They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
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.
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.
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
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.
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.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8617
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
Paradoxically, indeed... i.e., illogically.
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
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
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
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...
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.
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
really, at contrary, there would be textual evidence that the glory is not "our", but "their":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":
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".
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
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.
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
It makes sense:GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 10:25 pmNo, it's not contrary. It would be "their" glory as well, obviously, if they only knew the secret.
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.
Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory
Droge admits the remote possibility that the passage is genuine, in the following terms:
(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.
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.