Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:35 pm
Independently from the rest, another reason why Kovacs's exegesis is right is that:Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:26 am So, if it was an affair only between the demons and the Christians like Paul - virtually the only beings in all the universe who knew that the Christ (just him!) was crucified - , then the possible testimony of other witnesses (who are neither demons nor Christians: for example, a Pilate) was completely useless from the beginning, since it was not a real testimony of the Son but only, at most, of a mere man crucified by the Romans (if this man existed).
The plausibility of this theory is considerably diminished when we note the gender of the relative pronoun in v. 8: if Paul is alluding to the failure of the archons to recognize the redeemer, we would expect him to say hon [=whom] oudeis egnöken and not hēn [=which]. The parallel with gnostic texts thus becomes rather slight. (p. 221)
Hence only the demons and the Christians knew the identity of the victim. But then any other possible "testimony" by other witnesses (who are neither demons nor Christians: for example, a Pilate) was completely useless from the beginning, since it was not a *real* testimony of the Son but only, at most, of a mere man crucified by the Romans (if this man existed). Really, useless by definition to a such extent, to make ipso facto completely usefel even the same need of a historical Jesus to explain the origin of the belief (in the eyes of the same Paul and early Christians).