Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:26 am So, if it was an affair only between the demons and the Christians like Paul - virtually the only beings in all the universe who knew that the Christ (just him!) was crucified - , then the possible testimony of other witnesses (who are neither demons nor Christians: for example, a Pilate) was completely useless from the beginning, since it was not a real testimony of the Son but only, at most, of a mere man crucified by the Romans (if this man existed).
Independently from the rest, another reason why Kovacs's exegesis is right is that:

The plausibility of this theory is considerably diminished when we note the gender of the relative pronoun in v. 8: if Paul is alluding to the failure of the archons to recognize the redeemer, we would expect him to say hon [=whom] oudeis egnöken and not hēn [=which]. The parallel with gnostic texts thus becomes rather slight. (p. 221)

Hence only the demons and the Christians knew the identity of the victim. But then any other possible "testimony" by other witnesses (who are neither demons nor Christians: for example, a Pilate) was completely useless from the beginning, since it was not a *real* testimony of the Son but only, at most, of a mere man crucified by the Romans (if this man existed). Really, useless by definition to a such extent, to make ipso facto completely usefel even the same need of a historical Jesus to explain the origin of the belief (in the eyes of the same Paul and early Christians).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe »

So the Kovacs's view strengthens my belief that the crucifixion for Paul:
1) was a very recent event
2) happened in the archontic realm.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that Kovacs insists in saying that this view (archontic knowledge of who Jesus was) was exclusively pauline and only pauline. Clearly, the alternative (the idea that also the Pillars thought so, that demons knew the identity of the victim) would give ipso facto reason to the Mythicists.

And there is not even need of an explanation of the why.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe »

I see that Judith Kovacs's view about Archontic knowledge of the identity of their victim is confirmed in this text:

“The Creator, seeing that the Good God was destroying his law, made a plot against him, not knowing that the death of the Good One would be the salvation of men”


(Adamantios, ii. 9).

In this case the killer knew the identity of the victim, only he didn't know the magical effects of the his death.


Is the professed ignorance about the victim in the Ascension of Isaiah an embarrassed reaction against the his knowledge in a previous version of the myth?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply