On the different people's reactions before the Paul's belief that only demons crucified Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:8)

[Giuseppe]

I have enumerated all the possible reactions of the people before the Paul's claim (1 Corinthians 2:8) that only demons crucified Jesus:

• 1) Denial of the premise.
  
  
  Wells naively thought that archontes can only mean supernatual forces, when in the NT, most of the time (and even in Paul's Romans 12:1-7), these archontes are human rulers.
  
  (Bernard Muller)

• 2) Indifference, or minimization of the premise.
  
  
  Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.
  
  https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html
  
  
  His Messiah is inactive and silent, without biography or doctrine. He is more anthropomorphic than man and seems to live between heaven and earth. He dies and is resurrected: this is all we know. He was crucified by the 'archons' who did not recognise him. And the archons are the princes of Evil: the demons. Catholic exegesis itself recognises this.
  
  I do not conclude, like Couchoud, that if the archons are mythical, the crucifixion is mythical too, because one can give an imaginary cause to a real fact. One can even admit, at the limit, that the archons used men to make their move. But what an idea to accuse the archons rather than Caiaphas or Pontius Pilate!
  
  (Georges Las Vergnas, Jésus-Christ a-t-il existé?, 1958)

• 3) acceptance of the premise, but with a surprising implication.
  
  
  Certainly, they are just the demons who have crucified Jesus; but it is not between heaven and earth where they have crucified him; it happened in the course of the sacred drama that represented and realized the passion of the god.
  
  (Histoire et mythe à propos de Jésus-Christ by Alfred Loisy; Autres mythes à propos de la religion by Alfred Loisy, reviewed by: Édouard Dujardin)

• 4) acceptance of the premise, but appeal to the interpolation card.
  
  
  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.
  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. Hence the perceived need on the part of many scholars (like Fitzmyer, above), to read 2:6–8 in light of those later accounts. Yet, it is important to remember that there would be no canonical story of the crucifixion for a very long time. Such a conflation of the evidence is anachronistic, quite apart from whether 2:6–16 is an interpolation or not. For even a casual sampling of texts from the Christian archive makes it patently clear that there was no consensus about who crucified Jesus, or about when, where, how, or why Jesus was crucified. Indeed, as we shall see, there was not even a consensus about whether Jesus was crucified. Each of these questions was a point of conflict and contestation for centuries before the Christians finally managed to get their story (more or less) straight. Seen in this light, then, there is nothing peculiar about our crucifixion account. It is only when one looks for contemporary parallels to it that it stands out as odd. Only then does it become clear that 2:6–16 could not have been written by Paul, or anyone else in the mid-first century, simply because there is nothing in the mid-first century like it. All the parallels derive from a century later, among a family of texts usually labeled “gnostic.” And this is the most puzzling of all the anomalies of our passage: Why are there no contemporary parallels to its account of the crucifixion? The answer is not that Paul was a century ahead of his time; rather, it is that our passage is an interpolation of the second century, and its crucifixion myth can only be understood as such.
  
  (Arthur Droge, “Whodunnit? Paul’s Peculiar Passion and Its Implications”)
  
  Also Prosper Alfaric held the same opinion.

[GakuseiDon]

I have enumerated all the possible reactions of the people before the Paul's claim (1 Corinthians 2:8) that only demons crucified Jesus:

• 1) Denial of the premise.
  
  
  "archons" refer to human leaders
  
  (GakuseiDon)

It's not that I deny the premise, it is that your interpretation is one-dimensional. Claiming that "demons crucified Jesus" loses the impact of Paul writing that it was "the rulers of this age [who] crucified Jesus".

Now, even if "rulers" meant Pilate and Herod, no-one thinks that Pilate and Herod took out a hammer and some nails and personally crucified Jesus. They were rulers, so we can assume that they gave the task to their underlings to do.

Similarly, even if you assume that the rulers themselves were demon archons: who did they rule? Demons? Or men also? Given that there was a belief that heathen countries were the properties of other gods like Moloch and Beliar, its clear that the demon lords ruled over humans as well as lower-ranked demons. So, even assuming the rulers of the age were demon archons, it doesn't necessarily follow that the underlings who crucified Jesus were demons themselves.

But I do believe that the archons were human kings. I think Paul was using Psalm 2:

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed [Messiah]...
...
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession...
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth...

In the Septuagint, the word for "rulers" in Ps 2:2 is "archon". Also, note the use of "wise" in Ps 2:10, paralleling Paul's use of the "wisdom of the archons of the age".

We also find Psalms 2 being referred to in Justin Martyr and Tertullian, with the both of them linking Psalms 2 to Herod and Pilate as the rulers conspiring against Christ:

Justin Martyr: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

... and how He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ by Herod the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your governor among them... Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the council of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine new things? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak to them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure. Yet have I been set by Him a King on Zion His holy hill, declaring the decree of the Lord. The Lord said to Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee.

Tertullian: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an124.html

The Lord Himself comes to a trial with "the elders and rulers of the people," as Isaiah predicted. And then He fulfilled all that had been written of His passion. At that time "the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain things; the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ." The heathen were Pilate and the Romans; the people were the tribes of Israel; the kings were represented in Herod, and the rulers in the chief priests.

We can also look at the Gospel of Luke: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... e-kjv.html

23.12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.
13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers [archon] and the people,
...
23.35 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.
24.20 And how the chief priests and our rulers [archon] delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

For me, the evidence suggests that Paul thought that Jesus was crucified by humans, whatever he thought the "rulers of the age" were. I know you agree to disagree, and fair enough too! It's all good!

[Giuseppe]

• 1) so you agree with me in classifying you as principal exponent (to my knowledge) of the "denial of the premise" (the premise being that the archons are demons). Accordingly, I don't need to update my post above;

• 2) Curiously, Couchoud was your precursor in thinking that "Paul was using Psalm 2". More precisely, in his view, Paul interpreted the "kings of the earth" (from Psalm 2) as being demons, since only demons, as I have said you in another context, are enough powerful to rule an entire Αἰών.
  Mere humans aren't.

[GakuseiDon]

• 1) so you agree with me in classifying you as principal exponent (to my knowledge) of the "denial of the premise" (the premise being that the archons are demons). Accordingly, I don't need to update my post above;

I'm saying that, even if the archons are demons, then humans still might have been the ones carrying out the crucifixion. That's why I call your interpretation "one-dimensional".

Do you agree with my premise: that even if the archons are demons, then the ones carrying out the crucifixion might still be humans?

• 2) Curiously, Couchoud was your precursor in thinking that "Paul was using Psalm 2". More precisely, in his view, Paul interpreted the "kings of the earth" (from Psalm 2) as being demons,

I'd like to understand Couchoud's reasoning there, if you are able to quote him directly on this. But sure, it is possible that Paul saw Psalm 2 in that way. I don't think it is likely though, since it starts off with "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"

since only demons, as I have said you in another context, are enough powerful to rule an entire Αἰών.
Mere humans aren't.[/list]

A single mere human couldn't, I agree. But groups? Groups are powerful enough: kings, the bourgeoisie, the Elite, the Illuminati, the Freemasons. Conspiracies are built on secret groups being in control forever.

But again: even if granting the premise that it meant demon archons, wouldn't they be ruling over humans as well?

[Giuseppe]

I'm saying that, even if the archons are demons, then humans still might have been the ones carrying out the crucifixion.

then I would do better to classify you under the category n.° 2, i.e. "indifference, or minimization of the premise".

I think then that I should replace you with Bernard Muller under the category n.° 1, "denial of the premise".

Do you agree with my premise: that even if the archons are demons, then the ones carrying out the crucifixion might still be humans?

my intention here is a mere objective enumeration of the possible reactions. If your reaction can be resumed as "demons ok, but by using human agents", then it is a mere replay of what Wells and Las Vergnas have written (see above, category n. 2°). You are not more denying the premise, you are minimizing it (or its effects).

As to my answer to your question, it is:
the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves, therefore they are that, to use your same expression, magically "took out a hammer and some nails and personally crucified Jesus".

The crucifixion by demons is therefore a mythical crucifixion.

I'd like to understand Couchoud's reasoning there, if you are able to quote him directly on this.

Already done here.

Now I should search for a Bernard's post where he unambiguously decided totally for archons being only humans.

[Giuseppe]

I have updated the first post of this thread. Now Bernard figures as the denier of the premise.

[GakuseiDon]

Giuseppe, you might want to clarify what the premise is that people are reacting to. I've quoted you below to show you have introduced two separate premises, even if they can overlap:

The first one:

I have enumerated all the possible reactions of the people before the Paul's claim (1 Corinthians 2:8) that only demons crucified Jesus:

The second one:

so you agree with me in classifying you as principal exponent (to my knowledge) of the "denial of the premise" (the premise being that the archons are demons).

I'll let you decide what I apparently deny or accept, but I will note that "only demons crucified Jesus" and "the archons are demons" are separate premises. I'd suggest you combine them into a single one. My 2 cents!

[Giuseppe]

The two premises are not really separate but overlapped, since the text ascribes the crucifixion to the archons themselves, meaning that only them, the archons, "crucified the Lord of glory". Can someone deny this evident fact?


From your previous posts I understand that your position is not the same of Bernard.
The latter, differently from you, is very dogmatic in claiming that archons == humans.

[GakuseiDon]

The two premises are not really separate but overlapped, since the text ascribes the crucifixion to the archons themselves, meaning that only them, the archons, "crucified the Lord of glory". Can someone deny this evident fact?

No, but are you suggesting that this means that the archons personally crucified Christ? Or does your reading allow for archons' underlings carrying it out?

When gLuke writes that the archons crucified Christ:

23.35 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.
...
24.20 And how the chief priests and our rulers [archon] delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

... do you think the gLuke author meant that the archons PERSONALLY crucified Christ?

[Giuseppe]

In both the cases, yes: the archons materially worked the crucifixion. I don't see no ontological or hierarchical difference between the various demons (for example, the ones called "Legion", in the Gospel) and the "archons of this eon". Even the interpolator of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-26 meant that the "Jews" personally killed Jesus.

Hence my wonder about why in a paulinist gospel (=Mark) the demons know Jesus, while in Paul they don't.

ADDENDA: Note that this applies also about angels and archangels. I have found surreal and idiotic the discussion between Hurtado and Carrier about the question if Jesus is an angel or an archangel in Paul, the difference being de facto zero.