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.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by andrewcriddle »

The verse was probably present in Marcion's text. Tertullian Against Marcion
In the Creator, however, the two courses were perfectly compatible — both the predestination before the ages and the revelation at the end thereof, because that which He both fore-ordained and revealed He also in the intermediate space of time announced by the pre-ministration of figures, and symbols, and allegories. But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that none of the princes of this world knew it, for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, 1 Corinthians 2:8 the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator Himself. Any one, however, who has seen from what we have already said how our glory must be regarded as issuing from the Creator, will already have come to the conclusion that, inasmuch as the Creator settled it in His own secret purpose, it properly enough was unknown to all the princes and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression himself, the devil; for I should contend that these, on account of their fall, were greater strangers still to any knowledge of the Creator's dispensations. But it is no longer open to me even to interpret the princes and powers of this world as the Creator's, since the apostle imputes ignorance to them, whereas even the devil according to our Gospel recognised Jesus in the temptation, Matthew 4:1-11 and, according to the record which is common to both (Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew that Jesus was the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that He had come to destroy them. Luke 4:34 The parable also of the strong man armed, whom a stronger than he overcame and seized his goods, is admitted by Marcion to have reference to the Creator: therefore the Creator could not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome by him; nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope with. The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that we must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation and excessive malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even hesitate to slay their masters. For it is written in my Gospel that Satan entered into Judas. Luke 22:3 According to Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under consideration 1 Corinthians 2:8 does not allow the imputation of ignorance, with respect to the Lord of glory, to the powers of the Creator; because, indeed, he will have it that these are not meant by the princes of this world. But (the apostle) evidently did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant secular ones, those of the princely people, (chief in the divine dispensation, although) not, of course, among the nations of the world, and their rulers, and king Herod, and even Pilate, and, as represented by him, that power of Rome which was the greatest in the world, and then presided over by him. Thus the arguments of the other side are pulled down, and our own proofs are thereby built up. But you still maintain that our glory comes from your god, with whom it also lay in secret. Then why does your god employ the self-same Scripture which the apostle also relies on? What has your god to do at all with the sayings of the prophets? Who has discovered the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor? Isaiah 40:13 So says Isaiah. What has he also to do with illustrations from our God? For when (the apostle) calls himself a wise master-builder, 1 Corinthians 3:10 we find that the Creator by Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches out the divine discipline by the same title, I will take away from Judah the cunning artifi cer, etc. And was it not Paul himself who was there foretold, destined to be taken away from Judah — that is, from Judaism— for the erection of Christianity, in order to lay that only foundation, which is Christ? 1 Corinthians 3:11 Of this work the Creator also by the same prophet says, Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious stone and honourable; and he that rests thereon shall not be confounded. Isaiah 28:16 Unless it be, that God professed Himself to be the builder up of an earthly work, that so He might not give any sign of His Christ, as destined to be the foundation of such as believe in Him, upon which every man should build at will the superstructure of either sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch as it is the Creator's function, when a man's work shall be tried by fire, (or) when a reward shall be recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire that the test is applied to the building which you erect upon the foundation which is laid by Him, that is, the foundation of His Christ. Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Corinthians 3:16 Now, since man is the property, and the work, and the image and likeness of the Creator, having his flesh, formed by Him of the ground, and his soul of His afflatus, it follows that Marcion's god wholly dwells in a temple which belongs to another, if so be we are not the Creator's temple. But if any man defile the temple of God, he shall be himself destroyed — of course, by the God of the temple. 1 Corinthians 3:17 If you threaten an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. You must become fools, that you may be wise. 1 Corinthians 3:18 Wherefore? Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. 1 Corinthians 3:19 With what God? Even if the ancient Scriptures have contributed nothing in support of our view thus far, an excellent testimony turns up in what (the apostle) here adjoins: For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness; and again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. For in general we may conclude for certain that he could not possibly have cited the authority of that God whom he was bound to destroy, since he would not teach for Him. Therefore, says he, let no man glory in man; 1 Corinthians 3:21 an injunction which is in accordance with the teaching of the Creator, wretched is the man that trusts in man; Jeremiah 17:5 again, It is better to trust in the Lord than to confide in man; and the same thing is said about glorying (in princes).
Andrew Criddle
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 9:22 amby “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.
I want to make it clear that:
  • 1) I agree with Droge that the passage is interpolated
  • 2) I agree with Droge that the passage assumes a celestial crucifixion in outer space
  • 3) I agree with Droge that if the passage is genuine, then Jesus never existed with a probability of 100%. End of discussion.
Stantibus sic rebus, I disagree with you about the original meaning of the interpolation (because it is probably an interpolation) being lost to us.

As I have specified, we have another text of the same set of 2nd century texts here:

viewtopic.php?p=113655#p113655

...where the point is made clear that the crucifixion is a glorification, also. The cross in outer space was considered as a "cross of glory" in virtue of the its same cosmic dimensions. Traces of that view are survived, if not in Mark (where -- not coincidentially? -- the Messianic Secret is revealed at the cross), surely in the original Fourth Gospel. See in particular John 12:32.

It is all pure Valentinianism or Marcionism 2.0, probably.
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 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:45 am2 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.
That's correct. A lot of the early literature, even those granted as 'historicists' like 2 Peter, presents these events in 'mythic' fashion rather than as historical details. No firm dates, no place names, no actual descriptions. If 2 Peter had referred to the rulers who crucified Christ, then I'd argue that it wouldn't be out of place if the author had used something like "it was the rulers of the age who crucified the Lord of Glory".

What I think is significant is the rest of 2 Peter. If this is a work of a 'historicist', then is the rest of 2 Peter different in respect to 'mythicists' like Paul? It doesn't seem to be. This is 2 Peter, but it might as well be Paul:

2Pet.3
1. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2. That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

A mythicist might point out: "Where is 'Christ' in all this? Why refer to the words of 'the holy prophets'? If Jesus was a recently crucified man, where are HIS sayings, HIS teachings? There is no indication of Jesus in this at all! Why does it talk about him 'coming' rather than 'returning'?"

But in actuality, it is the same kind of mythic framing that we see in early Christian writings.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5603
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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:36 pm That's correct. A lot of the early literature, even those granted as 'historicists' like 2 Peter, presents these events in 'mythic' fashion rather than as historical details. No firm dates, no place names, no actual descriptions. If 2 Peter had referred to the rulers who crucified Christ, then I'd argue that it wouldn't be out of place if the author had used something like "it was the rulers of the age who crucified the Lord of Glory".
I believe you're correct in affirming that the phrase in 1 Corinthians is ambiguous.

I believe you've chosen an inappropriate example for comparison, which is much less ambiguous. The author of 2 Peter inserts themselves into the telling as an eyewitness of Jesus on a sacred mountain, which ties the event to this world and to the lifetime of Peter.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13587
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Secret Alias »

The Arabic Diatessaron connects the Transfiguration to the crucifixion.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun May 16, 2021 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13587
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Secret Alias »

Delete
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 5:18 pm I believe you're correct in affirming that the phrase in 1 Corinthians is ambiguous.
Drpge claims that it is not ambiguous. The place where the Lord of Glory is crucified by the Archons is the same place where the Son is crucified in the original Ascension of Isaiah: Firmament.
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 5:18 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:36 pm That's correct. A lot of the early literature, even those granted as 'historicists' like 2 Peter, presents these events in 'mythic' fashion rather than as historical details. No firm dates, no place names, no actual descriptions. If 2 Peter had referred to the rulers who crucified Christ, then I'd argue that it wouldn't be out of place if the author had used something like "it was the rulers of the age who crucified the Lord of Glory".
I believe you're correct in affirming that the phrase in 1 Corinthians is ambiguous.

I believe you've chosen an inappropriate example for comparison, which is much less ambiguous. The author of 2 Peter inserts themselves into the telling as an eyewitness of Jesus on a sacred mountain, which ties the event to this world and to the lifetime of Peter.
Sure, and that's why 2 Peter is regarded as 'historicist'. But it is written in what I call 'mythic' language. The holy mount isn't named, the city isn't named, a description of the vision of the majesty of Christ isn't given (e.g. Moses appearing). If 2 Peter was written by a historicist who knew the Gospels, then the author wasn't too concerned about getting those details in there. That's why I can easily imagine the author of 2 Peter using language like "the rulers of the age" had he/she written about the crucifixion.

My further point is that, if you look at the rest of 2 Peter, it isn't much different from the writings of Paul in terms of expressing its theology. If the only difference to distinguish these early letters as 'historicist' or 'mythicist' is one of two 'mythic' comments that places the person on earth, then that's important to note. 1 Timothy is the same.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sun May 16, 2021 11:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 9:10 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 5:18 pm I believe you're correct in affirming that the phrase in 1 Corinthians is ambiguous.
Drpge claims that it is not ambiguous. The place where the Lord of Glory is crucified by the Archons is the same place where the Son is crucified in the original Ascension of Isaiah: Firmament.
Please, not that again. What "original AoI"? If you mean the presumed earlier versions of the Slavonic/Latin2, then the Beloved is NOT said to be crucified in the firmament. If you mean Dr Carrier's reconstruction, that version only exists in his head. If you have discovered the original version, please quote the source stating that the Beloved was crucified in the firmament. Thanks.
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 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:09 am The verse was probably present in Marcion's text. Tertullian Against Marcion
According to Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under consideration 1 Corinthians 2:8 does not allow the imputation of ignorance, with respect to the Lord of glory, to the powers of the Creator; because, indeed, he will have it that these are not meant by the princes of this world. But (the apostle) evidently did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant secular ones, those of the princely people, (chief in the divine dispensation, although) not, of course, among the nations of the world, and their rulers, and king Herod, and even Pilate, and, as represented by him, that power of Rome which was the greatest in the world, and then presided over by him. Thus the arguments of the other side are pulled down, and our own proofs are thereby built up. But you still maintain that our glory comes from your god, with whom it also lay in secret. Then why does your god employ the self-same Scripture which the apostle also relies on? What has your god to do at all with the sayings of the prophets?
Thanks, Andrew, that's interesting. Tertullian sees the passage as meaning secular rulers: "secular ones, those of the princlely people" crucifying the Lord of Glory.

If 2 Peter is using 'theologizing' (my made-up word) language in describe the transfiguration episode from the Gospels, then I can see the same relationship with Paul and the Gospels. Here is Paul:

1 Cor 2:8 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the age [aion] unto our glory:
8 Which none of the rulers [archon] of this age [aion] knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Here is Luke claiming that the "rulers" [archon] crucified Christ without knowing what they'd done:

Luke 23:
13. And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers [archon] and the people,
14. Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
...
34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
35. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers [archon] also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Luke 24:
19. And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20. And how the chief priests and our rulers [archon] delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

Luke sees Christ's coming being proclaimed throughout this age via the holy prophets:

Luke 1:

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the age [aion] began:

Luke describes Christ's glory at his transfiguration:

Luke 9:

32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

Of course the "glory" and "the ages" connections are thin. How much is coincidence, how much is Luke using Paul, is arguable. But Luke is clearly blaming the "rulers" for the crucifixion just like Paul. If he got that from Paul, then that suggests how he is interpreting Paul.

The other Gospels have the same scenario, with the chief priests demanding that Pilate crucify Christ, though they don't use the word "rulers" directly.

My point is that if the epistle writers were using "theologizing" language to describe earthly events, which I argue they do, then Luke and Paul are portraying the same idea around "rulers" crucifying Christ in ignorance. Paul's version is the "theologized" one.
Post Reply