Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:First a reminder:
1 Corinthians 2:8 "None of the rulers ['archons'] of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

In his book, "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ) p. 190, Carrier made this startling remark, which would kill his case against the historicity of Jesus:

"Otherwise when he [Paul] speaks of human leaders he uses archon, 'principal', as in 'first in rank', not arche, 'principalities', and he never speaks of them as 'powers'. In Rom. 13:1-7, for example, Paul is certainly speaking of humans authorities, which he says Christians should always obey."

At the next page, Carrier wrote that archon can have a different meaning (heavenly power) but he cited Eph. 2.2 as evidence ("which was forged in Paul's name but clearly by someone of his sect, and relatively early in the development of the church").

But 'Ephesians', likely written more than a generation after Paul's times, should not be considered as following Paul's thinking. Furthermore, scholars noted that 'Ephesians" contains many elements/concepts/beliefs not found in Paul's authentic epistles. (Reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ephesians.html)

I think Carrier would wish to rewrite the offending sentence and explain why, in the case of 1 Cor 2:8, 'archon' does not mean human rulers.
Or is it a later historicist interpolation?

Cordially, Bernard

I suggest you read your own post here again -- slowly perhaps -- and spot the logical error you have fallen into, Bernard.

Carrier says all humans have two legs.

Carrier is speaking here of a two legged thing.

Therefore Carrier is speaking of a human.

It's elementary, Bernard, elementary.

OK - if it's logic we are after.....

If a word can be understood to have various meanings - in this case the use of the relevant Greek word by the Pauline writer - heavenly or earthly powers - then, logic must uphold both usages of the word. Thus, the Carrier-Doherty mythicists can read their heavenly crucifixion into 1 Cor.2.8 - and the Jesus historicists can read their earthy crucifixion into this text. So - check-mate. Going nowhere - except a shouting match as to which side has the 'true' interpretation of 1 Cor.2.8.

What is the logical way out of this debate over 1 Cor.2.8? Both sides have valid arguments. The Pauline writer is upholding not one but two crucifixion stories. An earthly crucifixion and a heavenly crucifixion story. A Jerusalem above and a Jerusalem below. Thus, the Pauline writer knows the gospel story and is supporting that earthly crucifixion story. The Pauline writer's own 'truth', a 'truth' that he got from no man, is the visionary, imagined, heavenly crucifixion story. A heavenly crucifixion story that brings salvation to all men. No longer Jews nor Greeks. That is the beyond the Law message of the Pauline epistles - a message that would, in that time and place, be a stumbling block for the Jews and place Paul's own life in danger.

^I think this line is more crucial for the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis than for historicists. Historicist positions can handle "rulers of this age" to refer to Earthly rulers, generic forces of evil, Satan and his demons, or some combination of these (my suspicion). But the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis requires this question to fall in their direction. Because if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot.

Hawthorne wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:Primary sources in historical studies & methodology are, by convention/definition, sources from the time in question. ie. 'contemporary' to that time-period.

Earliest sources, or 'first' sources currently available to us today, are not necessarily primary sources.

Neil is right, though, that context does matter. A source may be primary in reference to one question, but secondary in terms of another.

The Gospels are not primary sources for events that may have occurred regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the early first century. They could be considered primary sources for Christian thoughts in the late first, early second century.

That was my point ie.

• The Gospels are not primary sources for ... Jesus of Nazareth.
• There are no primary sources for ... Jesus of Nazareth:
  • ~ no texts (theological or otherwise);
    ~ no artifacts;
    ~ no archaeology.

The probability of whether the Gospel character & narrative is based on a real Jesus of Nazareth depends on discerning how Christian-thoughts started and developed, in the absence of any primary sources for him (or until any reliable primary sources surface).

Best we read On the Historicity of Jesus ...
.

maryhelena wrote: OK - if it's logic we are after.....

If a word can be understood to have various meanings - in this case the use of the relevant Greek word by the Pauline writer - heavenly or earthly powers - then, logic must uphold both usages of the word. Thus, the Carrier-Doherty mythicists can read their heavenly crucifixion into 1 Cor.2.8 - and the Jesus historicists can read their earthy crucifixion into this text. So - check-mate. Going nowhere - except a shouting match as to which side has the 'true' interpretation of 1 Cor.2.8.

What is the logical way out of this debate over 1 Cor.2.8? Both sides have valid arguments. The Pauline writer is upholding not one but two crucifixion stories. An earthly crucifixion and a heavenly crucifixion story. A Jerusalem above and a Jerusalem below. Thus, the Pauline writer knows the gospel story and is supporting that earthly crucifixion story. The Pauline writer's own 'truth', a 'truth' that he got from no man, is the visionary, imagined, heavenly crucifixion story. A heavenly crucifixion story that brings salvation to all men. No longer Jews nor Greeks. That is the beyond the Law message of the Pauline epistles - a message that would, in that time and place, be a stumbling block for the Jews and place Paul's own life in danger.

toejam wrote:^I think this line is more crucial for the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis than for historicists. Historicist positions can handle "rulers of this age" to refer to Earthly rulers, generic forces of evil, Satan and his demons, or some combination of these (my suspicion). But the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis requires this question to fall in their direction. Because if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot.

You both offer two options, yet in each case these are false dichotomies.

A third possibilty, or even probability, is that the Gospel story and the Pauline story - "a 'truth' that he got from no man, ... the visionary, imagined, heavenly crucifixion story" - were developed separately and later joined together, and redacted to align, when the NT was being put together.

MrMacSon wrote:

maryhelena wrote: OK - if it's logic we are after.....

If a word can be understood to have various meanings - in this case the use of the relevant Greek word by the Pauline writer - heavenly or earthly powers - then, logic must uphold both usages of the word. Thus, the Carrier-Doherty mythicists can read their heavenly crucifixion into 1 Cor.2.8 - and the Jesus historicists can read their earthy crucifixion into this text. So - check-mate. Going nowhere - except a shouting match as to which side has the 'true' interpretation of 1 Cor.2.8.

What is the logical way out of this debate over 1 Cor.2.8? Both sides have valid arguments. The Pauline writer is upholding not one but two crucifixion stories. An earthly crucifixion and a heavenly crucifixion story. A Jerusalem above and a Jerusalem below. Thus, the Pauline writer knows the gospel story and is supporting that earthly crucifixion story. The Pauline writer's own 'truth', a 'truth' that he got from no man, is the visionary, imagined, heavenly crucifixion story. A heavenly crucifixion story that brings salvation to all men. No longer Jews nor Greeks. That is the beyond the Law message of the Pauline epistles - a message that would, in that time and place, be a stumbling block for the Jews and place Paul's own life in danger.

toejam wrote:^I think this line is more crucial for the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis than for historicists. Historicist positions can handle "rulers of this age" to refer to Earthly rulers, generic forces of evil, Satan and his demons, or some combination of these (my suspicion). But the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis requires this question to fall in their direction. Because if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot.

You both offer two options, yet in each case these are false dichotomies.

A third possibilty, or even probability, is that the Gospel story and the Pauline story - "a 'truth' that he got from no man, ... the visionary, imagined, heavenly crucifixion story" - were developed separately and later joined together, and redacted to align, when the NT was being put together.

Yes, there are two stories, the gospel Jesus story and the Pauline celestial christ story. There is nothing in my comment that denies that these two stories were fused together.....

One needs to first acknowledge that there are indeed two very different stories in the NT before one can talk about fusing these stories together. One way these two NT stories have been fused together is the use of words that can have more than one meaning....as in 1 Cor. 2.8. Layering - is that not what all good story writers try and achieve....

maryhelena wrote: Yes, there are two stories, the gospel Jesus story and the Pauline celestial christ story. There is nothing in my comment that denies that these two stories were fused together.....

It was this I was referring to -

• maryhelena wrote:the Pauline writer knows the gospel story and is supporting that earthly crucifixion story.

The original or early Pauline writer/s may not have known the gospel story - some redacters may not have, either.

Later redacters & NT-compilers would have known both the Gospel stories and the Pauline celestial Logos/Christ story/stories (some of those celestial stories likely selected; some they rejected, hence apocryphal gospels)

I agree with this

maryhelena wrote:One needs to first acknowledge that there are indeed two very different stories in the NT before one can talk about fusing these stories together. One way these two NT stories have been fused together is the use of words that can have more than one meaning....as in 1 Cor. 2.8. Layering - is that not what all good story writers try and achieve....

Layering; especially what all good theology-writers achieve

toejam wrote:^I think this line is more crucial for the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis than for historicists. Historicist positions can handle "rulers of this age" to refer to Earthly rulers, generic forces of evil, Satan and his demons, or some combination of these (my suspicion). But the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis requires this question to fall in their direction. Because if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot.

Best to keep in mind that an alternative to the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is not a historical Jesus (of whatever variety it's proponents dream up). Knock down the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis by all means just don't waste your time trying to justify the JC historicist position. Both theories have their serious faults - as well as their virtues.......

What's needed is a synthesis......

To maryhelena and MrMacSon:

I haven't offered a "false dichotomy". It would be a false dichotomy if I said:

"if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then historicity is correct and mythicism is false."

But that's not what I said. What I said was:

"if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot."

toejam wrote: What I said was:

"if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot."

How is the following Nag Hammadi tract - with reference to "Paul" as the "great apostle" - to be interpreted with respect to this Carrier-Doherty hypothesis ? Does either Carrier, or Doherty, or both, make reference to this? And if so, who is this "blind chief" [of the rulers]?

The Hypostasis of the Archons (The Reality of the Rulers): http://gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

NHC wrote: On account of the reality of the authorities, (inspired) by the spirit of the father of truth, the great apostle – referring to the "authorities of the darkness" – told us that "our contest is not against flesh and blood; rather, the authorities of the universe and the spirits of wickedness." I have sent this (to you) because you inquire about the reality of the authorities.

Their chief is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, "It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety.

maryhelena wrote: OK - if it's logic we are after.....

If a word can be understood to have various meanings - in this case the use of the relevant Greek word by the Pauline writer - heavenly or earthly powers - then, logic must uphold both usages of the word. Thus, the Carrier-Doherty mythicists can read their heavenly crucifixion into 1 Cor.2.8 - and the Jesus historicists can read their earthy crucifixion into this text. So - check-mate. Going nowhere - except a shouting match as to which side has the 'true' interpretation of 1 Cor.2.8.

What is the logical way out of this debate over 1 Cor.2.8? Both sides have valid arguments. The Pauline writer is upholding not one but two crucifixion stories. An earthly crucifixion and a heavenly crucifixion story. A Jerusalem above and a Jerusalem below. Thus, the Pauline writer knows the gospel story and is supporting that earthly crucifixion story. The Pauline writer's own 'truth', a 'truth' that he got from no man, is the visionary, imagined, heavenly crucifixion story. A heavenly crucifixion story that brings salvation to all men. No longer Jews nor Greeks. That is the beyond the Law message of the Pauline epistles - a message that would, in that time and place, be a stumbling block for the Jews and place Paul's own life in danger.

toejam wrote:^I think this line is more crucial for the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis than for historicists. Historicist positions can handle "rulers of this age" to refer to Earthly rulers, generic forces of evil, Satan and his demons, or some combination of these (my suspicion). But the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis requires this question to fall in their direction. Because if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot.

MrMacSon wrote:You both offer two options, yet in each case these are false dichotomies.

A third possibility, or even probability, is that the Gospel story and the Pauline story - "a 'truth' that he got from no man, ... the visionary, imagined, heavenly crucifixion story" - were developed separately and later joined together, and redacted to align, when the NT was being put together.

toejam wrote:To maryhelena and MrMacSon:

I haven't offered a "false dichotomy". It would be a false dichotomy if I said:

"if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then historicity is correct and mythicism is false."

But that's not what I said. What I said was:

"if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot."

to be honest, it wasn't clear which "line" you were referring to toejam, but the reality is "if" propositions are fraught, especially when applied to texts likely to have been highly-redacted over several generations.

Both your propositions - including "if Paul did mean it as in any way referring to Earthly rulers, then the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is shot." - are limited & dichotomous. We don't really know why specific parts of the Pauline texts say what they do.