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
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 10:23 pm
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.
sorry, Prof Droge claims precisely the contrary, and in this thread his views are more relevant than your view (afterall, Irish75 has mentioned Droge in the OP).

I quote from here the following words of prof Arthur Droge:

But once Christ reaches the lowest or sublunary region – called the “Firmament” – his disguise will change again, and this time he will assume the outward appearance of a human. Indeed, the “God of that world” and his evil hosts will think that Christ is merely “flesh.”51 Yet, they will nevertheless lay hold of the Son and crucify him, despite their ignorance of who he truly is and what they are actually doing. This is a striking parallel to, and explanation of, the claim in our passage that it was the Archons of this Aeon who crucified the Lord of Glory in ignorance.

Next, Isaiah’s angel-guide tells him to watch as Christ begins to transform himself and descend through the seven heavens and finally into the Firmament. Now it is Isaiah who reports what he sees:
And then I saw that … he descended into the Firmament where the Archon
of this world dwells …
and his form (was) like theirs, and they did not
praise him there; but in evil and envying they were fighting one another, for
there is there a power of evil and envying…. And … they were plundering
and doing violence to one another.

It is just at this point that we should expect Isaiah to go on and describe the crucifixion of Christ by the “Archon of this world” and his minions, in fulfillment of what had been previously foreshadowed at Ascen. Isa. 9:14–15. Instead, this report has been removed and several paragraphs have been interpolated in its place that give a brief summary of Christ’s painless birth, his miracles, and his equally painless crucifixion. Yet, if Christ’s true identity was hidden from the “Archon of this world,” how did he know who Christ was in order to lay hands on him? The interpolated material implies that it was the many “signs and wonders” performed by Christ that caused the hostile powers of the Firmament to envy him, though still not comprehending who he truly was: “The Adversary envied him, and roused the Children of Israel against him, not knowing who he was. And they handed him to the Ruler [Pilate?] and crucified him.” Isaiah then adds, “In Jerusalem, indeed, I saw how they crucified him on a tree, and likewise (how) after the third day he rose and remained (many) days.” Christ then ascends in glory (i.e., no longer in disguise) through the cosmos to the seventh heaven, where he is enthroned at the right hand of God.

It is not entirely clear in the interpolated material who was responsible for the actual crucifixion. The “Adversary”? The “Children of Israel”? The “Ruler”? Or did they all conspire together? In any event, the interpolation looks like a later attempt to historicize, and thus render orthodox, what had once been a cosmic or gnostic version of the crucifixion, one in which the hostile powers of the lower world had crucified Christ “in the Firmament,” not “in Jerusalem.”

(my bold)
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:23 pm If you mean Dr Carrier's reconstruction, that version only exists in his head.
if you are intellectually honest, then you should add at least: "and in Droge's head", but evidently your apologist's reaction (or your notorious hostility against Carrier?) is irrational when the reality appears to be too much irrational for you.

I give you a notice:

An academic called Arthur Droge is claiming that both the original AoI and 1 Cor 2:6-11 is very probably evidence of a belief in an outer space crucifixion.

If you deny also this FACT, then I am done with you, GakuseiDon (=synonymous of crypto-Christian apologist).
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 10:21 pm But it is written in what I call 'mythic' language.
I'm reminded of "The Strange Silence of Samuel Rutherford":

https://bcharchive.org/3/thearchives/sh ... 1a6-4.html

I think the pattern of incidental mention / non-mention of certain details ends up being a lot more relevant than the use of theological language (what you are calling 'mythic' language). I thought it was obvious that any details, if they were to be mentioned, would be introduced incidentally.
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 »

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.
What makes it unambiguous?
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: Mon May 17, 2021 4:37 amif you are intellectually honest, then you should add at least: "and in Droge's head", but evidently your apologist's reaction (or your notorious hostility against Carrier?) is irrational when the reality appears to be too much irrational for you.
I haven't read anything by Droge except what's been posted here. Now that I've seen that, I'm happy to add "and in Droge's head".

Droge's "original" version is also his own reconstruction. He theorises that there was a crucifixion in the firmament in an earlier non-extant text. Fair enough. That idea has been argued back and forth extensively on this board and not worth going over again. But there is no "crucifixion in the firmament" in any extant version of the AoI. As long as you frame what as being proposed correctly, I'll leave it at that.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 4:37 amAn academic called Arthur Droge is claiming that both the original AoI and 1 Cor 2:6-11 is very probably evidence of a belief in an outer space crucifixion.
Perfect! I'll leave it at that.
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: Mon May 17, 2021 12:21 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:21 pm But it is written in what I call 'mythic' language.
I'm reminded of "The Strange Silence of Samuel Rutherford":

https://bcharchive.org/3/thearchives/sh ... 1a6-4.html
Yes, that's part of it. But the other part would be looking through Rutherford's writings at the sections where he isn't talking about Jesus, and comparing it with sections of texts of the same period that refer to an earthly Jesus but at points where they also aren't talking about that Jesus. That's where I think comparing 2 Peter and Paul (i.e. where they are not talking about Jesus) would show similarities that might be interesting.

Elements to compare: how to they discuss other historical events of the time? Do they try to pinpoint time periods outside of biblical personages? How do they treat geographical locations?

It's not really discussed on this board since all the focus is on the actual passages that talk about Jesus. If the only difference between (say) 2 Peter and Paul that mark the boundary between 'historicist' and 'mythicist' writings is one or two vague statements of historicity, then I think that's important to note.
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: Mon May 17, 2021 12:25 pm
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.
What makes it unambiguous?
seeing it from the POV of a set of 2nd century texts that talk continually and unambiguously about demonic archons in the air, particularly the original Ascension of Isaiah, where the crucifixion is predicted to take place in the Firmament (the same interpolated pocket gospel in it is indirect evidence of a previous outer space crucifixion that had to be someway eclipsed). Droge's proof of it is clear enough. Any further comment would be superfluous.

What is interesting is that even Droge recognizes that, if 1 Corinthians 2:6-11 was genuine, then this would be equivalent to a Paul's explicit confession of mythicism (a conclusion not even inferred by Carrier, to my knowledge, but only by P.-L. Couchoud, before Droge).

Unfortunately, the premise, according to Droge, is probably false. But if he had to assume the authenticity of the passage, then he makes it clear that the presumed ambiguity of the text is to be found surely not in the identity of the rulers, about which the exclusively demonic nature is already in evidence, pace GakuseiDon et similia.
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: Mon May 17, 2021 9:10 pmparticularly the original Ascension of Isaiah, where the crucifixion is predicted to take place in the Firmament
Again: please state things correctly rather than give misleading statements. Droge's reconstruction of the earliest text might have the crucifixion being predicted in the firmament, but no actual extant text has that. I have no problems with speculation, but label facts as facts and speculation as speculation please.
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: Mon May 17, 2021 9:50 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 9:10 pmparticularly the original Ascension of Isaiah, where the crucifixion is predicted to take place in the Firmament
Again: please state things correctly rather than give misleading statements. Droge's reconstruction of the earliest text might have the crucifixion being predicted in the firmament, but no actual extant text has that. I have no problems with speculation, but label facts as facts and speculation as speculation please.
It is not true. We know that the Firmament is the terminus ante quem of the Son's descent from the prophecy the Angel gives to Isaiah.

Droge's words:

Next, Isaiah’s angel-guide tells him to watch as Christ begins to transform himself and descend through the seven heavens and finally into the Firmament.

(my bold)
  • GakuseiDon may be correct to claim that the episode that describes the fulfillment of the prophecy is absent and therefore any reconstruction of it is purely speculative.
  • But GakuseiDon is wrong when he claims that we can't infer, from the explicit prophecy spoken by the angel-guide, that the terminus ante quem of the entire mission is the Firmament, hence very probably the place of the crucifixion.
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 9:10 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 12:25 pm
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.
What makes it unambiguous?
seeing it from the POV of a set of 2nd century texts that talk continually and unambiguously about demonic archons in the air, particularly the original Ascension of Isaiah, where the crucifixion is predicted to take place in the Firmament (the same interpolated pocket gospel in it is indirect evidence of a previous outer space crucifixion that had to be someway eclipsed). Droge's proof of it is clear enough. Any further comment would be superfluous.

What is interesting is that even Droge recognizes that, if 1 Corinthians 2:6-11 was genuine, then this would be equivalent to a Paul's explicit confession of mythicism (a conclusion not even inferred by Carrier, to my knowledge, but only by P.-L. Couchoud, before Droge).

Unfortunately, the premise, according to Droge, is probably false. But if he had to assume the authenticity of the passage, then he makes it clear that the presumed ambiguity of the text is to be found surely not in the identity of the rulers, about which the exclusively demonic nature is already in evidence, pace GakuseiDon et similia.
So you're saying that the presence of the word archons in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus makes it unambiguous?

What if a 2nd century text used the word archons of Pilate and the high priest ... would that also make it unambiguous, in another direction?
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: Mon May 17, 2021 10:08 pm

So you're saying that the presence of the word archons in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus makes it unambiguous?
the presence of the word "archons of this age" makes it unambiguous.

Earthly rulers simply make no sense in our passage, quite apart from the question whether 2:6–16 is an interpolation. Not only is the important qualifier “of this Aeon” (τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) missing at Rom. 13:3, so is any hint that these authorities are in the process of “being abolished” (καταργούμενοι), as stated at 2:6. In fact, it is important to Paul’s point at Rom. 13:3 that they not be. No, the “Archons of this Aeon” can only refer to an order of supernatural beings, to the only entities who had anything to lose by the crucifixion, and who were tricked into acting in accord with God’s secret plot. Simply put, the Archons must designate the hostile powers of the sublunary world. They were the ones who crucified the Lord of Glory.

(my bold)

Note the reference to "the only entities who had anything to lose by the crucifixion": demons, not even Pilate.
Post Reply