Jesus from Outer Space

[Giuseppe]

Bernard,

A better translation than "not even" is the following, for 1 Cor 2:6:

“wisdom not of this age, and specifically not of the rulers of this age”

The fact that Paul mentions again the rulers in the next verse supports the 2:6's οὐδέ construction as focusing specifically on the rulers of this age.

[Giuseppe]

References here:

https://books.google.it/books?id=evdeBw ... δέ&f=false

Note that that analysis above confutes entirely the Ben C. Smith's conclusion:

So, if you or if anybody wants to get some indication of how "the wisdom of this age" or "the wisdom of the rulers of this age" relate to one another, you cannot be using οὐδέ for that indication, because οὐδέ implies only that both items are negated, not that they relate to each other in any prespecified or predetermined way.

[Giuseppe]

In the link reported above, statistics says that Paul's DOMINANT use of οὐδέ is to specify meaning

That proves definitely my point. The archontic wisdom is distinct from the human "wisdom of this age". I proclaim victory.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

to Bernard,
A better translation than "not even" is the following, for 1 Cor 2:6:

“wisdom not of this age, and specifically not of the rulers of this age”

The fact that Paul mentions again the rulers in the next verse supports the 2:6's οὐδέ construction as focusing specifically on the rulers of this age.

First, it is not "wisdom not of this age", but "not the wisdom of this age".
Second, It is probable that Paul mentioned "the rulers of this age" in 2:6 because they are the ones who crucify Jesus in 2:8.

One thing is certain: Paul made sure the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of the rulers of this age are not God's hidden & secret wisdom.

And Ben is clear about the οὐδέ does not imply the rulers' wisdom is the wisdom of this age, or the rulers' wisdom is not the wisdom of this age.
However I don't see why Paul would introduce rather imperceptibly the concept of the rulers having a different third wisdom, when he didn't have to, because the overall theme of that part of 1 Corinthians is about God's wisdom against man's wisdom.

And even if the wisdom of the rulers is not the wisdom of this age, that does nor mean these rulers are demons.

Paul focusing specifically on the rulers of this age is a product of your imagination.

Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

References here:

https://books.google.it/books?id=evdeBw ... δέ&f=false

Note that that analysis above confutes entirely the Ben C. Smith's conclusion:

The book in question is from a Christian apologist, Philip B. Payne https://www.pbpayne.com/about/. The book is titled: Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's letters.

It is from it that you got “wisdom not of this age [God's wisdom], and specifically not of the rulers of this age”. So the wisdom of the rulers is not specifically God's wisdom. Nothing is new.

And it does not seem Payne paid attention to any Lexicon or even quoted Paul accurately (wisdom not of this age).

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
Thank you for your answers.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

I skimmed through the first 15 pages of this thread looking for some discussion of the contents of the book. Yes, the title is an appallingly misguided choice, shall we say, but the contents of the book was actually quite good. Carrier responds to several criticisms of his OHJ with some cogent responses that deserve serious attention.

I know, some people call me a Carrier devotee, but I do try to be fair. Yes, Carrier makes himself an easy target for many reasons, but if we can set aside all "ad homina" and try to focus on the arguments then I would find discussions worth reading, not just skimming. I often disagree with Carrier and I do disagree with some of his arguments in this new book -- and have blogged about those disagreements in detail -- but for god's sake as decent secular atheists, let's resist the easy temptation to mock Carrier's personality, to mock the title of the book, and take some time to examine actual substance.

[Giuseppe]

And even if the wisdom of the rulers is not the wisdom of this age, that does nor mean these rulers are demons.

I agree that οὐδέ alone doesn't allow distinction.

But I am absolutely persuaded that two wisdoms (both rival against the Paul's hidden wisdom) imply two distinct groups, of which the second is the opposed of the first, and if the first is human, then... well, complete you the syllogism.

Only a last question, Bernard, without polemic at all.

you consider "rulers of this age" as Romans. But why as Jewish priests, too ? Do you realize that for Jews be considered guilty of the death of Christ, you have to expect the writing of the Gospels and their apology to exonerate Pilate ? I.e., too much time after the death of Paul?

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

I agree that οὐδέ alone doesn't allow distinction.

But I am absolutely persuaded that two wisdoms (both rival against the Paul's hidden wisdom) imply two distinct groups, of which the second is the opposed of the first, and if the first is human, then... well, complete you the syllogism.

Well, 1 Cor 2:6 does not say that the wisdom of the rulers is different than the wisdom of this age. And your agreement on οὐδέ should prevent you to be affirmative about this rival wisdom. Your persuasion looks to me to be a statement of faith.

you consider "rulers of this age" as Romans. But why as Jewish priests, too ? Do you realize that for Jews be considered guilty of the death of Christ, you have to expect the writing of the Gospels and their apology to exonerate Pilate ? I.e., too much time after the death of Paul?

First, about the archontes of 1 Cor 2:6&8, because of archontes are identified as Roman authorities in Ro 12:1-7, they do include Romans.
I take that as evidence the crucifixion was on earth, because Romans were not known to crucify people in outer space.
And Paul wrote Jesus was crucified. In these days of the 1st century, in the Roman empire, it looks that only Roman authorities were allowed to crucify anyone (except Roman citizens).
All of that put together solidify that Romans were involved in the crucifixion and that crucifixion was on earth.
Paul himself confirm the last point. Even if it is not very apparent, it is a lot more clear than the speculations from 1 Co 2:6&8.
Please read it at http://historical-jesus.info/19.html Is there evidence in Paul's epistles about the Crucifixion on earth? Yes

What about chief priests being included in the archontes of 1 Co 2:6&8.
I cannot used Paul to make my point here.
But I think that Jesus' disturbance in the temple as per gMark is a true fact. Why? I explained it here: http://historical-jesus.info/87.html Did "Mark" invent Jesus' disturbance in the temple?
So, it is of no surprise that the chief priests (including the high priest), as the authorities over the temple, would push the Romans (mostly Pilate) to get rid of Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

The dominant use of οὐδέ in Paul, according to an objective statistics, is to specify meaning. Hence Paul in 1 Cor 2:7 et seq. is going to point out that a specific wisdom didn't include his hidden wisdom: the archontic wisdom. Therefore, as effect of the specification, the latter is opposed to the human "wisdom of this age".

What about chief priests being included in the archontes of 1 Co 2:6&8.
I cannot used Paul to make my point here.

so you appeal to late Gospel apologetics to make your point. Well to know.