Antipope Innocent II

Which means, considering they depicted Jesus as having lived "a few decades ago", Jesus wasn't in the same category as Heracles.

So your point would be? :huh:

gstafleu

Sorry, you lost me. Where in Hebrews does it say that Jesus lived "a few decades ago"?

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle

As it seems xians could put Jesus in the same category as Heracles....

Ben C Smith

It seems pretty clear to me that even the Greeks regarded the ancient myths (Dionysus, Heracles, Perseus, and the like) as having taken place in a mythic time of a different historical quality than, say, the battle of Marathon.

However, to equate this mythic time in any way with a zone other than terra firma would seem a mistake. The ancients firmly regarded Heracles and Dionysus as earthly figures, AFAICT, who were exalted into a heavenly status. If Jesus was thought of as historical in the same way as Heracles or Dionysus was, then some kinds of myth theory collapse (though others stand unscathed as yet). I cannot stress this enough, since it allows us to distinguish between coherent and incoherent forms of the Christ myth theory.

Regarding the expression, days of his flesh (or his flesh days, as it were), how shall the argument proceed?

I have made a case before that phrases such as according to the flesh and born of a woman are, in and of themselves, expressions that call for a holistic analysis; that is, looking up the words according and flesh (or born and woman) separately may or may not be of any use, since sometimes expressions are purely idiomatic and do not follow the literal meanings of each separate component. But I was able to make such a case precisely because we can find instances of those phrases in the extant literature; they are not one-offs.

What of the phrase days of his flesh? I personally am not aware of any other instance of this phrase apart from Hebrews or reflections of Hebrews. I certainly would welcome education on this point if the phrase is indeed found elsewhere.

But... suppose it is not found anywhere else. In that case, I do not think we can argue that it is an expression in its own right; we are then stuck analyzing each word on its own merits, right? Days and flesh. (As an analogy, if someone says that a card player in a bidding game was trying to shoot the moon, I feel justified in treating that phrase as an idiomatic expression in which neither the word shoot nor the word moon retains its literal meaning; nobody was firing a gun at our friendly neighborhood satellite. If, OTOH, someone says that a card player, in a fit of rage, was trying to shoot Johnny, I feel justified in taking shoot in one of its usual senses, to discharge a firearm, and Johnny as the potential victim; maybe he was caught cheating.)

So, Gerard, assuming for the moment that we have no evidence that we should treat this phrase as a distinct idiomatic (especially nonliteral) expression, what meaning would you impart to the phrase based only on its components, days and flesh?

Ben.

Solitary Man

So you take a late Latin author as representative of Greeks...when? It's no better than taking Thomas Aquinas' view of Jesus as the same as early Christians. Bunch o' bollocks.

Not to mention that Apuleius is referring the specific claim that Homer is first before the Greek poets, and thus rerum actually points to the event as happening before the rest of human history since. It's obviously metaphorical, and in turn even if literal doesn't represent the opinions of actual Greeks like Herodotus, who places myths on earth in a chronological fashion.

James Madison

I have read the article and this is what your argument amounts to thus far.

Essentially, the "location" of Jesus' death, in the flesh, and as a sacrifice on the cross, is the issue. You argue this all occurred in a sublunar realm, perhaps heaven, in the Most Holy Place. Your evidence for such a proposition is the author's comparison between Jesus, as the heavenly high priest, and the earth priest, where they both operate in a similar manner, but their location is not the same. Essentially, your argument focuses upon how most of the verses you reference explain Jesus as a High Priest in Heaven, contrasted with the priests on earth. The entire point of this focus is to illustrate this notion of a "Heavenly Savior and Heavenly Priest," and establish in the mind of the reader the concept of a Heavenly Jesus, as opposed to one existing on earth in the flesh. Then, partially on this basis, you conclude the verses I reference, which you address in your article, must be talking about Jesus in the flesh, not on earth, but in heaven, where he "died as a sacrifice on the cross." This is a gigantic leap and you undoubtedly make some assumptions in making this leap.

Essentially, all you have done is to assume a contrary location for those events of Christ than the location asserted in the Gospels. Hebrews itself does not, in any explicit terms, tell us the life of Jesus in the flesh, his death, and sacrifice on the cross transpired in heaven. You ASSUME this by virtue of the fact Jesus is primarily characterized as a Heavenly High Priest in chapters 6 and beyond in the book of Hebrews.

Now, your argument has two very pivotal assumptions it makes in drawing this conclusion. Let's examine both of them.

First you assume the author is not talking about two different sets of events. The author of Hebrews is focusing upon Jesus, in the flesh, on earth, dying as a sacrifice on the cross, and then subsequently operating as a High Priest in Heaven. Jesus is still a "sacrifice" entering the Most Holy place in heaven, despite the fact he may not have been personally sacrificed in heaven. You assume the author of Hebrews is not talking about events in heaven which transpired after the death of Jesus on earth. You assume this is not the case.

Next, your entire argument assumes Jesus' death on earth, as a sacrifice and shedding of blood on earth, does not equate into or have the effect of operating in the manner as described in those verses you cite to support your proposition (for example, the verse in Hebrews chapter 9 which says Jesus took his own blood into the Most Holy Place). If the author of Hebrews is assuming Jesus' existence in the flesh, shedding of blood in the flesh, and death in the flesh transpired here on earth, and in doing so, accomplished the goals you focus upon as described transpiring in heaven, then there is absolutely no need to assume ALL of these events transpired heaven.

Now, to support your assumption the location of Jesus existence in the flesh, death and sacrifice on the cross occurred in heaven, you cite Hebrews 8:2, and in doing so brutally misconstrue the passage. Let's examine verses 2 and three along with this verse. 1Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a (A)high priest, who has taken His seat at (B)the right hand of the throne of the (C)Majesty in the heavens, 2a (D)minister in the sanctuary and in the (E)true tabernacle, which the Lord (F)pitched, not man. 3For every (G)high priest is appointed (H)to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.


Well, the author of Hebrews says nothing about Jesus being sacrificed in heaven in any of those verses above. The author says Jesus, the High Priest, must offer something, but does not describe the "something."

You assume, as you have a proclivity for doing so thus far, the literal Greek translation was not understood by the author to mean "while he was here on earth." Isn't one of the issues, the central and main issue being discussed, is what the author is SAYING in Hebrews? Yes, I believe this is the issue and so it seems to me it is your burden to demonstrate the author construed this literal Greek translation to mean something other than "while he was here on earth," i.e. it is your burden the author understood the verse to say what it literally does in Greek.

For example, it is not uncommon for people to use a phrase, which can be translated literally, but be understood to mean or say something else to the author. A great illustration of what I am talking about are some provisions in the U.S. Constitution. "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. " No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due....The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.


While the literal meaning of the words chosen do not reference slavery or mean slavery, everyone in 1787 understood WHAT those provisions in the U.S. Constitution was talking about and referring to, and it was slaves and the slave trade. I, of course, have a plethora of evidence to support this was the understanding, not only to the author's of the U.S. Constitution, but to many if not all adults in the U.S. in 1787. In other words, I can carry my burden in demonstrating that although the literal meaning of the words does not reference "slavey" in those provisions above, the authors of the provisions, along with society, understood those phrases to talk about slavery and slaves.

Another example would be, "Every cloud has a silver lining...Every dog has his day..." These may be literal translations in some language but this hardly demonstrates what the author was "saying" or how the author "understood" the phrases or what they communicated or said.

Telling me what the literal Greek translation says does not tell me what the author was necessarily saying or understood the phrase to say or mean. We can wonder, speculate, guess, and hypothesize why the author chose those words but this is not evidence for anything.

Speculating the author of Hebrews was inspired by the passages of Psalms is, well, speculation. How exactly do you know the author of Hebrews was referring to scripture with the verses of, " Instead, he has gone to scripture and portrayed him from its pages. Buchanan [p.98] suggests that “offering up petitions” is drawn from Psalm 116:1, which uses the same words (in the LXX version). And Montefiore, while fussing over the fact that it does not appear in the Gospel description, sees the phrase “loud cries and tears” as an enlargement on Psalm 22:24: “when I cried to him, he heard me” (again in the wording of the LXX). Well, maybe he was but maybe he wasn't. Rather than provide some solid evidence the author of Hebrews was borrowing from the psalmist, you merely espouse a rationalization instead, and it is a lousy one. Do we have any evidence the author of Hebrews was even familiar with Psalms, much less those specific verses from Psalms? Citing the fact they are "similar" is not "evidence" as this begs the question of the issue, WHY are they similar? Are they similar BECAUSE OF Psalms (because the author read Psalms) or are they similar by mistake, accident, coincidence, etcetera?

Another point of speculation, combined with rationalization, for the appearance of making a reasonable and logic argument, was the following.

Ahhh.....in other words, since the book of Hebrews lacks any evidentiary support for Christ's sacrifice having taken place on earth, then it did not happen and the author stating it did not happen Unfortunately for you, a lack of evidence cannot and is not evidence which can logically or rationally be used to support such a claim. Yes, I understand the author in Hebrews does not talk about Calvary or an earthly sacrifice (in other words, evidence is lacking in the text to support this proposition) but as soon as you use this as evidence to deny the sacrifice occurred on Calvary or on earth, this is fallacious argumentation.

Oh but you assume another interpretation is erroneous, one which reconciles the discrepancy. One interpretation, the way I read it, does not have Jesus pleading to avoid the beating, crucifixion, and death. Rather, I see Jesus pleading for God to remove the "agony" Jesus was suffering over the impending situation, as opposed to the event itself. After all, the preceding verse says Jesus was crushed with grief to the point of death itself and it is this suffering Jesus is asking to be removed from, as opposed to the events to follow.

Now, what is "convincing" to me is your argument rests upon some assumptions, specifically those I mentioned. What is also convincing to me is the fact Hebrews does not provide any evidence, in and of itself, to the resolution of these "assumptions." To abate for this evidentiary shortcoming in the book of Hebrews itself, you espouse some nice theories and conjecture. What Hebrews lacks in evidence to support your assumption, you plug these holes with rationalizations, speculation, ask more questions and theory. But, this puts your argument on no better of a position than those who assume the location of Jesus' existence in the flesh, death and sacrifice on the cross transpired on earth.

Jeffrey Gibson

This isn't a person of the time speaking. It is a character within a work of fiction who speaks (and notably not of Heracles) -- and who says things not only that Apuleius himself may or may not agreed with in respect to when the event spoken of happened, but which are obviously hyperbolic, and which still envisions Paris to have been as historical as Alexander since the event spoken of as taking place when the world was young is regarded as something that actually happened in history. Otherwise, the point being made in that speech against judges -- that judges have always been corrupt -- falls to the ground.

In any case, how does the ascription "when the world was young" to the judgment of Paris, who was not a demi god like Heracles, and who, according to Homer and the tragedians, lived after Heracles, show that, for Apuleius, it was non historical?

Jeffrey

KrisK10

Earl,

I hope you don't mind taking a tangential question from an amateur on this stuff.

There seems to be within skeptic scholarship two basic views about Christian origins: 1] the legendized historical Jesus and 2] a mythical Christ without any basis on a historical man. I'm just curious, based on all of your study of the early Christian literature, approximately what percent would you say favors only option 1, what percent favors only option 2, and what percent can favor either?

If it helps to put the above question into a specific example, how would one know if the following passage reflects a Pauline belief in a historical person that was born, or is part of a mythical construction: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law…” (Gal 4:4). Seems like it could go either way, and so could a ton of other stuff.

Kris

gstafleu

I would tend to agree: the Greek mythical figures, like Heracles, are presented as walking on terra firma. My point, both in the case of the Apuleius thread and in my remark about Alexander, was just to show that the temporal aspect was not what we would normally describe as historical (not battle-of-Marathon-like, as you put it). In Hebrews we are discussing an extra possibility, to wit that the mythical figure (if such it is) of Jesus did not walk terra firma but, at least during the time of his sacrifice, resided somewhere else, possibly in one of these concentric realms above the earth, perhaps in an idealized Platonic "sphere."

First, let's back-track for a moment. This started with Jeffrey's contention (at least that's how I took it, was I wrong?) that "while he was on earth" (which we find in some translations) was a reasonable translation of the flesh days phrase. The problem with this "translation" is that is build around a noun ("earth") that does not appear in the original Greek. The original Greek on the other hand is build around two nouns ("days" and "flesh") that do not appear in this "translation." IOW it is not a translation, it is an interpretation. Questioning that is legitimate.

So when it comes to translating, I would simply suggest something like "in the days of his flesh," "in his flesh days," or, which may be closest to current English usage, "in his days of flesh." So much for the translation, now for the interpretation, the meaning we attach to it.

First I think that this phrase is sufficiently cryptic that just staring at the meaning to the individual words and then hoping that the cryptic combination will make sense is probably not something that should be seen as very reliable. The best one can do here is come up with a number of possible meanings and see how they fit in with what we find in Hebrews.

Next we should remember what is the issue at hand here: we are discussing whether Hebrews refers to a Jesus who walked the earth as a (more or less) human being, or whether he was some sort of spiritual, divine, but essentially non-human being who did not touch down on terra firma. I'll abbreviate these two HJ and MJ, as usual. Given that we are considering these two competing hypotheses regarding Hebrews, the question now becomes: how does the flesh phrase fit in with either of these?

For the HJ hypothesis this is straightforward. In that case we can assign a meaning like "when he was alive/a human being/on earth," and thus have the phrase fit in well with the HJ hypothesis. We could now go home while radiating a well deserved sense of accomplishment, were it not that the phrase fits in equally well with the MJ hypothesis.

The MJ hypothesis (remember: this version of MJ, not just any MJ!) holds that the non-human, non-earthly Jesus took on a human aspect ("flesh") so that he could perform his sacrifice and thus save humanity. We can discuss the origins of this idea in another thread perhaps, I'd suggest that for now we just accept this as a hypothesis. It is then straightforward what the flesh phrase means in the light of this MJ hypothesis: the time when Jesus was in his "flesh phase."

This means that the flesh phrase itself is neutral when it comes to deciding between the two hypotheses: it fits equally well with both. Hence we have to look outside the phrase, e.g. by analyzing the rest of Hebrews and see of it goes more in an HJ or in an MJ direction. Studying the phrase itself, in isolation, will not help us here.

Having said this, given that in this MJ hypothesis the "taking on of flesh" by this non-fleshy being is an important item, one could make the point that, as the phrase mentions this flesh as a temporary attribute, it may be more suggestive of the MJ hypothesis than of the HJ. Seen against the MJ hypothesis of taking on flesh it actually is a fairly straightforward statement of affairs: the "flesh days" idea is a direct part of this MJ hypothesis. To make it work for the HJ hypothesis we have to take an extra step: the "flesh days" idea has to be translated to "a human Jesus on earth." I'm not sure how strong this reasoning is, though, for now I'm content to let the phrase rest in neutral territory.

Gerard Stafleu

Ted Hoffman

Well, its a start. And a pretty good one at that. In my view, if Doherty can succeed in showing that there is room for an alternative explanation to the orthodox one, he is mightily successful. This is not a simple issue so to be able to bring his case to level with the orthodox one is very impressive in my view because it makes his case worthy of attention.
He does not argue that they are a resolution to those assumptions. Since you have done a not too shabby analysis of Doherty's arguments, assuming that you are familiar with the Argument to the Best Explanation(ABE), how do you rate Doherty's case with the historicist case?
Richard Carrier, a historian, writes that:
[Emphasis mine]