They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Irish1975 »

Neil at Vridar has a post about this intriguing paper by Arthur Droge on 1 Cor 2:6-16. Droge argues that it is a 2nd century interpolation.

About 1 Cor 2:8b, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσα...

This verse seems to identify Jesus as a glorious lord at the moment of crucifixion (in stark opposition to the story of the Gospels). For some reason I never noticed that before.

I suppose a Christian exegete would say either (a) that the description is proleptic, i.e., an anticipation of the resurrection to follow the crucifixion; or (b) that the disciples of Jesus would have already known him as the Lord of Glory at the time of crucifixion (the transfiguration story, etc.).

Both interpretations are unconvincing as historical exegesis.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

Droge's implication is that the entire passage, particularly the Glory during the crucifixion, is part and parcel of a set of 2nd century Gnostic texts, something I had arrived independently to realize, here:

viewtopic.php?p=113655#p113655

They glorified him == they crucified him.

The cross of glory is by need a cosmic cross, probably the intersection of cardinal points. In outer space.

viewtopic.php?p=123191#p123191

Paradoxically, precisely the fact that 2nd century Valentinians had a celestial crucifixion of Jesus in outer space, according to Droge, makes it more probable that the historical Paul placed the crucifixion on the earth. Droge assumes implicitly this conclusion for the readers.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5604
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 8:48 pm Paradoxically, precisely the fact that 2nd century Valentinians had a celestial crucifixion of Jesus in outer space, according to Droge, makes it more probable that the historical Paul placed the crucifixion on the earth.
Paradoxically, indeed... i.e., illogically.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:01 pm This verse seems to identify Jesus as a glorious lord at the moment of crucifixion (in stark opposition to the story of the Gospels).
the centurion in Mark would disagree with you.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 8:54 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 8:48 pm Paradoxically, precisely the fact that 2nd century Valentinians had a celestial crucifixion of Jesus in outer space, according to Droge, makes it more probable that the historical Paul placed the crucifixion on the earth.
Paradoxically, indeed... i.e., illogically.
have you read the Droge's passage regard it? He says that these 2nd Christians were doing a commentary of Paul, by interpolating 1 Cor 2:6-12. And the he adds:

Insofar as this myth is conceived of as a cosmic, rather than historical, drama, it was probably deployed to counter the reality of its earthly or historical version, namely, the story of Christ’s physical passion. We see this clearly at Ascen. Isa. 9:13, where the malevolent powers of the Firmament “think that he is flesh and a man.”

(my bold)

Hence, the chronology of ideas is the following:

Earthly crucifixion ---> celestial crucifixion.

Not vice versa.

The implication is that for the same 2nd century Christians, their interpreted Paul was embarrassed in 1 Corinthians 1:23 not by a Roman crucifixion, but by the fact that the crucifixion was interpreted wrongly as a Roman (earthly) crucifixion
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:01 pmThis verse seems to identify Jesus as a glorious lord at the moment of crucifixion (in stark opposition to the story of the Gospels). For some reason I never noticed that before.
I don't see it as talking about the moment of crucifixion. "Lord of Glory" to me seems to be "lord of our glory":

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit...

1. God has revealed to the early Christians that secret wisdom which God ordained before the world, that God has prepared for their own glory.
2. The rulers of the age didn't know that secret wisdom, otherwise they wouldn't have crucified the bringer of that glory.

But nothing that leans towards historicity.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:23 pm I don't see it as talking about the moment of crucifixion. "Lord of Glory" to me seems to be "lord of our glory":
really, at contrary, there would be textual evidence that the glory is not "our", but "their":

note 3 of p. 1:

3 Ƥ46 uniquely reads τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης αὐτῶν (“the Lord of their glory” or “their glorious Lord”), the αὐτῶν referring to whomever the Archons are.

The angelic Archons are going to kill the same Creator of the "glory" of the angelic Archons. This remembers a lot the fate of Sabaoth in Pistis Sophia: he also was punished by demonic Yaldabaoth (his own father!) after his "conversion".
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:29 pmreally, at contrary, there would be textual evidence that the glory is not "our", but "their":
No, it's not contrary. It would be "their" glory as well, obviously, if they only knew the secret. Either way: Christ is not becoming the Lord of Glory at the crucifixion, but because it was ordained before the world.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 10:25 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:29 pmreally, at contrary, there would be textual evidence that the glory is not "our", but "their":
No, it's not contrary. It would be "their" glory as well, obviously, if they only knew the secret.
It makes sense:

for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of their glory.

Droge would agree with you, here:
Otherwise, Paul never refers to Christ’s “glory” before his resurrection. That means that here “Lord of Glory” may be akin to “Lord of glorious Light,” rather than to “glorified Lord” in a post-resurrection sense.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

Droge admits the remote possibility that the passage is genuine, in the following terms:

According to our passage, then, the crucifixion of Jesus was a not a crime committed by the usual suspects (the Romans and/or Judeans), but an act perpetrated by the hostile “Archons of this Aeon.” This peculiar passion account, which, if it were Pauline, would be the earliest extant, is imagined not as an historical event at all, but as the key episode in a cosmic drama, and as such it differs fundamentally from the more familiar (i.e., historicized) crucifixion stories of the New Testament Gospels.

(cursive original, my underline)

If it was genuine, then the immediate implication is that Mythicism is 100% true (not even 2/3 as claimed by Carrier).

What I had always thought, wondering continually about who claimed the contrary.

Only the probability of an interpolation would save the historicity of Jesus, here.
Post Reply