GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 9:23 pm
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). 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
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.
I suppose that’s a possible reading of “Lord of Glory.” I.e., that it simply refers back to the esoteric soteriology of “glory” in the previous verse, and means nothing more than that. But it sounds to me like a genuine title of the Lord worshipped by the early believers. It’s hard to understand why a scribe would write “Lord” if all he meant was “bringer.”
Perhaps “at the moment” was the wrong way for me characterize this. What “Paul” is saying, all too briefly and sketchily (as usual), is that archons of this aeon crucified a being that is here identified, precisely and exclusively, under the description “the Lord of Glory.” And, I would argue further, the theological context of the whole canonical epistle requires an association of that phrase with the (authentically Pauline) kerygma of Jesus’ unique and glorious resurrection from the dead. But it actually reverses the sequence: the glorious Lord is crucified, rather than the crucified Lord being glorified.
We could argue whether that sequence should be read in a temporal sense, maybe a logical sense, or merely what the proper ordering of the revealed “mystery” is supposed to be in the minds of both Paul and the interpolators/editors. But a sequence of some kind there must be.
But nothing that leans towards historicity.
What is meant by “historicity,” though? Priority in the evolution of Christian scripture, or containing the pretense that it is relating recent historical events, etc.?
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. (p.12)
The crucifixion “story” of 1 Cor 2:8 (if we can even call it that) is altogether mythical: a revealed mystery about a cosmic episode involving a Lord of Glory. And whether it is early and Pauline, or late and Valentinian/Gnostic, it doesn’t sit well with the Gospel passion narratives. It is hard to comprehend how any tradition about a Jesus of Nazareth crucified under Pilate could lead to this, or how this could lead to the Gospels.