Why Wells had read P.-L. Couchoud better than Doherty and Carrier

[Sinouhe]

Neil, I would be curious about if Norelli identifies the "son" of "the prince of that world", by the hand of which (=of the son) Jesus is put to death, with the same unnamed "king" by the hand of which (=the "king") the "sons of Israel" crucify Jesus.

I doubt that Norelli, having historicist lens, can arrive to similar suggestions, which would make even more evident the direct action of the demons against Jesus.

But but I remember that Paul talked about a distinction between Satan and another demon... wasn't Irish75 on this forum to start a thread about that topic?

In this book, Norelli identify the prince of this world with Herod :

013EEF58-0FFF-4837-8B26-1242EDF8F0CF.jpeg
7D5FA605-0771-4400-8FAF-A3209867E8AA.jpeg

"probably Herod"!!!
This is what happens when a scholar has lens that are Gospel-coloured!

Commenting the same unnamed "king", Mythicist Marc Stephane wrote at contrary: "probably a planetary archon".

Of course. And in the same book, Norelli says that Matthew and the author of the Ascension used the same source to write the virgin birth. So he considerer the pocket gospel as authentic

[Giuseppe]

Norelli says that Matthew and the author of the Ascension used the same source to write the virgin birth. So he considerer the pocket gospel as authentic

Vinzent thinks the same thing, but with an addition: given the nature basically anti-marcionite of all the births of Jesus "by woman", then even the pocket gospel of the Ascension is an answer to Marcion.

[Giuseppe]

FACT: Norelli identifies de facto the unnamed "king" with the "son" of the "prince of this world".

He appears clearly to realize the anomaly of alluding to Herod (sic) by using the expression "son of the prince of this world". He would like to go with said anomaly, rather than pointing the obvious.

The argument of Couchoud is intact.

[Giuseppe]

The interpretation given by Jean Magne is even more intriguing:

the author of the following passage:

"And the god of that world shall come forth by the hand of his son"

...was a Judaizer who was not so well aware of the fact that in the story he was editing it was the evil demiurge who crucified Jesus. So now the passage as it stands would reflect yet the new (Judaizing) version of the story: YHWH "comes forth" since his son (Jesus) has just entered in the material world, and so YHWH fulfills rather cruelly, the sacrifice of his own son Jesus.

By reading at contrary "by the hand of his son" as a reference to a servant of Satan, modern readers, included Norelli, are going really to give partially to the story his original sense (that the "prince of this world" is an evil entity).

[schillingklaus]

Jesus is here of course identified with Sabaoth, Son of Yaldabaoth.

[Bernard Muller]

When Wells wrote:

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.

Read viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7138&p=114387&hilit ... es#p114387

Why assume "archontes" means outer space demons and Satan, when the evidence in Paul's deemed authentic epistles shows otherwise?
And "Ascension of Isaiah" (http://historical-jesus.info/100.html) and "to the Ephesians" were not from Paul, but written well after his time.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

And "Ascension of Isaiah" (http://historical-jesus.info/100.html) and "to the Ephesians" were not from Paul, but written well after his time.

All the time you want, Ascension of Isaiah was written before the Gospels: it is enough to deserve attention. It ignores entirely Pilate and Herod, despite of having an earthly context: an anomaly which requires necessarily an explanation. An evolution from an outer space scenario is the simplest explanation of a such anomaly found in the current text.

As to see only human beings as "archontes of this aeon", it is a great mistake, Bernard. A mere appeal to authority (the historicist Loisy, for example) is sufficient to dispel any your objection to the contrary.

[schillingklaus]

Authentic epistles only exist in the mind of uncritical scholars. Critical ones, such as Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, recognize that they are all fabricated by the Roman church.

[Bernard Muller]

The evidence is what counts for me, not the opinions of Couchoud, Wells, Loisy, Doherty, Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, etc.

All the time you want, Ascension of Isaiah was written before the Gospels: it is enough to deserve attention. It ignores entirely Pilate and Herod, despite of having an earthly context: an anomaly which requires necessarily an explanation. An evolution from an outer space scenario is the simplest explanation of a such anomaly found in the current text.

Most Christian texts, Gnostic or not, do not mention Pilate and Herod. And in which location would Pilate and Herod show up in the text of Ascension of Isaiah? Nowhere that I can see.

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, a member of the Dutch school of radical criticism.
According to Wikipedia: "he concluded that there was no evidence for the existence of the Paulines before Marcion. He also listed internal evidence for these epistles being pseudepigraphs from Marcionite circles."
The evidence shows again that Paul's epistles were written well before Marcion's times: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Neil, I would be curious about if Norelli identifies the "son" of "the prince of that world", by the hand of which (=of the son) Jesus is put to death, with the same unnamed "king" by the hand of which (=the "king") the "sons of Israel" crucify Jesus.

I doubt that Norelli, having historicist lens, can arrive to similar suggestions, which would make even more evident the direct action of the demons against Jesus.

But but I remember that Paul talked about a distinction between Satan and another demon... wasn't Irish75 on this forum to start a thread about that topic?

From page 463 of the Commentary:

Ora, A I 11,19 E dice di Gesù che i figli d'Israele « lo consegnavano al re e lo crocifiggevano », non sapendo chi era. Si tratta dunque di un testo parallelo a 9, 14, e nel quale il responsabile della morte di Gesù è « il re », cioè Erode (cf. commento, p. 576-578). Sembra ben potersene concludere che anche in 9,14 il figlio del principe di questo mondo, suo strumento nell’uccisione di Gesù, è il re Erode. Dunque, Gesù è messo a morte da un re terreno, definito figlio del diavolo. Il modello è pertanto analogo a quello applicato a Pietro in Apoc. Pietro. Del resto, AI 4,3 applicherà a Pietro, che « sarà consegnato nelle sue mani [ = di Nerone] », lo stesso modello applicato in 11,19 a Gesù, che è « consegnato al re ». Inoltre, mentre da un lato AI 5,13 collega al martirio di Gesù quello di Isaia, per il quale « Dio ha mescolato la coppa » (cf. Mt 20,22// Mc 10,38// Le 22,42), dall’altro nel frammento Rainer Pietro deve « bere il calice », il che naturalmente avvicina la sua passione a quella di Gesù (4).

(4) Per « bere il calice» usato per Pietro con riferimento esplicito alla passione di Gesù, cf. anche Epist. apostl. 15 (26).

=

Now AI 11:19 And it says of Jesus that the children of Israel "handed him over to the king and crucified him", not knowing who he was. It is therefore a parallel text to 9:14, in which the person responsible for Jesus' death is "the king", that is, Herod (cf. commentary, p. 576-578). (cf. commentary, p. 576-578). It seems clear that in 9:14 too the son of the prince of this world, his instrument in killing Jesus, is King Herod. Thus, Jesus is put to death by an earthly king, defined as the son of the devil. The model is therefore similar to the one applied to Peter in Revelation. Moreover, AI 4:3 will apply to Peter, who "will be delivered into his [ = Nero's] hands", the same model applied in 11:19 to Jesus, who is "delivered to the king". Furthermore, while on the one hand AI 5:13 links the martyrdom of Jesus with that of Isaiah, for whom "God stirred the cup" (cf. Mt 20:22// Mk 10:38// L 22:42), on the other hand in the Rainer fragment Peter must "drink the cup", which naturally brings his passion closer to that of Jesus (4).

(4) For the "drink the cup" used for Peter with explicit reference to the passion of Jesus, cf. also Epist. apostl. 15 (26).

Norelli's conclusion that 11:2-22 belonged to the original text is grounded in a close analysis of the directions that the narrative itself suggests. He is not basing it on reading historicist assumptions into the text.