In an earlier debate, there was a discussion concerning the term "archon" and what it could refer to:


Much of this dispute arises around the question, "Is Paul originally an early gnostic treatise later interpolated in places to give it a 'historical feel'", or was it always historical, and any gnostic feel is purely coincidental. I take exception to the idea that the above two passages clearly refer to the Romans.


As one will notice, the Romans are not mentioned once, so there is no "clear" referent. If one assumes Paul is relating historical events, then the assumption can be made of the Romans. If one assumes a more Gnostic feel, there is nothing about the passages that would prevent a more "spiritual" form of ruler.


Once again, no clear referent, it is entirely dependent upon your view of who Paul was and what he represents.

Do we have any books on Gnostic beliefs that describe Archons in this more spiritual sense? Just a few:

gnostics archons - Google Book Search

How about elsewhere in the Bible, does it allude to something other than earthly rulers when using the term "archons"?

Matthew

9 : 34


Is the "archon of demons" here an earthly being?

12 : 24


Did Beelzebul have a summer home by the lake at Galilee?

Mark 3:22


Luke 11


Ephesians (2:2) discusses the "prince of the power of the air," who is a "spirit," which has been deemed a Gnostic usage. The NIV translates this pertinent phrase as "ruler of the kingdom of the air," while Young and Darby render it "ruler of the authority of the air." The Vulgate is "principem potestatis aeris." Surely, Paul is not referring to a real person here. This spiritual ruler - or ARCHON - is clearly depicted as leading the "children of disobedience," which would imply an evil being.

Later Gnostics, such as Basilides at Alexandria, gave names to these archons, including one - Abraxas - who is the "prince of 365 spiritual beings." (Obviously, the days of the year, Gnosticism being very astrotheological.) Yahweh as "Iao" or Ialdabaoth is himself an archon, as are the Adonai of the Bible.

From Tobias Churton's book, Gnostic Philosophy:


Sometimes we have to step out of the orthodox assumptions and ask, "Could Paul be read in a manner that isn't necessarily historical, but rather, allegorical and spiritual? I believe it can, and I stand by the statement that Paul does not mention "the Romans", it can only be interpreted that way once certain assumptions are made first.

-TC

Hey TC, I'd love to have this discussion with you, but with our on-going formal debate I would rather pick up this discussion later.

Well, I just took a second to research this on Perseus this hypothesis on archon having some mythological meaning, and frankly I don't know where you get your information. The Greek word is repeatedly used in ancient Greek texts and Greek inscriptions to refer to magistrates.

Here's a few that only a couple of minutes of research to find cross references in Greek literature:





There is an endless list here, but I thought I would give you a few references (2 from Greek literature, and 1 from archaeological remains).

Your tone of incredulousness is starting to get boring. Did you not follow this link provided in the above post:


On wikipedia, under the heading of "archons" is this little blurb in relation to the Gnostics Archon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :


Was Beelzebulb one of these Greeks? I'm not denying the term was used by Greeks as "rulers", but your insistence that is the only proper interpretation is the only thing that is puzzling.

-TC

It sounds like you're losing interest in our discussions. I'll try to hide better my shock and dismay at some of your claims.


Yes, but all of these Nag Hammadi writings were written after Paul and are I believe mainly Coptic writings that were composed in Egypt. Paul wrote in Greek in early in the first century in Greece. The archons that he knew were earthly rulers of the Greco-Roman world:



This all started with reference to I Cor. 2:8:


Even if we accept your argument that princes can refer to second and third century Gnostic depictions of Archons as demiurge gods, Paul is still referring to archons of this world. Those were the Romans.

This belies your ignorance in Gnostic philosophy. The phrase "this world" refers to the idea that "this world" is a demiurge creation and governed through the archons. The "other world" is that of the true spiritual world. I'm afraid your inexperience at being able to understand the Gnostic perspective clouds your conclusion.


Not at all, just your smugness. Its as though your position suffers on its own merit, so you must give an air of disdain that you have to lower yourself to it. Just because people don't enjoy the temperment of a debator does not mean they do not enjoy the content of the debate. Perhaps you have difficulty separating the two. Let me spell it out, your tone is a bore, the subject mater is not.

-TC

You still have to show that in 40-50 CE in Greece that people would have understood that "archons of this world" refers to demiurge beings. Do you have any physical evidence for this claim? I can cite a number of examples of 1st century writers in Greece (e.g., Luke) who refer to archons as magistrates and nothing along the lines of second and third century Gnostic literature in Egypt. Since we are talking about the first century, and we are talking about a particular geographical region that had a common understanding of archons as magistrate, the burden of proof would be on you. (Btw, Matthew was probably not written in Greece, and its date of writing was around 80 CE, so your examples so far do not demonstrate what you suggest so far.)


I'm sure it comes across that way, but there's no need for a Gnostic interpretation of my posts. I am genuinely shocked and dismayed at your arguments. Even though I'm disappointed to the point to where I feel as though I'm wasting my time, perhaps we can both hang on for a little while longer just to air a few more differences.

Can you provide evidence Luke is a first century work?

-TC

Ignatius quotes from the Acts of the Apostles (Mag. 5:1). In addition, he quotes from Luke which universally scholars hold to be the same author as Acts (Smyr. 3:1-2). This places Acts no later than c. 110-115 CE. There's also the "we" sections of Acts, and there is no styllistic changes in those sections where the traveller is accompanying Paul on the missionary journeys. This would strongly suggest that the author was first-century. Yet another issue is that the author of Acts seems to be ignorant of Paul's epistles and even conflicts with them at times, and this is not to be expected for a second century dating since Paul's epistles begin to be in general circulation at the end of the first-century (e.g., I Clement, Ignatius, Pastoral epistles).

However, we don't have to rely on Luke-Acts to understand the only use of "archons" in first-century Greece. See, for example, "The Method of Choosing Archons in Athens under the Empire" by James A. Notopoulos, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 65, No. 2 (1944), pp. 149-166. Just read the section on "archons" in the "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities", and this alone should put this whole issue to rest.

Besides, it wouldn't make any sense if Paul were referring to spiritual archons in I Cor. 2:8:


In order to hold your position, you'd have to say that these spiritual did not know Jesus was the Christ. However, Paul would have hardly held that position since spiritual powers did know and that's why they resisted.

As I've said many times before, you can see up close your card stacking argument. One misalingned card topples your whole theory. For example, in this case you need Paul to refer to spiritual archons since otherwise that means he was referring to the powers that be in that Greek and Roman world, and that means Paul thought of Jesus as a historical person who had recently lived. Your whole theory goes down the drain of Jesus being myth (i.e., unless you wish to say that Paul was intentionally lying about Jesus which elavates the point to which you will go to maintain this belief system of yours).

These card stacking fallacies are common mistakes that people make when reasoning about the unknown. With history it is especially easy to do so because the evidence is often known up front (unlike science where new evidence is continually acquired). People still do use this kind of fallacious approach to science with scientific new evidence, but with history this poor methodology is so much easier to continue because you don't have to confront new evidence since discoveries are made once in a generation versus every few months in science. The scholar/archaeologist has to be much more careful about engaging in card stacking and over speculation. That's why there are so few good scholars, I think.

Excellent! Ignatius! I can't wait to get into him! And Acts and Luke! How will I ever contest these! Let me consult my conspiracy network, and get back to you on those. I've got a whole new deck of cards I've been waiting to ad to my house! Unfortunately, I am pressed for time, but I want you to know, I will respond, to this and your reply on the formal debate. I wish I could just quit my job and do this all the time, but there are other demands!

Oh, I was probing through this new malady you've prescribed for me, this conspiracism. I have been under the weather this week, so I thought it prudent to find out as much as I can before I consult my doctor. You know what? None of the sites where I checked into listed the Christ Myth as one of the common symptoms of this malady. I mean, certainly, it would be wildly ignorant to say religious and spiritual groups of this era ever had myths associated with them. And, of course, we all know those other heroes were real people too. And, that there is no way we would fall victim to cultural norms by believing in myths, I mean, we're way too smart for that these days...right?

Also, under the heading of Conspiracy Theory, I found this paragraph:


But, surely, you are not doing that? You don't keep harping on that point to avoid looking into the proposition in in a serious manner, do you? You're just looking out for my well being? Anyway, I must go open those cards, I have lots of stacking to do. Afterall, I don't have majorities and universes to fall generically back on for my point of view. What did Rush Limbaugh call those type of people, "Ditto Heads"? Ew, I just quoted Rush Limbaugh. I must be sicker than I thought!

-TC