youngalexander

easy brother ...

Jeffrey Gibson

Well, do you agree or not that Earl's claim that all I did within posts 3036415 and 3522005 was to focus on "trivial or irrelevant "errors" he made in the posts of his that I was responding to, and did not in any way "address the major arguments" or the points that he has made?

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

Alright, I will roll up my sleeves and trawl through this.

The basic Argument
Earl argues that past scholarship (first half of 20th century) accentuated the cosmological orientation of Hebrews as Platonic and the later scholarship treated it as Jewish. Platonic cosmology entails "moving in a vertical, dualistic universe of realms heavenly and earthly" whilst Jewish orientation has a "linear historical progression from past to present, with messianic and eschatological currents."

I agree that it would have been more scholarly for Earl to provide the specific references and his failure to do this makes it difficult to verify his claims.

Jeffrey's Charges

Jeffrey Gibson argues that Earl is wrong on many counts:

1. Jeff argues that Earl has not "adequately and accurately summarized the course of 20th century academic research on the background of Hebrews." He fails to provide support for this as we see below.

2. Jeff argues that scholarship has not regarded the cosmological orientation of Hebrews in a Platonic/Jewish orientation and implies that Doherty has constructed a false dichotomy. He mentions L.D. Hurst's The Epistle to the Hebrews: It's Background and Thought (Cambridge, 1990) as an example that departs from Earl's dichotomy.

3. Jeff argues, contra Doherty, that "compatibility of the older view with the mythicist interpretation of the Epistle" is not one reason for the trend to shift from Platonic to Jewish. Jeff classifies this as a genetic fallacy and goes on to charge that Doherty has not demonstrated or supported this claim.

4. Jeff questions whether Doherty is "sufficiently acquainted with, grounded in, or has actually grasped, the arguments put forward by" the scholars to make the pronouncements Earl makes.

Jeff then posts a huge tract of text that is presumably L.D. Hurst's The Epistle to the Hebrews: It's Background and Thought, pp. ciii-cxii. The purpose of this post is to assess whether the huge text supports Jeff's arguments 1-4 above.

Jeffrey's Citation

The pasted text includes an introductory section headed conceptual background that justifies the production of a bibliography that will help one understand the conceptual background of Hebrews. Note that we are interested in the cosmological orientation of Hebrews and points 1-4 above so this first section is too broad to be germane to Jeff's points 1-4 above.

The text then proceeds to provide a bibliography variously grouped under the following headings: Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism, Qumran, Apocalyptic Judaism, Merkabah Mysticism, The Samaritans, Pre-Christian Gnosticism and Mystery Religions.

Most of the text is too tangential to be useful and we get one relevant statement under the subtitle "Mystery Religions" and its the following statement:

Another one is:
This second one is demolished in the same post as follows:
The last section includes excerpts from L. D. Hurst and mentions the case for Christian Hellenism as a formative influence upon the writer of Hebrews.

An analysis of Jeffrey's Citation

Neither of the above provides relevant points to Doherty's point, which is specifically about the "cosmological orientation of Hebrews." The only one that says something relevant (the Platonic dualism), which is the one that briefly mentions Kasemann, stands in isolation from the rest and is demolished in the same post.

As such, Jeff's post fails to demonstrate that Doherty has constructed a false dichotomy. It fails to demonstrate that the trend Doherty talks of is inaccurate. It fails to demonstrate that it is false that one reason for the trend is the fact that the former positions favored a mythicist interpretation and it fails to show that Doherty is not qualified to make the pronouncements Doherty makes.

This renders Jeffrey's entire post tangential and not useful in supporting the charges he makes against Doherty. It can be safely considered an entire waste of time.

gstafleu

That is the question, isn't it? I would say, going by this one instance encountered in Hebrews, the answer would have to be: we don't know. It could indeed refer to a normal, human, earthly existence. Or it could refer to a divine being who normally doesn't have flesh but took on its aspect for the occasion. The phrase itself is not enough to come to a decision, we need some help from other places.

Consider e.g. Heracles. He started out with a human phase, his stable cleaning days. Then he died, underwent apotheosis, and now he resides in heaven. It would be helpful if we had a reference to his stable cleaning days as "his days of the flesh." Then we could say of Hebrews: See, this is the same construct as used for Heracles, and in that case it clearly meant to point out his earthly existence as opposed to his later divine state.

Until we have such an example, either the one way or the other, the phrase as encountered in Hebrews remains agnostic with regard to HJ/MJ. It fits both scenarios equally well.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

What divine being do you have in mind? More specifically, what divine being who had no body and who had to "take on flesh" to act in the world would the readers of Hebrews have known?

Try Dionysius Halicarnaus Antiq Rom 7.71.3. Xenophon Cyr 1.2.4; 5.4.51. Demothsenes Or43 67.3:Aeschines Ctes 117.8; &` Posidonius Phil. Fragmenta 169.8; Fragmenta 194a.50; 1052 003 2a,87,F.11; Diodorus Bibliotheca historia 31.51.3: Josephus AJ 14.226; 16.128.1; Plutarch De E apud Delphos 393. C 3; Athenaeus Soph.Deipnosophistae 2, 1.144; Historia Alexandri Recensio G 19.4; &` Scholia in Hesiodum opera et dies 815.11; Anonymi in Oppiani halieutica exegesis 369.b.4, among other texts.

Umm, he doesn't reside in heaven. He resides on Olympus, which was thought to be a part of the material kosmos, with gods who have (and have always always had) bodies.

But why would we expect to see such a phrase of Heracles since what is being asserted in Heb 5:7 does not parallel Heracle's history?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

Jesus. The whole discussion here is if Jesus should be seen as a historical being, or as a divine being. Jesus would be familiar to the readers of Hebrews. Don't forget that what we are discussing here is which of the two hypotheses, MJ or HJ, best fits with Hebrews. Hence we cannot predetermine this, we start with the question: MJ or HJ, and then see how Hebrews, and in this particular case the flesh days phrase, fit in both.

Hm, I don't seem to have these texts handy. You apparently do have them, perhaps you could help the discussion along by quoting some relevant passages?

OK, let's go with that. I have no problem if you mean to indicate that the way the author of Hebrews saw Jesus as historical is the same manner in which the Greeks saw Heracles as historical.

Are you saying that what we find in Hebrews is sui generis and hence we can only expect help from within Hebrews? I suppose that might depend on those passages mentioned above, of which I'm hoping you'll give us some helpful examples. That's what you're saying, isn't it? That the passages you referred to use the frase under contention in such a way that it clearly points to someone walking the earth?

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

Which would also be in the same manner in which the Greeks saw Alexander as historical.

gstafleu

Not necessarily.

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

Please point to a specific post.

gstafleu

Try the first one. My point being here that the passage in Apuleius shows that people at that time could put their mythological figures (Paris, Heracles) at the time "when the world began." Which means that they did not necessarily think of Heracles being in the same category of "historicity" as Alexander.

Gerard Stafleu