Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

DCHindley wrote:I'm not sure I follow you here. If "archon" can mean any kind of organizational authority, human or supernatural, how does that leave open the possibility "archon" means human authorities operating under the influence of spiritual authorities? It would need to be established how a supernatural authority could or would influence a human authority. It might order the elemental underlings to make it snow in summer to piss the human authority off, or inflame his desires for a fair beauty so he doesn't think straight, and thus steer him into doing something against his better judgement.

Here's what I'm thinking about:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ ... sdeath.asp

A commotion arose among the Senators in consequence of this exclamation which seemed to have special reference to them. So Antony quieted them again and recanted, saying, "To me, fellow citizens, this deed seems to be not the work of human beings, but of some evil spirit. It becomes us to consider the present rather than the past. Let us then conduct this sacred one to the abode of the blest, chanting our wonted hymn of lamentation for him."

DCHindley wrote:Why can't one author use the term to refer to human authorities and another to supernatural authorities, without there being a contradiction? THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION!

Let's all stop using 3rd century gnostic texts (which generally prefer to speak of supernatural authorities) to "prove" 1st century texts "must" refer to these, and/or "refute" any assertion that the "rulers of this age" who crucified the "glorious lord" could simply be human authorities like Pilate the Roman prefect.

DCH

Right.

The thing I am really surprised at is that no-one here has latched on the point that I have made, i.e. Paul making the crucifying of the lord of glory contingent on lack of "understanding" or "comprehension". Paul uses the verb 'ginosko' which relates to 'gnosis'. It is because the rulers have not received gnosis (in the sense the word is used eg. in 2 Cor 4:6) they crucified him; had they received (such) gnosis they would not have. Angels or demons are simply not subject to this kind of behavioural contingency. They are 'programmed' to act in certain way to fulfil God's plan. In the Ascension of Isaiah, the minions of the god of the world (clearly Satan) kill Lord Jesus, without knowing who he was until God informs them of what they had done on the judgement day to destroy them (not exactly due process as we understand it, but that's another matter). And when Jesus finally ascends to the seventh heaven to be seated beside God in glory, the 'princes and powers of the world' (clearly not Satan and his minions) worship him.

Best,
Jiri

Solo wrote: It is because the rulers have not received gnosis (in the sense the word is used eg. in 2 Cor 4:6) they crucified him; had they received (such) gnosis they would not have. Angels or demons are simply not subject to this kind of behavioural contingency. They are 'programmed' to act in certain way to fulfil God's plan.

I don't know where the "programming" concept comes from but if we are talking about characters that are set in stone and without choice in relation to the wisdom of God then that is the message of the gospels and epistles through and through, from what I understand. It is only by divine intervention that some few respond to God's call. Parable of the sower, message of Revelation, analogies in Paul, etc.

Nor do I think everyone would agree with the assertion that 1 Cor 2:8 uses "gnosis" "in the sense in the word is used in 2 Cor 4:6". In 1 Cor 2:8 there is no suggestion of archons receiving of not receiving gnosis. It is simply a statement that they did not have it -- exactly as various other texts declare certain humans and spirit entities lack knowledge of God and his plan.

But I wonder if your argument has more to do with serving as a means for kicking Doherty than with attempting to address the point for its own sake.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Solo wrote: It is because the rulers have not received gnosis (in the sense the word is used eg. in 2 Cor 4:6) they crucified him; had they received (such) gnosis they would not have. Angels or demons are simply not subject to this kind of behavioural contingency. They are 'programmed' to act in certain way to fulfil God's plan.

I don't know where the "programming" concept comes from but if we are talking about characters that are set in stone and without choice in relation to the wisdom of God then that is the message of the gospels and epistles through and through, from what I understand. It is only by divine intervention that some few respond to God's call. Parable of the sower, message of Revelation, analogies in Paul, etc.

Nor do I think everyone would agree with the assertion that 1 Cor 2:8 uses "gnosis" "in the sense in the word is used in 2 Cor 4:6". In 1 Cor 2:8 there is no suggestion of archons receiving of not receiving gnosis. It is simply a statement that they did not have it -- exactly as various other texts declare certain humans and spirit entities lack knowledge of God and his plan.

But I wonder if your argument has more to do with serving as a means for kicking Doherty than with attempting to address the point for its own sake.

Look, Neil, I am not really interested in debates with people addicted to militant viewpoints. They just don't interest me as much as they evidently interest you and make you read into what I say more than is reasonable. When I post here I am hoping for a well-argued point on a subject of interest, not proving myself in countering personal attacks and earth-shattering revelations about my wicked assaults upon the shrine of truth.

You don't agree about my analysis of 1 Cor 2:8, and that is fine with me. I fully expect a number of people with better Greek than yours not to agree with me on this. But I would expect a better argument from them. Not clueless semantics and twisting what I say by ignoring the "if they understood, they would not have" which makes it AFAICS improbable that Paul had on his mind more than more than human rulers under the sway of the power of darkness. Paul might mot have given repentance, as the behavioural mod of his time, its just due but he understood that it was an available grace of God and preached it to the unknown messianists in Rome (Rom 2:4). Repentance is a crucial element in Mark (4:11-12), where it directly relates to gnosis and evidently addresses people not demons.

Best,
Jiri

Knowing Jiri's opinion about Secret Mark what do you Jiri think about 1 Cor 2 1 - 10 being about the apostle admitting he wrote a secret gospel built and expanded upon the testimony of Peter and the apostles (cf the heretical position attested in Tertullian Prescript.)

Solo wrote:
Look, Neil, I am not really interested in debates with people addicted to militant viewpoints. They just don't interest me as much as they evidently interest you and make you read into what I say more than is reasonable. When I post here I am hoping for a well-argued point on a subject of interest, not proving myself in countering personal attacks and earth-shattering revelations about my wicked assaults upon the shrine of truth.

You don't agree about my analysis of 1 Cor 2:8, and that is fine with me. I fully expect a number of people with better Greek than yours not to agree with me on this. But I would expect a better argument from them. Not clueless semantics and twisting what I say by ignoring the "if they understood, they would not have" which makes it AFAICS improbable that Paul had on his mind more than more than human rulers under the sway of the power of darkness. Paul might mot have given repentance, as the behavioural mod of his time, its just due but he understood that it was an available grace of God and preached it to the unknown messianists in Rome (Rom 2:4). Repentance is a crucial element in Mark (4:11-12), where it directly relates to gnosis and evidently addresses people not demons.

Best,
Jiri

So that's a reasoned argument in response? My argument did not require any different meaning for the Greek word from what anyone else has suggested -- the argument is about contextual usage so you try to deflect attention from that fact with the misleading diversion about knowledge of the Greek term itself. I know academics who use that fallacy often enough trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their despised lay readers. They would less often try it with their peers, though.

Er, for your information it just so happens that I do not agree with Doherty's argument on the celestial crucifixion. If you believe I am presenting a militant viewpoint then do please spell it out- - tell me what you believe it is. My point is that the interpretation by Doherty is by no means unique to Doherty but is also found among the scholarly elite and is genuinely a reasonable and valid interpretation. You don't seem to be capable of handling any sort of ambiguity or anything other than an "all or nothing" game when it comes to your militant obsession with mythicism.

Meanwhile, if you would actually like a reasoned argument I am very open to one -- I do dispute your presumptions about the nature of people (and demons) -- on the grounds and with the support found in much of the scholarly literature -- in Mark and Paul. You really do sound like a contentious bigot with an agenda that is something more than intellectual. Can you actually explain to me why you see my explanation as twisting the context or meanings? I thought I gave something of a reason for my point that showed I was not doing so -- all you have done so far is make assertions without any such explanation, and then respond with insult and a declaration that YOU are the one making the "reasonable arguments"! You sound like one of those all too common theologian academics.

But you said you have no interest in engaging with an argument with people you mind-read a certain way -- though for some reason you evidently do have time to throw abusive comments at them. Now that to me sounds like a hostile agenda.

You mean Appian, Civil Wars, book 2, chapter 20 (sect 145)?

"It seems to me, fellow-citizens, that this deed is not the work of human beings, but of some evil spirit.
ἔοικεν, ὦ πολῖται, τὰ γεγενημένα ἀνδρῶν μὲν οὐδενός, ἀλλά του δαιμόνων ἔργα εἶναι.

(the English translation above is that of Horace White, Appian, Roman History, Volume I -Books 1-8.1, Loeb Classical Library, 1912, but originally published by MacMillan & Co., LTD. 1899; the Greek is from Appian, The Civil Wars, edited by L. Mendelssohn, Leipzig, Teubner, 1879).

White's translation "the work ... of some evil spirit" is gratuitous, as Antony simply calls it "a work of the daimon [του δαιμόνων ἔργα εἶναι]." The fact that there is a definite article before the word daimon means it is not just any daimon spirit, but Caesar's own daimon spirit (the same sort of daimon that Plato said had guided Socrates' doings), and thus Antony is ascribing Caesar's death to the work [ἔργα] of the elemental spirit that guided the course of events of Caesar's life. As he has just before this declared that he will honor the grant of amnesty the Senate had issued, Caesar's death was not something to blame human beings for.

So, in other words, Caesar, following his own daimon, was the cause of his own death (by alienating so many by his pretensions to power). It has nothing at all to do with some evil spirit causing his death directly by means of unseen power. White was translating the term του δαιμόνων from the Christian POV, where daimons are extensions of Satan, the devil, a tradition that did not even exist in Caesar & Anthony's time.

DCH

ghost wrote:

DCHindley wrote:I'm not sure I follow you here. If "archon" can mean any kind of organizational authority, human or supernatural, how does that leave open the possibility "archon" means human authorities operating under the influence of spiritual authorities? It would need to be established how a supernatural authority could or would influence a human authority. It might order the elemental underlings to make it snow in summer to piss the human authority off, or inflame his desires for a fair beauty so he doesn't think straight, and thus steer him into doing something against his better judgement.

Here's what I'm thinking about:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ ... sdeath.asp

A commotion arose among the Senators in consequence of this exclamation which seemed to have special reference to them. So Antony quieted them again and recanted, saying, "To me, fellow citizens, this deed seems to be not the work of human beings, but of some evil spirit. It becomes us to consider the present rather than the past. Let us then conduct this sacred one to the abode of the blest, chanting our wonted hymn of lamentation for him."

The whole basis for all of it is celestial. What else did they have?

Fail to see how this is a celestial event. Maybe you know something I don't?

DCHindley wrote:You mean Appian, Civil Wars, book 2, chapter 20 (sect 145)?

Yes. It's also here:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... html#145.1

DCHindley wrote:So, in other words, Caesar, following his own daimon, was the cause of his own death (by alienating so many by his pretensions to power). It has nothing at all to do with some evil spirit causing his death directly by means of unseen power. White was translating the term του δαιμόνων from the Christian POV, where daimons are extensions of Satan, the devil, a tradition that did not even exist in Caesar & Anthony's time.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.