Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:07 pm to davidmartin,

well i do tend to view Paul as not being generally that consistent as a character trait if you like, which i think he admits
there is a tension between the age being evil and under malign influence yet magically somehow the Roman authorities are good (divinely appointed even) and to be obeyed
that doesn't make any sense. especially not when Jesus was crucified by said authorities. But without this i guess Christianity could never have become a major religion!

1 Co 2:6-8 "But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.
None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
With the rulers of this age being human and including Romans (like Pilate) & chief priests, they crucified Jesus because not knowing about the secret and hidden wisdom of God.
The Romans and chief priests are exonerated and neither bad or good.

Cordially, Bernard

this is where Paul is confused by his stating things that are mutually contradictory
if satan is just a minor menace without any comprehensive ability to influence the world, or as per Jewish thought, is God's agent to trial people then of course when Christ was crucified it was down to ignorance
but if satan is a major force to be reckoned with then it's crazy to let the rulers who killed Jesus off the hook, as if satan wouldn't have inspired them
the problem is scripture in the NT does state he is a major force, so i don't see how that works at all
but if Paul was simply being expedient as to his relationship with the Romans without caring too much about the theological implications then yes it makes sense, but it's contradictory still theologically and ridiculous, but so is life so i guess

davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:31 pmthis is where Paul is confused by his stating things that are mutually contradictory
if satan is just a minor menace without any comprehensive ability to influence the world, or as per Jewish thought, is God's agent to trial people then of course when Christ was crucified it was down to ignorance
but if satan is a major force to be reckoned with then it's crazy to let the rulers who killed Jesus off the hook, as if satan wouldn't have inspired them
the problem is scripture in the NT does state he is a major force, so i don't see how that works at all
but if Paul was simply being expedient as to his relationship with the Romans without caring too much about the theological implications then yes it makes sense, but it's contradictory still theologically and ridiculous, but so is life so i guess

I have conjectured before that both 1 Corinthians 2.6-16 and Romans 13.1-7 are interpolations which postdate 70. Both passages are argued to be interpolations in William O. Walker's book. I am not firmly wed to the idea; nor do I feel any itch to defend it against anyone who already thinks he has early Christianity figured out. But I do feel like I have always needed an answer for how both Romans 13.1-7 and 1 Peter 2.13-24 can be so blessedly naïve about the authorities. Other, later Christian texts were seemingly unable to achieve that same level of innocence, ever qualifying the injunction to submit in various ways. What makes these two passages so special? Was there no memory at all of what the authorities had done, say, to the Maccabean martyrs? But these passages make more sense (to me, at any rate) if they are, not general principles being laid down for historical posterity, but rather specific rebukes aimed at those who had aided and abetted the revolutionary spirit which had led to the fall of Jerusalem. Of course, we already date 1 Peter 2.13-24 to after 70, but my conjecture is that Romans 13.1-7 was cut of the same cloth. As for 1 Corinthians 2.6-16, you can read my summary of Walker's arguments, but I also recommend reading the entire book as a sort of tonic against the methodology of assumption about our manuscript record. YMMV, obviously.

Now it is more and more clear why G. A.Wells wrote very wisely and humbly:

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.

Wells took the archontes as only meaning supernatural forces. That's rather naive.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:34 am So your "mutually exclude each other" is highly contestable.

but the context is clear that οὐδέ has to be translated in this case as "and not". There is no viable alternative to explain why Paul takes the disturb to specify any kind of wisdom different from the hidden wisdom he reserves for Perfects. He identifies two therefore these 2 wisdoms are different between them:

• The wisdom of this age

• The wisdom of the rulers of this age

When the second wisdom is given to the humans (by kindly concession of angels), it becomes part of the first wisdom, by definition. But until it has to be considered distinct from the first (as Paul does), it is an angelic wisdom therefore the archontes are demons and only demons.

So you have to try again, if you want to prove me that you are not a (crypto-)Christian apologist.

i think the interplay between authorities actions and wishing to appeal to them is a factor, when you're living under their jurisdiction there's three courses of action - opposition, compliance or rising above. all three are in evidence in early Christianity, and taken to their logical conclusion theologically

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:17 pm "Wisdom of this age" seems to be man's wisdom. I think we agree there.

well, then if you agree with me on this point, then you have necessarily to distinguish the "wisdom of the rulers of this age" as the exact contrary of the human "wisdom of this age": hence, as the wisdom only angels can have. Paul is saying simply: my hidden wisdom is unknown to both humans and angels but reserved only to you Perfects.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:17 pm "Wisdom of the rulers of this age" seems to me to be the knowledge of the future that rulers were obsessed about, who sought knowledge from supernatural sources, usually via intermediaries.

GakuseiDon, I find the Bernard's reply, frankly, much more intellectually honest than your reply. At least Bernard has realized that if one accepts the distinction (via οὐδέ) between the two wisdoms then the conclusion is that the archontes are only demons, since even GDon has to refer to archontic wisdom by calling it as knowledge from supernatural sources (in order to distinguish it from mere human wisdom).

If you think that the angelic wisdom could be shared with human rulers via astrologers and magicians, then why do you call still it as angelic wisdom? What mere humans can know is human wisdom, by definition. Period.

What is the wisdom of the demon rulers that Paul decided he needed to remind Christians he wasn't teaching them?

Paul was going to say that he would have revealed things not known by any other man on earth and not even known by the demons in the air.

Paul assumes that the demons knew the limits of their power (they couldn't rule the upper heavens, for example).

Paul assumes that the demons knew how to influence negatively the fate of the humans, by taking the right measures (for example, provoking coronavirus on earth).

By saying that the demons didn't know the Perfect wisdom, Paul was securing the Perfects that the demons couldn't know how to modify in advance the plan of God, since the same divine plan was unknown for them.

Think about Alan Turing and the code Enigma. Turing was able to decipher Enigma so helping the Allies to win the war. Paul is saying that there was no Turing among the demons. The divine Plan was perfect.

to Giuseppe,
1 Co 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, and not of the rulers [archontes] of this age, who are coming to nothing.
From the NKJV, but I replaced "nor" by "and not".

I don't see why "and not" would suggest a different wisdom for the archontes, rather than the same "wisdom of this age".
Paul wanted to say that even the archontes have "the wisdom of this age". That is confirmed in the next two verses:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
The archontes don't have the hidden wisdom of God (which Paul claimed to have discovered), as everybody else.
Why the archontes are mentioned in 1 Co 2:6? Because they are the ones, having the (bad) wisdom of this age, who crucified Jesus.

The mysterious & hidden wisdom of God of Paul's claim is contrasted with the wisdom of this age shared by everybody else including the archontes.

Also, from 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 1 Corinthians 2:16, the ones who do not understand God's wisdom (& his plan) are specified to be humans (ref: 1:20, 22-25; 2:5, 9, 11, 13-14) and not spirits.

Cordially, Bernard

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:36 amIf you think that the angelic wisdom could be shared with human rulers via astrologers and magicians, then why do you call still it as angelic wisdom?

Nitpick: I've never called it "angelic" wisdom, but "supernatural sources" wisdom. The "wisdom" being referred to there in my view relates to knowledge of the future. There is "the wisdom of this age" (what natural philosophers think; for example, that time is a cycle so everything will happen again, including a new Socrates); "the wisdom of the rulers of this age" (what rulers have learned about the future through supernatural sources); "the wisdom of God", which is what will really happen.

Now, under that reading, "rulers of this age" might be human rulers or supernatural rulers. I just don't see the need for the latter, and rulers of humans fits the sense of Ps 2.

It's fine if you disagree with me, Giuseppe, but it is frustrating that you keep misrepresenting what I write.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:36 amWhat mere humans can know is human wisdom, by definition. Period.

Every religious person and every psychic who has claimed knowledge from supernatural sources just rolled over in their graves.

When rulers visited the oracle at Delphi for information about the future, where did the rulers think the oracle's information derived from?

Take the books of prophecy kept by Roman rulers called the Sibylline Books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibylline_Books


To my mind, that was the sort of thing Paul had in mind when he wrote about "the wisdom of the rulers of this age."

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:09 am
I don't see why "and not" would suggest a different wisdom for the archontes, rather than the same "wisdom of this age".

totally different, or a wisdom of which the human wisdom is a strict subset. If humans know x, then the demons know x and y.