Where is the more strong evidence in Paul pointing to an outer space Jesus

[archibald]

My main reason for having trouble with an exclusively non-earthly 'Jesus' is the collective number of different descriptions added together which appear to contradict it.

Man. Killed by Jews. Hung on a tree. Died. Buried. Rose from the dead. Born of a woman. Born a Jew. Ate bread. Etc.

Imo, challenging each individual use is, at best, relying on ambiguities, and overall too much speculative work is being done to turn all of these terms around.

Added to which, it seems to make little sense, as a selling point to potential converts, if a merely non-earthly being supposedly set a cheating-death precedent for humans that was 'proof' that they themselves were going to do the same.

It also feels parsimonius not to have to postulate a 180 degree turnaround not long after, or cite the non-evidenced existence of outer-space Jesus followers.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

the "daimonions" of 1 Cor 10:20 were banal Pagan gods.

Pagan gods were considered demons according to Jewish tradition.

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it in hope

The one who subjected the creation to frustration cannot be a mere fallen angel as Satan but someone more powerful than him. A spiritual being.

You forgot "in hope" in your citation. It looks to me that "the one" is meant to be God himself.

"archons of this aeon"

There is nothing which says that 'aeon' suggests that the archons are meant to be understood as demons. "aeons" can mean "age", that is time, as in the verse before 1 Co 2:8:
1 Co 2:7 RSV
"But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages ['aeon'] for our glorification."
"Before the ages" means all the times before the present time.

1 Co 3:18 RSV
"Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age [aeon], let him become a fool that he may become wise."

Cordially, Bernard

[archibald]

I'm not sure whether this 'missing version of A of I' argument was Carrier's position from the beginning either,...

I tend to think he may have shifted position at some time. Saying that there may have been a version of the A of I that would support his case is one thing, but saying that the A of I is a template for it appears to be another.

[robert j]

Are there examples of the term itself, prior to the War, standing alone without being qualified further in the context, as meaning a non-human demonic power?

Standing alone? What do you mean by that? The word is not standing alone in 1 Corinthians 2.6-8, either. They are "the rulers of this age."

Sure, that qualifier places the event in a very wide expanse of time, but does not qualify the archontes as either human or demonic.

I do not think you ought to be convinced that Paul means demonic forces here; I am not; I think it can go either way. This is not, for me, a mythicist proof text; rather, it is compatible with mythicism.

I think my use of not "convinced" is carried over from Giuseppe's claim of a "fact".

I agree there are reasonable argument either way, and I think either way is compatible with mythicism (of sorts). Even if Paul meant human rulers on earth, I don't think that would provide a strong argument for the death of Jesus in recent times in relation to Paul --- or even for an actual human, historical Jesus. Paul does not clearly place the death of his Jesus in a specific time, and his Jesus could have suffered and died on earth in the distant past merely in the context of Paul's creative readings of the Jewish scriptures.

To turn your question around, though, is there any place where the term is used in conjuction with "this age" or something like it in which it must mean earthly rulers? (I have not searched exhaustively.)

I haven't searched either, but I don't think the qualifier "of this age" is particularly strong evidence for either demonic or for earthly human rulers in the passage.

[Ben C. Smith]

Are there examples of the term itself, prior to the War, standing alone without being qualified further in the context, as meaning a non-human demonic power?

Standing alone? What do you mean by that? The word is not standing alone in 1 Corinthians 2.6-8, either. They are "the rulers of this age."

Sure, that qualifier places the event in a very wide expanse of time, but does not qualify the archontes as either human or demonic.

I do not think you ought to be convinced that Paul means demonic forces here; I am not; I think it can go either way. This is not, for me, a mythicist proof text; rather, it is compatible with mythicism.

I think my use of not "convinced" is carried over from Giuseppe's claim of a "fact".

I completely agree that "fact" is overstated.

I agree there are reasonable argument either way, and I think either way is compatible with mythicism (of sorts). Even if Paul meant human rulers on earth, I don't think that would provide a strong argument for the death of Jesus in recent times in relation to Paul --- or even for an actual human, historical Jesus. Paul does not clearly place the death of his Jesus in a specific time, and his Jesus could have suffered and died on earth in the distant past merely in the context of Paul's creative readings of the Jewish scriptures.

To turn your question around, though, is there any place where the term is used in conjuction with "this age" or something like it in which it must mean earthly rulers? (I have not searched exhaustively.)

I haven't searched either, but I don't think the qualifier "of this age" is particularly strong evidence for either demonic or for earthly human rulers in the passage.

I suspect that nothing is going to qualify as "particularly strong evidence" here. It is indisputable that the term archontes can be used of demonic forces; it is also indisputable that the main usage of the term applies it to human rulers; but Paul is not clear here, in the one case which is usually attributed to him and not to a pseudo-Paul.

But I am still interested in the "cosmic" sound of this phrase, and in whether or not it or something like it is used elsewhere of human rulers. The results of the search would not necessarily be "particularly strong," but at this point any little indicator would be helpful.

[Ben C. Smith]

And no, demonic forces here do not exclude a human Jesus in Pauline thought. They could be the forces lurking behind human rulers. But Paul surely meant something here, and it would be lovely to have some clue as to what that was.

[archibald]

And no, demonic forces here do not exclude a human Jesus in Pauline thought. They could be the forces lurking behind human rulers. But Paul surely meant something here, and it would be lovely to have some clue as to what that was.

Reluctant as I often am to get into debating individual instances of supposed ambiguity, since it gets away from the more general issue of dealing with the case for their accumulation....I do actually think that the most sensible interpretation of the early verses of 1 Cor 2 is clued by the slightly wider context:

"6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”[c]

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God."

(NKJV)

It would appear from the elaboration in the next verse (9) that the problem with the wisdom was stuff not entering the eyes, ears and hearts of men (other than the audience in this case).

Anyone want to make a case that 'men' is an unflagged-up switch to sub-lunar realm entities in the middle of a passage referring to 'us' and 'we' men?

Also, does rulers 'coming to nothing' not suggest earthly rulers more so than non-earthly ones?

[Ben C. Smith]

It would appear from the elaboration in the next verse (9) that the problem with the wisdom was stuff not entering the eyes, ears and hearts of men (other than the audience in this case).

I agree. But the point of contention is the source or at least the typical domain of such wisdom. Paul says that he speaks wisdom, but not that kind of wisdom. What is to prevent that kind of wisdom from belonging to the

Also, does rulers 'coming to nothing' not suggest earthly rulers more so than non-earthly ones?

Not to me, no. The eschaton was supposed to usher in the end of both kinds: earthly rulers (replaced by the Messiah) and spiritual authorities (displaced by God himself).

[GakuseiDon]

Reluctant as I often am to get into debating individual instances of supposed ambiguity, since it gets away from the more general issue of dealing with the case for their accumulation....I do actually think that the most sensible interpretation of the early verses of 1 Cor 2 is clued by the slightly wider context:

"6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”[c]

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God."

(NKJV)

It would appear from the elaboration in the next verse (9) that the problem with the wisdom was stuff not entering the eyes, ears and hearts of men (other than the audience in this case).

There is a wider context to 1 Cor 2:6-10. Here are some other passages from both before and after 1 Cor 2; that is, 1 Cor 1:18-26 and 1 Cor 3:18-21. I've highlighted where "wise" and"wisdom" [sophos and sophia] are used, as well as "aion" and "kosmos", both translated as "world", plus some other words that might be useful at provide context:

1 Cor 1:
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world [aion]? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world [kosmos]?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world [kosmos] by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men [anthropos]; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise [men] after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

1 Cor 3:

18 Let no man deceive himself. If whosoever among you seems to be wise in this world [aion], let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world [kosmos] is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men [anthropos]. For all things are yours;

Other uses of "aion" in 1 Cor:

1 Cor 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world [aion], let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1 Cor 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth [aion], lest I make my brother to offend.
1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [aion] are come.

The above is presented as background knowledge. It's clear that "aion" isn't just a cosmic term, but refers to the human earthly world as well. (I think we all agree on that.) Though that doesn't mean we need to translate "archons of this aion" in a particular way, to me Paul seems to be contrasting human wisdom with God's wisdom throughout 1 Cor 1 to 1 Cor 3. Having "demon's wisdom" pop up in 1 Cor 2 seems out of place to me in that context.

[Ben C. Smith]

Reluctant as I often am to get into debating individual instances of supposed ambiguity, since it gets away from the more general issue of dealing with the case for their accumulation....I do actually think that the most sensible interpretation of the early verses of 1 Cor 2 is clued by the slightly wider context:

"6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”[c]

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God."

(NKJV)

It would appear from the elaboration in the next verse (9) that the problem with the wisdom was stuff not entering the eyes, ears and hearts of men (other than the audience in this case).

There is a wider context to 1 Cor 2:6-10. Here are some other passages from both before and after 1 Cor 2; that is, 1 Cor 1:18-26 and 1 Cor 3:18-21. I've highlighted where "wise" and"wisdom" [sophos and sophia] are used, as well as "aion" and "kosmos", both translated as "world", plus some other words that might be useful at provide context:

1 Cor 1:
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world [aion]? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world [kosmos]?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world [kosmos] by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men [anthropos]; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise [men] after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

1 Cor 3:

18 Let no man deceive himself. If whosoever among you seems to be wise in this world [aion], let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world [kosmos] is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men [anthropos]. For all things are yours;

Other uses of "aion" in 1 Cor:

1 Cor 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world [aion], let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1 Cor 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth [aion], lest I make my brother to offend.
1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [aion] are come.

The above is presented as background knowledge. It's clear that "aion" isn't just a cosmic term, but refers to the human earthly world as well. (I think we all agree on that.) Though that doesn't mean we need to translate "archons of this aion" in a particular way, to me Paul seems to be contrasting human wisdom with God's wisdom throughout 1 Cor 1 to 1 Cor 3. Having "demon's wisdom" pop up in 1 Cor 2 seems out of place to me in that context.

IMHO, the best that these observations can secure is a draw between the two views. Yes, I absolutely agree that having the "wisdom of demons" would be superfluous here, but I would not suggest that any such thing is present anyway. Rather, what is contrasted is the wisdom of God (verse 7) and the wisdom of humans (verse 5); all that is said about the rulers is that they did not understand the wisdom of God; this does not necessarily mean that they have their own special brand of wisdom, peculiar to themselves alone; it seems more natural to suppose that they enjoy no greater wisdom than humans do, at least in this case.

So the question arises: why bring the rulers into it at all? If the main contrast is between (the wisdom of) humans and (the wisdom of) God, what are they doing in the mix? Why not simply say that humans crucified the Lord of glory and have done?

Your response seems to be that the rulers are in view in Psalm 2, and that is a great response. The LXX even calls them ἄρχοντες, right there in verse 2. One might wonder why Paul did not use verse 1 instead, with its mention of the λαοί, but verse 2 is more direct, specifying that the rulers have conspired specifically against the Christ. So I can easily accept Psalm 2 as the reason for dragging (human) rulers into things.

But surely the mythicist response is just as potent: Paul had to bring the (spiritual) rulers into the mix because, on his view, that is what had happened: the archontes had killed the Lord of glory. This, too, would explain fully why Paul mentions the rulers, would it not?

To point out that the "wisdom" in this passage is human wisdom and that the "age" is the realm of humans does nothing to rule out the archontes as being the rulers of the human realm, subject more to merely human wisdom than to divine wisdom.