:

1 Corinthians 15:55:

“O Death, where is your sting?

O Hades, where is your victory?

This occurrence of "Hades" just after "Death" in a very similar invocation remembers me the analogous occurrence of "Christ himself" just after "Angel" in Galatians 4:14 ("you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ..."). Bart Ehrman concluded that Jesus is an angel for Paul.

In virtue of the same logic can I conclude that if "sting"="victory" then "Death"="Hades" ?

[Giuseppe]

ταὶ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς

''...the lower [parts] of earth.''

How much is this similar to Julian's expression (Mother of gods, 7):

Ό δέ προήλθεν άχρι των εσχάθων τήζ ύληζ κατελθών

Instead he [Attis] continued his descending until to the extreme limits of matter.

If am correct, a more letteral translation is: ''to the extremity of the limits of matter''. Am I correct?

The Ascension of Isaiah excludes ecplicitly the possibility that the hell is meant as place of the crucifixion, and not only because there are not trees in the hell (not even Dante Alighieri imagined trees in the hell, to my knowledge!):

10.7 And I heard the words of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he spoke to my Lord Christ who shall be called Jesus,
10.8 Go and descend through all the heavens, descend to the firmament and to that world, even to the angel in the realm of the dead, but to Hell you shall not go.

But note the curious reference to ''even to the angel in the realm of the dead''.
All seems to point to the identity between that ''angel in the realm of the dead'' and the ''angel of death'' who is plundered by Jesus in the following verses of AoI:

13The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. 14And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. 15And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. 16And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days.

What Ephesians says about the ''plundering of the angel of death'':

8 Scripture says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train, and gave gifts to men." 9Now, the word ‘ascended’ implies that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth.

the ''captives in his train'' (= the ''plundering of the angel of death'') would be taken by Jesus from that same place where he is crucified, according to AoI :

and will remain in that world

the later legend of Descendus ad Inferos assumes that Jesus remained in the hell during the three days after the crucifixion.

But the AoI, even if denies the presence of Jesus in hell, insists that Jesus has to remain in the same world where (1) he is crucified and where (2) he has plundered the angel of death.


That world is not the hell (Aoi denies it).

That world may be the sublunar realm but there is no explicit confirmation of it.

That world is the ''realm of dead''. Apparently, the ''angel of death'' is the king of the realm of dead. Not even Satan, who is the prince of the air (unless the dead are in the air).

In conclusion, I think that the sequences of events is the following:

Jesus descends until to realm of dead: the ''realm of dead'' coincides with ''the lower parts of earth'' (therefore it is under earth) but not with the hell (who is even more under!).

He is crucified in the realm of dead.

He is buried in the realm of dead.

He rises in the realm of dead.

He wins the angel of death and frees his prisoners.

He is going to appear in surface (already with the first revelations to Paul & company).

When he will show fully himself in surface, then he will appear before all the humanity and will defeat in a single final battle the prince of the air, Satan, at the Parousia.

Therefore the ''archons of this aeon'' would are the angels at the service of the ''angel of death'' (in the realm of dead, under the earth), and not Satan in the air.


What do you think about this reconstruction?

[Giuseppe]

Plutarch puts the Hades between the Earth and the Moon, Carrier explains in OHJ, p. 186-187.

Another strong clue that the realm of dead is meant as place of crucifixion comes from the Gospel themselves:

Golgotha is the place of the Skull. It is not an hill.

It is the place where the Gentile people are buried.

So King David killed the enemy of Israel (Goliath of Gath) and then brought the giant’s head to Jerusalem. Jews would not have permitted the Gentile giant’s head to be buried in the city walls. It would have been buried outside the city walls. This matches with what we know about the location of Golgatha. It was outside the city walls.

http://taylormarshall.com/2013/03/golga ... tiful.html

The ''place where the dead are buried'' is very the more apt allegory for the ''realm of dead'' of the previous myth.

[Ben C. Smith]

That world is not the hell (Aoi denies it).

That world may be the sublunar realm but there is no explicit confirmation of it.

Well, of course "that world" is sublunar. It is under the moon. You do realize that we are living in the Ptolemaic sublunar realm, right? We are under the moon.

[Giuseppe]

That world is not the hell (Aoi denies it).

That world may be the sublunar realm but there is no explicit confirmation of it.

Well, of course "that world" is sublunar. It is under the moon. You do realize that we are living in the Ptolemaic sublunar realm, right? We are under the moon.

''sublunar'' means ''outer space'' in the previous post, obviously.

But it is a fact the AoI cannot mean, by saying ''realm of dead'', this world (where we are) IF you read AoI with Ephesians 4:8-9 in mind: ''the lower parts of earth''.

Where are the ''lower parts of earth'' = ''realm of dead''? Surely, I cannot imagine Jerusalem is in ''the lower parts of earth'': Jerusalem is not in the Sheol. But AoI + Ephesians says us that Jesus went to the sheol and not more beyond it.

The solution of the entire problem is to identify where is the sheol, for Paul: in the outer space or under the earth?

[Huon]

The earth is flat, you know ?

[Peter Kirby]

That world is not the hell (Aoi denies it).

That world may be the sublunar realm but there is no explicit confirmation of it.

Well, of course "that world" is sublunar. It is under the moon. You do realize that we are living in the Ptolemaic sublunar realm, right? We are under the moon.

''sublunar'' means ''outer space'' in the previous post, obviously.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/di ... 004caaeb20

Emic and etic are two different ways to research human beings. In the emic approach, the research participants' words and perspectives are the starting point, and it is an insider, or bottom-up, approach. In the etic method theories, concepts and ideas are studied, and it is an outsider, or top-down, approach.

If we're using words and concepts of our own definition, then we need to be careful to distinguish between our sense of the word or concept and the senses intended by the people being studied. When speaking of the beliefs, meaning, and intentions of the people in that other culture, it is important to remember that they would be framed in terms of their own words and their own concepts.

Accidental misinterpretation and informal fallacies of equivocation are easy to fall into when blurring these lines.