^{page 20 note 1} For a convenient summary of the main literature see Dahl, Nils A., ‘Paul and the Church at Corinth in I Cor. I: 10–4: 21’, Christian History and Interpretation: Studies presented to John Knox, ed. Farmer, W. R. et al. (Cambridge, 1967Google Scholar), pp. 313 ff. Also Maly, K., Mündige Gemeinde.Google ScholarUntersuchung zur pastoralen Führung des Apostels Paulus im I Korintherbrief (Stuttgart, 1967Google Scholar); Baumann, R., Mitte und Norm des Christlichens.Google ScholarEine Auslegung von I Korinther I. 1–3.4 (Münster, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 2} Everling, O., Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie (Göttingen, 1888Google Scholar); Dibelius, M., Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen, 1909).Google Scholar So too among the commentators (from the twentieth century only), Massie, J. (1902)Google Scholar, Weiss, J. (1910)Google Scholar, Lietzmann, H. (1933)Google Scholar, Moffatt, J. (1938)Google Scholar, Héring, J. (1948)Google Scholar, Craig, C. T. (1953)Google Scholar, Wendland, H. -D. (1956)Google Scholar, Barrett, C. K. (1968).Google Scholar See too Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (E. T. New York, 1970), p. 257Google Scholar; Jones, M., ‘Paul and the Angels’, The Expositor XVIII (1911)Google Scholar, 356 ff.; Bultmann, R., The Theology of the New Testament, II (E.T. London, 1955)Google Scholar, 147 ff.; Delling, G., art. άρχή, T. D. N. T. 1, 489Google Scholar; Knox, W. L., Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939)Google Scholar, pp. 220 ff.; Schoeps, H. -J., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (E. T. London, 1961), p. 21Google Scholar; Richardson, A., An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958), p. 213Google Scholar; Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit: Eine exegetisch-religions-geschichtliche Untersuchung zur I Kor. 1 und 2 (Tübingen, 1959)Google Scholar; Idem, art. σοφία, T. D. N. T. VIIGoogle Scholar, 465 ff.

^{page 20 note 3} Cullmann, O., Christ and Time³ (E. T. London, 1962)Google Scholar, pp. 191 ff.; Ibid.The State in the New Testament (E. T. London, 1957)Google Scholar, pp. 62 ff. The position is also espoused by, amongst others, Caird, G. B., Principalities and Powers (Oxford, 1956)Google Scholar, pp. 80 ff.; Dehn, G., ‘Engel und Obrigkeit: ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Röm. 13. 1–7’, Theologische Aufsätze für Karl Barth, ed. Wolf, E. (Munich, 1936)Google Scholar, pp. 90 ff.; Schweitzer, W., Der Herrschaft Christi und der Staat im NT (Munich, 1919)Google Scholar; Macgregor, G. H. C., ‘Principalities and Powers. The Cosmic Background of St Paul's Thought’, N. T. S. (1954)Google Scholar, 17 ff.; Stewart, J. S., ‘On a Neglected Emphasis in New Testament Theology’, S. J. T. IV (1951)Google Scholar, 292 ff.; Boyd, W. J. P., ‘I Cor. 2. 8’, Exp. T. LXVIII (1957), 158Google Scholar; Leivestad, R., Christ the Conqueror (London, 1954), p. 106Google Scholar; Morrison, C. D., The Powers that Be (London, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 1} For some criticisms of Cullmann's arguments on grounds other than that mentioned here see especially H. von Campenhausen, ‘Zur Auslegung von Röm. 13. Die dämonistische Deutung des exousia-Begriffes’, Festschrift für A. Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Baumgartner, W. et al. (Tübingen, 1950)Google Scholar, pp. 97 ff.; Strobel, A., ‘Zum Verständnis von Römer 13’, Z. N. W. XLVII (1956)Google Scholar, 67 ff.

^{page 21 note 2} Schniewind, J., ‘Die Archonten dieses Äons. I Kor. 2, 6–’, Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin, 1951)Google Scholar, pp. 104 ff.; Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (E. T. London, 1959), p. 156.Google Scholar Among the commentators (again from the twentieth century only), Findlay, G. G. (1900)Google Scholar, Robertson, A. and Plummer, A. (1911)Google Scholar, Parry, R. St J. (1916)Google Scholar, Bachmann, Ph. (1936)Google Scholar, Grosheide, F. W. (1954)Google Scholar, Morris, L. (1958).Google Scholar See too Ling, T., ‘A Note on I Corinthians 2. 8’, Exp.T. LXVIII (1956), p. 26Google Scholar, and very recently, but with startling omissions, Miller, G., ‘Όı ΆΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΆıωΝΟΣ ΤΟΥΤΟΥ-A New Look’, J. B. L. XCI (1972)Google Scholar, 522 ff. The article by Feuillet, A. (‘Les “Chefs de ce siècle” et la sagesse divine d'après I Cor. 2. 6–8’, Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961, 1 (Rome, 1963)Google Scholar, 383 ff.) tends to support the human interpretation, but wavers towards a double view at the end.

^{page 21 note 3} The idea first achieved its recent prominence in Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt, pp. 88 ff. See especially Cullmann, , Christ and TimeGoogle Scholar, pp. 192 ff.

^{page 21 note 4} The text now seems virtually assured as ‘according to the number of the sons of God’. For this confirmation of the LXX from Qumran see Skehan, P. W., ‘A Fragment of the “Song of Moses” (Deut. 32) from Qumran’, B. A. S. O. R. CXXXVI (1954)Google Scholar, 12 ff. The uniqueness of the verse should be noted. See Wright, G. E., ‘The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32’, Israel's Prophetic Heritage, ed. Anderson, B. W. and Harrelson, W. (London, 1962)Google Scholar, pp. 26 ff. Against an early dating see Rad, G. von, Deuteronomy (E. T. London, 1966), p. 200.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 5} Cited as evidence by Russell, D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London, 1964), p. 246Google Scholar, and Odeberg, H., III Enoch (Cambridge, 1928), p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 1} Accepting the interpretation of the Seventy Shepherds and the Beasts which is offered by Charles, R. H., I Enoch (Oxford, 1912), p. 200.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 2} The evidence is most easily found in Origen, who discussed topics of interest with the rabbis. In his use of the idea Origen rarely suggests a specifically Christian background but regularly returns to the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. See Daniélou, J., ‘Les sources juives de la doctrine des anges des nations chez Origène’, Rech. Sci. Rel. XXXVIII (1951)Google Scholar, 132 ff.

^{page 23 note 1} See generally Bietenhard, H., Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (Tübingen, 1951)Google Scholar, pp. 110 ff. Bietenhard does assign a special role to the angels of the nations, but also provides a useful summary of the evidence. On the uniqueness of Israel as a constant and recurring theme, see Strack-Billerbeck, IIGoogle Scholar, 359 ff.

^{page 23 note 2} On this complex problem see Wilson, R. McL., Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar, pp. 52 ff.; Idem, ‘How Gnostic were the Corinthians?’, N. T. S. XIX (1972)Google Scholar, 65 ff. There are also some useful comments in J. Munck's review of Schmithals, W., Die Gnosis in Korinth (Göttingen, 1956)Google Scholar, in Stud. Th. XV (1961)Google Scholar, 181 ff. See also Prümm, K., ‘Zur neutestamentlichen Gnosis-Problematik. Gnostischer Hintergrund und Lehreinschlag in den beiden Eingangskapiteln von I Kor.’, Z. K. T. LXXXVII (1965)Google Scholar, 399 ff., and LXXXVIII (1966), 1 ff.

^{page 24 note 1} This is acutely observed by Scroggs, R., ‘Paul: ΣΟφΟΣ and ΠΝΕΥМΑΤΊΚΟΣ’, N. T. S. XIV (1967)Google Scholar, 34 f.

^{page 24 note 3} T. D. N. T. 1, 469.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 4} See Wilckens, , WeisheitGoogle Scholar, pp. 105 ff., and T. D. N. T. VIIGoogle Scholar, 465 ff.

^{page 24 note 5} See Baumann, , Mitte und NormGoogle Scholar, pp. 210 ff.; also Schniewind, , ‘Die Archonten’, p. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 1} Barrett, , I Corinthians, p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 2} Schniewind, , ‘Die Archonten’, p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 3} Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London, 1936)Google Scholar, chapter 1. Robinson, J. A. T. (Twelve New Testament Studies (London, 1962), p. 150Google Scholar) draws attention to the suggestion by A. Descamps that the title of Christ in Acts iii. 15 - - is merely a variant upon άρχων in order to avoid any confusion with the άρχοντες of the Jews.

^{page 25 note 4} On the theme of the ignorance of the Jews see in particular Epp, E. J., ‘The “Ignorance Motif” in Acts and Anti-Judaic Tendencies in Codex Bezae’, H. T. R. LV (1962)Google Scholar, 51 ff.; also The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge, 1966)Google Scholar, pp. 41 ff. Also Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke (E. T. London, 1960)Google Scholar, pp. 85 ff. It is assumed by Epp, as by Haenchen, that the άρχοντες in I Cor. ii. 6–8 must be supernatural forces. If, however, the possibility is allowed that they are human, then Luke does not have a complete monopoly of the word άγνοıα. Indeed, the theme of ignorance is less a Lucan theme than one which is found in Acts but is missing from the gospel as much as it is from Matthew and Mark. Luke, xxiii.Google Scholar 34a is crucial here. The manuscript evidence seems to be against this verse's being part of Luke's original text, and it is difficult to accept the view of Harnack, Rendel Harris and Streeter that the line was excised from the text for later dogmatic considerations - i.e. that forgiveness for the Jews was impossible. Insertion from another source seems more probable. See Creed, J. M., The Gospel according to St. Lake (London, 1930), p. 286.Google Scholar For a short but detailed note of the textual evidence see Hort in Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek (London, 1907), II, appendix p. 67.Google Scholar This is also the conclusion of the editors of the U. B. S. text. See Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York, 1971), p. 180.Google Scholar The line is retained in the N. E. B. on the grounds that the evidence is very finely balanced. See Tacker, R. V. G., The Greek New Testament (Oxford and Cambridge, 1964), p. 424.Google Scholar The evidence for the theme of ignorance, therefore, suggests that it could well have been a distinctive aspect of the earliest missionary preaching, but one which had declined into obscurity by the time the gospels were written. In this case its appearance in Paul should occasion little surprise.

^{page 26 note 1} Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (E. T. Oxford, 1971), p. 207Google Scholar n. 4.

^{page 27 note 1} See Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1952), p. 104.Google Scholar Also Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961), p. 143Google Scholar, and the note there on Justin's use in I Apol. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} The distinction is not very important. See Barrett, , I Corinthians, p. 71.Google ScholarWilckens, (T. D. N. T. VII, 519Google Scholar, n. 382) argues that σοφία cannot refer to God's plan of salvation since in Jewish apocalyptic it does not mean this, nor is this sense possible in the Greek world. Wilckens prefers the meaning ‘the eschatological blessing of salvation’. Yet the locus of this blessing is the person of Christ, as indeed also is the locus of God's plan of salvation, so that Wilckens' point is less telling than at first appears.

^{page 27 note 3} It should be realized that if the conflict between Jesus and the demons as outlined in the gospels is used as an illustration of the cosmic dimension of Christ's activity, it is the demons who do recognize Jesus, whilst men often remain in ignorance!

^{page 27 note 4} It is also interesting that in the Ascension of Isaiah the two references to the crucifixion do not involve angels or demonic powers. In ix. 14 the reference is obscure, but probably the meaning is ‘men’ - ‘and the God of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they (men?) will lay hands on him and crucify him on a tree without knowing who he is…’. And in xi. 19 the primitive kerygma is echoed: the Adversary aroused Israel against Jesus and they ‘not knowing who he was, delivered him to the king and crucified himrsquo;. Note the reference to Israel and her ruler.

^{page 27 note 5} See the general remarks of Conzelmann, H., An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (E. T. London, 1969), p. 204.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} See especially Ad Trall. v. IGoogle Scholar and Ad Smyrn. vi. I.Google Scholar In the former text the words τά έπουράνıα καί τάς τοποθεσίας τάς άγγελıκάς καί τάς συστάσεıς τάς άρχοντıκάς occur in the context of Ignatius' mystical experience. τοποθεσıά, an unusual word, seems to be geographical in sense (as, for example, in Diod. Sic. I. 42, extended to an astrological use later in Valens, Vettius 42. 12Google Scholar), and not hierarchical. Contra Bauer—Arndt—Gingrich, who in their lexicon go beyond the evidence, συστάσεıς probably means ‘assemblies’ rather than ‘conflicts’. See Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1889/90, II, iii 165.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 2} Schlier, H., Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ignatiusbriefen (Giessen, 1929)Google Scholar, chapter I. Schlier's argument involves wholesale reorganization of the text and various forced interpretations which are clearly exposed and rightly criticized in detail by Corwin, Virginia, Saint Ignatius and Christianity at Antioch (New Haven, 1960)Google Scholar, pp. 177 ff.

^{page 28 note 3} It is not usually noticed that Ignatius himself recognized that there were difficulties in chapter xix, for in xx. I he writes: ,.

^{page 28 note 4} Contrast, for example, his use of σıγή with that of the Valentinian Gnostics as reported by Irenaeus, (adv. haer. I. I. 2Google Scholar). Contra Schlier, , Rel. Untersuch.Google Scholar pp. 38 ff.

^{page 28 note 5} Strom. v. 25. 2Google Scholar, v. 65. 5 and VI. 68. 1.

^{page 28 note 6} See especially the tract Hypostasis of the Archon (ed. Bullard, R. A., Patristische Texte und Studien 10 (Berlin, 1970)).CrossRefGoogle Scholar This late treatise possibly contains older material and may be used with care as evidence for the second century. See Bullard, , pp. 3Google Scholar and 115 ff.

^{page 29 note 1} This view is widespread from Simon, Menander and Saturnilus onwards. See Iren, . adv. haer. I.Google Scholar 17 f., and note how in Book II Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the grounds of a doctrine of creation.

^{page 29 note 2} For a very good example of this in the case of the concept of time see Puech, H. -C., ‘La Gnose et le temps’, Eranos Jahrbuch xx (1951)Google Scholar, 57 ff.

^{page 29 note 3} See Wilson, R. McL., ‘The Early Exegesis of Gen. 1. 26’, Studia Patristica (Berlin, 1957), IIGoogle Scholar, 420 ff.; and Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1938–1947)Google Scholar, v, 69 ff. Bullard, (Hypostasis, pp. 45Google Scholar and 103 ff.) suggests an astrological connection in the various numbers of the angels — seven (possibly six) or twelve — but this is, if the case, very secondary. See in general d'Alverny, M. -Th., ‘Les anges et les jours’, Cahiers archéologiques IX (1957)Google Scholar, 271 ff.; also Pétrement, S., ‘Le mythe des sept archontes créateurs, peut-il s'expliquer à partir du Christianisme?’, Le Origini dello Gnosticismo, ed. Bianchi, U. et al. (Leiden, 1367)Google Scholar, pp. 460 ff.

^{page 29 note 4} Jung, L., Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Thought (Philadelphia, 1926).Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 5} On the Jewish background of these beings see Grant, R. M., ‘Les êtres intermédiaires dans le judaisme tardif’, Le OriginiGoogle Scholar, pp. 141 ff., which expands his notes in Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York, 1966)Google Scholar, especially chapter 2. The attempt by Boyancé, P. (‘Dieu cosmique et dualisme. Les archontes et Platon’, Le OriginiGoogle Scholar, pp. 340 ff.) to demonstrate a Platonic origin for the archon is interesting but unconvincing. Certainly in an agglomerative approach such as that employed by the Gnostics there is every reason to believe that Platonic ideas were among those incorporated. Indeed, it may well be due to mediated Platonic influence that the planetary association with the archon eventually became possible. The importance of Leg. v.Google Scholar 906 B ff. for neo-Platonism is not in doubt, but it is difficult to see in that passage, together with Pol. 270DGoogle Scholar and the Timaeus in general, a source for the Gnostic conception of the powers. Boyancé finds the connection in Philo, whose de opifico mundi ‘par son sujet même se présente comme une sorte de réplique hébraïque de Timée’ (page 349). In the Platonic treatment of the gods in the Timaeus they are related to the stars, which, according to Philo, rule on analogy with the archons of a city (see de spec. leg. i. 13Google Scholar). Philo in fact uses the term άρχοντες here in its usual political sense, but this does not provide a positive connection with the planets. Plato uses άρχοντες also of the lower gods, and thus the planetary archon in some Gnostic thought are derived from Plato. This is Boyancé's argument. However, in view of the Jewish connections with Gnosticism, on which see Grant, , Gnosticism and Early ChristianiyGoogle Scholar, and the remark by Wilson, R. McL. at Messina that ‘it is Judaism in the broadest sense which provides the immediate background and at least one of the focal points for the development of Gnosticism’ (Le Origini, p. 691)Google Scholar, it is more probable that the archons derive from a mixture of Jewish ideas, to which Platonism, possibly via Philo, may have later made a contribution. After all, ‘Judaism in its broadest sense’ must include Philo.

^{page 30 note 1} E.g. de princ. III. 2. 1Google Scholar and III. 3. 2.

^{page 30 note 2} Origen's philosophy of the hierarchy of being allows perhaps for the first time a unified view of Christian experience and of evil. See, for example, de princ. 1. 5Google Scholar and 1. 8. 4.

^{page 30 note 3} See the more recent literature listed above. Also Ellis, E. E., ‘“Spiritual” gifts in the Pauline Community’, N. T. S. XX (1974)Google Scholar, 128 ff. Ellis, (p. 130Google Scholar, n. 4) argues that I Cor. ii. 6–16 has midrashic form. Noting some unusual features — including ‘the rulers of this age’ (v. 6) and ‘before the ages’ (v. 7) — he speculates that these verses were ‘created within a (Pauline) group of pneumatics prior to its use in I Cor. ii’.

^{page 30 note 4} Wuellner, W., ‘Haggadic homily genre in I Corinthians 1–3’, J. B. L. LXXXIX (1970)Google Scholar, 199 ff. The quotation is from p. 202.

^{page 30 note 5} Wuellner, , op. cit. p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 1} Scroggs, R., ‘Paul: ΣΟφΟΣ and ΠΝΕΥМАΤΚΟΣ’, N. T. S. XIV (1967)Google Scholar, 34 ff.

^{page 32 note 1} Scroggs, , op. cit. p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 2} The ignorance of the angelic powers, even when in the light of New Testament eschatology it becomes ignorance of God's ultimate purpose (I Pet. i. 12; Rev. v. 3; Eph. iii. 10), is not relevant here. For the angels (presumably in these texts good) are not the equivalent of the άρχοντεα in a demonic sense. For Gnostic material on this topic, which is not in fact to be related to the present verses, see Lietzmann, , ad loc.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 3} Note that the participle is in the present tense. The term is eschatological — see I Cor. xv. 24 ff., II Thess. ii. 8, and I Cor. vi. 13 — where the notion of the end of the authorities is mooted. The question lies beyond the present note, but it should be recognized that a common view, well expressed, for example, by Delling, (T. D. N. T. I, 452Google Scholar) by which the άρχαί έξουσίαı and δυüάμεıς are aligned with these άρχοντες and are described as ‘robbed of their power for the Christian’, needs much more examination.

^{page 33 note 1} Thackeray, H. St J., The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (London, 1923)Google Scholar, pp. 95 ff.

^{page 33 note 2} Feuillet, ‘Les “Chefs de ce siècle”’, has widened the meaning to include all men and leaves the demonic option open by noting that Baruch refers to giants in the same context. But the giants are only cited as an example, and their association with demons is not in mind here.

^{page 33 note 3} Cerfaux, L., ‘Vestiges d'un florilège dans I Cor. i. 18–iii. 24?’, Rev. Hist. Eccl. XXVII (1931)Google Scholar, 521 ff. Cerfaux's argument that Paul is here using a pre-existing Jewish florilegium was taken up by Peterson, E., ‘I Korinther i. 18 ff. und die Thematik des judischen Bußtages’, Biblica XXXII (1951)Google Scholar, 97 ff. Munck, (Paul and the Salvation of MankindGoogle Scholar, pp. 145 ff.) rightly criticized these hypotheses, but admitted the possibility of Thackeray's original suggestion.

^{page 34 note 1} If we ask why Paul changes άρχοντες των έθνων in Baruch to άρχοντες του αίωνος τουτου, we can argue that it was to make the words more comprehensive. The words in Baruch might appear to exclude the Jewish rulers, who are, as we have seen, central in the kerygmatic reference to rulers. The Pauline phrase includes both Pilate and Caiaphas.