Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[DCHindley]

There seems to be only the faintest realization being exhibited here that there are three key Greek words that are inconsistently translated into English.

"Aiōn" (αἰών) = a period of time, an age (as differentiated from another age), improperly translated sometimes as "world"
"Kosmos" (κόσμος) = adornment, cosmos, world, we would say "visible universe"
"Archōn" (ἄρχων) = a ruler, authority, head of any kind of organization!

You will only know what the correct English word to use in translation is from context, but that does not stop some from introducing moral aspects to it.

This latter situation is how:

"tō aiōni toutō" (τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ) gets translated "to this world" rather than "to this age" (Rom 12:12 RSV),

"tou aiōnos toutou" (τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) gets translated as "of this world" instead of "of this age" (2 Cor 4:4 RSV),

"en tō nun aiōni" (ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι) gets translated as "with this present world" (1 Tim 6:17 RSV) instead of "in the present age",

"ton nun aiōna" (τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα) as "in this world" instead of "the present (uncaring = ἀγαπήσας) age" (2 Tim 4:10 RSV).

In 1 Cor 2:8 RSV, "tōn archontōn tou aiōnos toutou" (τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου), combines ἄρχων and αἰών, is translated (correctly) "the rulers of this age". It would mean something quite different if the original Greek said "the rulers of this world."

In 1 Cor 1:20, "pou suzētētēs tou aiōnos toutou" (ποῦ συζητητὴς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου;) is correctly translated "Where is the debater of this age?", and "tēn sophian tou kosmou" (τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου) is correctly translated as "the wisdom of the world".

Basically, "an age/period of time" means something different than "world/visible universe".

DCH

[Solo]

I am on holidays but couldn't resist responding to this silly argument. I don't find Doherty's claims very interesting because the ideas haven't been demonstrated to have been associated with Patristic witnesses. Nevertheless the Marcionites and Origen held Paul's "rulers" to be spiritual princes. Can't there be a middle ground here? No or who cares to Doherty but yes to spiritual princes? The Hamptons are utterly divine BTW

Marcion was a docetist, so it does not surprise me he would have read Paul (who certainly was not one) that way. As for Origen, I do not recall him pronouncing himself on the subject in the manner that you suggest. In De Principiis 5. he says (2) "Moreover, certain angels of the devil are mentioned, and also a prince of this world, who, whether the devil himself or some one else, is not yet clearly manifest. There are also certain princes of this world spoken of as possessing a kind of wisdom which will come to nought; but whether these are those princes who are also the principalities with whom we have to wrestle, or other beings, seems to me a point on which it is not easy for any one to pronounce.. (3) Those also whom the apostle termed rulers and princes of the darkness of this world, are said, with respect to their rule and occupation of darkness, to fall not from perversity of intention, but from the necessity of their creation. Logical reasoning will compel us to take the same view with regard to wicked and malignant spirits and unclean demons. Let me know if there is something else I should see.

At any rate, unless one takes a theological (or an atheistico-cosmolo-nicological) position here, the comment below I take to be a good middle ground:

Divine wisdom which the spiritually adult receive is opposed to human. Before Christ came and outside his present sphere of influence angelic 'spiritual' beings held sway, among the Jews through the Law which they mediated to men according to late Jewish tradition, and among pagans through their kings and rulers...

Best,
Jiri

[Stephan Huller]

I am the furthest thing from a Doherty apologist but I see from a Google search of his book he does appeal to the very witnesses I mentioned

Scholars who balk at (a supernatural) interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify, are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archin in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the Gnostic Marcion

[GakuseiDon]

I am the furthest thing from a Doherty apologist but I see from a Google search of his book he does appeal to the very witnesses I mentioned

"Scholars who balk at (a supernatural) interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify, are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archin in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1)."

Ignatius' in Smyrnaeans 6:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html

• Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Let not[high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is a faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

"Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the Gnostic Marcion"

Origen's view can be found in a few places in the books of De Principiis, but Book 3, Ch 3 has the most thorough explanation (slightly formatted by breaking into paragraphs, to make it more readible)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en124.html

• I. The holy apostle, wishing to teach us some great and hidden truth respecting science and wisdom, says, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of the world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of the world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." In this passage, wishing to describe the different kinds of wisdom, he points out that there is a wisdom of this world, and a wisdom of the princes of this world, and another wisdom of God.
  
  But when he uses the expression "wisdom of the princes of this world," I do not think that he means a wisdom common to all the princes of this world, but one rather that is peculiar to certain individuals among them. And again, when he says, "We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory," we must inquire whether his meaning be, that this is the same wisdom of God which was hidden from other times and generations, and was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets, and Which was also that wisdom of God before the advent of the Saviour, by means of which Solomon obtained his wisdom, and in reference to which the language of the Saviour Himself declared, that what He taught was greater than Solomon, in these words, "Behold, a greater than Solomon is here,"--words which show, that those who were instructed by the Saviour were instructed in something higher than the knowledge of Solomon. For if one were to assert that the Saviour did indeed Himself possess greater knowledge, but did not communicate more to others than Solomon did, how will that agree with the statement which follows: "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment, and condemn the men of this generation, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here?"
  
  There is therefore a wisdom of this world, and also probably a wisdom belonging to each individual prince of this world. But with respect to the wisdom of God alone, we perceive that this! is indicated, that it operated to a less degree in ancient and former times, and was (afterwards) more fully revealed and manifested through Christ. We shall inquire, however, regarding the wisdom of God in the proper place.
  
  2. But now, since we are treating of the manner in which the opposing powers stir up those contests, by means of which false knowledge is introduced into the minds of men, and human souls led astray, while they imagine that they have discovered wisdom, I think it necessary to name and distinguish the wisdom of this world, and of the princes of this world, that by so doing we may discover who are the fathers of this wisdom, nay, even of these kinds of wisdom. I am of opinion, therefore, as I have stated above, that there is another wisdom of this world besides those (different kinds of) wisdom which belong to the princes of this world, by which wisdom those things seem to be understood and comprehended which belong to this world.
  
  This wisdom, however, possesses in itself no fitness for forming any opinion either respecting divine things, or the plan of the world's government, or any other subjects of importance, or regarding the training for a good or happy life; but is such as deals wholly with the art of poetry, e.g., or that of grammar, or rhetoric, or geometry, or music, with which also, perhaps, medicine should be classed. In all these subjects we are to suppose that the wisdom of this world is included.
  
  The wisdom of the princes of this world, on the other hand, we understand to be such as the secret and occult philosophy, as they call it, of the Egyptians, and the astrology of the Chaldeans and Indians, who make profession of the knowledge of high things, and also that manifold variety of opinion which prevails among the Greeks regarding divine things. Accordingly, in the holy Scriptures we find that there are princes over individual nations; as in Daniel s we read that there was a prince of the kingdom of Persia, and another prince of the kingdom of Graecia, who are clearly shown, by the nature of the passage, to be not human beings, but certain powers. In the prophecies of Ezekiel, also, the prince of Tyre is unmistakeably shown to be a kind of spiritual power. When these, then, and others of the same kind, possessing each his own wisdom, and building up his own opinions and sentiments, beheld our Lord and Saviour professing and declaring that He had for this purpose come into the world, that all the opinions of science, falsely so called, might be destroyed, not knowing what was concealed within Him, they forthwith laid a snare for Him: for "the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers assembled together, against the Lord and His Christ." But their snares being discovered, and the plans which they had attempted to carry out being made manifest when they crucified the Lord of glory, therefore the apostle says, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who are brought to nought, which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
  
  3. We must, indeed, endeavour to ascertain whether that wisdom of the princes of this world, with which they endeavour to imbue men, is introduced into their minds by the opposing powers, with the purpose of ensnaring and injuring them, or only for the purpose of deceiving them, i.e., not with the object of doing any hurt to man; but, as these princes of this world esteem such opinions to be true, they desire to impart to others what they themselves believe to be the truth: and this is the view which I am inclined to adopt. For as, to take an illustration, certain Greek authors, or the leaders of some heretical sect, after having imbibed an error in doctrine instead of the truth, and having come to the conclusion in their own minds that such is the truth, proceed, in the next place, to endeavour to persuade others of the correctness of their opinions; so, in like manner, are we to suppose is the procedure of the princes of this world, in which to certain spiritual powers has been assigned the rule over certain nations, and who are termed on that account the princes of this world.
  
  There are besides, in addition to these princes, certain special energies of this world, i.e., spiritual powers, which bring about certain effects, which they have themselves, in virtue of their freedom of will, chosen to produce, and to these belong those princes who practise the wisdom of this world: there being, for example, a peculiar energy and power, which is the inspirer of poetry; another, of geometry; and so a separate power, to remind us of each of the arts and professions of this kind.
  
  Lastly, many Greek writers have been of opinion that the art of poetry cannot exist without madness; whence also it is several times related in their histories, that those whom they call poets were suddenly filled with a kind of spirit of madness. And what are we to say also of those whom they call diviners, from whom, by the working of those demons who have the mastery over them, answers are given in carefully constructed verses? Those persons, too, whom they term Magi or Malevolent, frequently, by invoking demons over boys of tender years, have made them repeat poetical compositions which were the admiration and amazement of all.
  
  Now these effects we are to suppose are brought about in the following manner: As holy and immaculate souls, after devoting themselves to God with all affection and purity, and after preserving themselves free from all contagion of evil spirits, and after being purified by lengthened abstinence, and imbued with holy and religious training, assume by this means a portion of divinity, and earn the grace of prophecy, and other divine gifts; so also are we to suppose that those who place themselves in the way of the opposing powers, i.e., who purposely admire and adopt their manner of life and habits, receive their inspiration, and become partakers of their wisdom and doctrine. And the result of this is, that they are filled with the working of those spirits to whose service they have subjected themselves.

[DCHindley]

Has it not occurred to folks that the term can be used of ANY SORT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHORITY?

Do we not have significant information that most ancients of the Roman period believed that the world was controlled by elementary spirits (usually called "daimons") who were organized in a military-like hierarchy. The ultimate leader is variously understood as God, the Platonic World Soul, Satan, etc, but it is allowed that as in any military organization, the minions simply do their job, obeying orders upon authentication and making the world do what it does (rain, snow, get hot, be windy or calm, get people sick, make them well, etc), and demanding passwords or special signs from human mystics who try to pass through a heaven or a magician who attempts to give them an order.

The hierarchy has levels of command, including angels and gods, who are legitimately archons (leaders). It is no different than any organization, like the Roman army (and government), the imperial household, priesthoods, etc. They all have archons.

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

I am the furthest thing from a Doherty apologist but I see from a Google search of his book he does appeal to the very witnesses I mentioned

Scholars who balk at (a supernatural) interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify, are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archin in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the Gnostic Marcion

[ghost]

"Spirit" and "conspiracy" have the same root.

[neilgodfrey]

"Spirit" and "conspiracy" have the same root.

"Idiot" comes from "idiotes" meaning a private person or a layman.

[ghost]

"Idiot" comes from "idiotes" meaning a private person or a layman.

Here's the point: if "archon" can mean any kind of authority, then you can't automatically exclude that it could also have referred to conspiratiorial senators, and that that's where the spirits/demons appear.

[neilgodfrey]

"Idiot" comes from "idiotes" meaning a private person or a layman.

Here's the point: if "archon" can mean any kind of authority, then you can't automatically exclude that it could also have referred to conspiratiorial senators, and that that's where the spirits/demons appear.

No-one excludes that possibility that I know of. I don't think you've ever followed the arguments. Everyone knows archons can refer to human or spirit powers. The argument is over the structure of the passage and its broader contexts.

Possibility of itself never means probability.

[DCHindley]

"Idiot" comes from "idiotes" meaning a private person or a layman.

Here's the point: if "archon" can mean any kind of authority, then you can't automatically exclude that it could also have referred to conspiratiorial senators, and that that's where the spirits/demons appear.

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.

RSV Ephesians 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.

BGT Ephesians 2:2 ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας•

Here is described a supernatural authority that spiritually influences the "sons of disobedience" (apparently referring to human's who rebel against God) by means of the "power of the air." However, I am not aware of anywhere that describes what "power" air is supposed to have.

The Greek word ἐξουσίας is a form of the noun ἐξουσία (another word for power/authority) and there is a related verb ἐξουσιάζω meaning "to exercise authority." What kind of authority is air supposed to have that could influence a human being (except, perhaps,. a lack of it)? Does it refer to the kind of supernatural beings that work in the regions of the air (as opposed to the rarified "ether" in the upper heavens). "Spirit" (πνεῦμα), FWIW, means "blowing, breathing, breath, something that causes an effect but cannot be seen".

Yet if "[n]one of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8), it seems to refer to a physical crucifixion by rulers of this present time (the authorities of the Roman era), as I see nothing in the context to suggest that a heavenly drama is being described rather than a human one.

The only phrase that might cause me to scratch my head is "the Lord of [the] glory" (τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης). What is "THE" glory (the definite article is in the Greek, but not the RSV translation)?

Generally "glory" is reserved for God and the benefits he bestows upon his people (including the Law, the promise of a bountiful land, etc), but it is sometimes related to Christ, e.g., Rom 6:4 "Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father" (RSV), or 2 Co 4:4 "the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God."

I think personally that it has to do with the kind of idea expressed by Gal 6:14 "But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (RSV).

DCH