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
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: Sun May 16, 2021 12:25 am 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).
No, that Paul saw it as part of a cosmic drama doesn't mean it wasn't a historical event. I don't know why, but some seem to think that if the crucifixion was a historical event, Paul and others would have depicted it like a news story. Wherever they thought the crucifixion to have been, earth or heaven, it was an event of cosmic proportions, and that is how Paul depicted it.

Here is 2 Peter 1, generally thought by mythicists to be a "historicist" construction in the name of Peter:

16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

It's not written as a historical event. No date is given. There is no mention of "Jerusalem" or any other historical location other than "holy mount". No description of what was witnessed other than "his majesty". No description of the voice that they heard from heaven. If this was written by a "historicist", then they weren't particularly interested in historical details. Everything is of cosmic significance. If the author of 2 Peter had mentioned those who had Jesus crucified, how do you think he would have referred to them?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
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: Sun May 16, 2021 2:28 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 12:25 am If it was genuine, then the immediate implication is that Mythicism is 100% true (not even 2/3 as claimed by Carrier).
No, that Paul saw it as part of a cosmic drama doesn't mean it wasn't a historical event.
Droge is clear in his definition of a crucifixion account conceived not as a historical event: one where the killers are only demons and there is no mention at all of Pilate or the Jews.

He is saying that if the passage is genuine, then, being it the "earliest extant", it shows that the earliest account of the crucifixion placed the death of Jesus in heaven. The inferred temporal trajectory of ideas would be virtually the following:

A celestial crucifixion in outer space -------> a historicized story of the crucifixion.

Which is the exact definiton of minimal mythicism.

In this implication, prof Droge appears to be more Mythicist than Carrier. Differently from Carrier, he doesn't concede even the 33% for historicity.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sun May 16, 2021 3:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

To answer to your question: in 2 Peter there is no mention of demons. In 2 Corinthians yes.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

2 Peter 2:1 is written as a historical event, indeed. And surely it doesn't differ "fundamentally from the more familiar (i.e., historicized) crucifixion stories of the New Testament Gospels".
Ken Olson
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Ken Olson »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:15 am 2 Peter 2:1 is written as a historical event, indeed. And surely it doesn't differ "fundamentally from the more familiar (i.e., historicized) crucifixion stories of the New Testament Gospels".
2 Peter 1.16-18 is not an account of the crucifixion; it's an account of the transfiguration (which I would take to be dependent on Matt 17.2-5). I believe GakuseiDon's point was that the author of 2 Peter is presenting the transfiguration as an event of cosmic significance and interpreting it as such, rather than presenting it within the allegedly historical setting it had in the gospels or pre-gospel traditions.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:45 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:15 am 2 Peter 2:1 is written as a historical event, indeed. And surely it doesn't differ "fundamentally from the more familiar (i.e., historicized) crucifixion stories of the New Testament Gospels".
2 Peter 1.16-18 is not an account of the crucifixion; it's an account of the transfiguration (which I would take to be dependent on Matt 17.2-5). I believe GakuseiDon's point was that the author of 2 Peter is presenting the transfiguration as an event of cosmic significance and interpreting it as such, rather than presenting it within the allegedly historical setting it had in the gospels or pre-gospel traditions.
well, then I would have to redefine my previous comment so:

2 Peter 2:1 is written as a historical event, indeed. And surely it doesn't differ "fundamentally from the more familiar (i.e., historicized) stories of the New Testament Gospels".

In addition, 2 Peter 2:1 is not letal to historicity as an authentic 1 Cor 2:6-11.

ADDENDA: the difference is obvious. In 2 Peter 2:1 there is no outer space context, differently from 1 Cor 2:6-11.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Irish1975 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 8:56 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).
the centurion in Mark would disagree with you.
“Son of God” is not “the Lord of glory.” Neither is “the christ,” in the sense in which gMark uses that term.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
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: Sun May 16, 2021 8:08 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 8:56 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).
the centurion in Mark would disagree with you.
“Son of God” is not “the Lord of glory.” Neither is “the christ,” in the sense in which gMark uses that term.
and what do you say about the titulus crucis?

Are not all these items meant to glorify (in the eyes of the Reader, of course) the presumed victim, precisely in that fatidic moment (crucifixion)?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Irish1975 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:23 pm
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.
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.?

Droge:

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.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Irish1975 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:22 am and what do you say about the titulus crucis?
“King of the Jews”? A poltical term alluding to Herod the Great. Nothing mystical about it. (Or Davidic, for that matter, since the subjects of the tribal kingdom prior to the exile were not then known as “the Jews”). For the author of gMark, the titulus seems drenched in the shame and humiliation of the Roman conquest and temple destruction, lighted by the Pauline halo of otherworldly irony.
Are not all these items meant to glorify (in the eyes of the Reader, of course) the presumed victim, precisely in that fatidic moment (crucifixion)?
Yes, that is exactly the point. It is the Gospels themselves that glorify Jesus; or rather, re-glorify. What Paul or his interpolators would have meant by “the Lord of Glory” was probably as lost to history for the Gospel writers as it is for us today, and so they had to re-invent what Jesus’ glory was about in the first place.
Post Reply