Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 01-26-2013, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

OMG, our cover is blown!! :hysterical:

Ιδού, in shameless display, the modern, technicolor, authentic Constantinian confession of guilt, now that democracy is here.

Woops, you might have the wrong guy. I don't think Constantine was a Christian.

Jake

Then

'OMG, our cover is blown!! :hysterical:'

is hard to explain.

You have no cover! Ask the Inquisitor. His job was easy as he could hear them coming while singing 'patient endurance' songs proclaiming the name of Jesus to end their suffering here on earth, and all he needed to ask is: what is your favorite recipe as your final meal here down below.

jakejonesiv · 01-26-2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Woops, you might have the wrong guy. I don't think Constantine was a Christian.

Jake

Then

'OMG, our cover is blown!! :hysterical:'

is hard to explain.

Dear sotto voce,

It was meant as irony, but acually is crass sarcasm. My apologies to you.

Jake

EarlDoherty · 01-26-2013, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Appendix 4
Dating Hebrews and the Authenticity of the Postscript
[page 214, 247, n.4]
__________________________________________________ ______
.................................................. .........................................

A possible argument ruling out a late provenance for Hebrews is an apparent quoting from its first chapter in 1 Clement. In 36:1-6 one finds several cases of language in parallel with that in the first chapter of Hebrews. But this raises a separate question which is of some significance: is it in fact necessary to see 1 Clement as familiar with Hebrews itself? The author does not cite it by name, as he does the Pauline epistles elsewhere. Attridge has suggested (op.cit., p.6-7) that Hebrews’ author, in his scriptural citations in chapter 1, is drawing on an existing catena of biblical proof texts which may have served certain early Christian communities as demonstrating the exaltation of the Son in heaven. But if so, that collocation could be the source of 1 Clement’s own listing. Indeed, Clement’s different order may reflect the order of the catena, an order which the Hebrews author might have altered in the interests of fashioning a much larger argument. Even Clement’s reference to the comparison of the Son with the angels (and it has distinctive anomalies in wording from that of Hebrews) could conceivably be part of such a catena document, since it serves to make the point about the Son’s superior status in heaven, even if it is not a scriptural citation.

It is true that Clement in 36:1 refers to Christ as “high priest,” perhaps the strongest indicator of a knowledge of the Hebrews christology and the document itself. And yet, 1 Clement in its great length nowhere applies this idea of Jesus as high priest in the distinctive manner of Hebrews, a high priest conducting a heavenly sanctuary sacrifice. If he knew and subscribed to this document as a whole, it is certainly a matter for curiosity that he would not draw on or reflect some of its powerful and distinctive christology. Nor do we see any sign in 1 Clement of the negative attitude toward the Temple cult which is so prominent in Hebrews.

There is thus ample reason to doubt that 1 Clement is anywhere dependent on or even has knowledge of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but is merely drawing on common traditions and sources. This would preserve Hebrews’ independence and isolation from other cultic Christ expressions, something the document itself more than suggests. As for sharing the term “high priest” for Jesus, a designation found nowhere else in early Christian writings, 1 Clement might have derived it from other circles which have left no record; or it may have been a concept with some currency in Jewish intermediary Son philosophy, drawn on by the Hebrews community as well. Philo also refers to the Logos or first-born of God as a “high priest” (On Dreams 1.215, On Flight and Finding 108), though not with the same degree of personification as is found in Hebrews and 1 Clement.

Hi Earl

First of all the passage on 1 Clement 36 is not the only parallel between Hebrews and Clement. The other parallels, (the similar examples of righteous/faithful people from the OT; the reference to Moses as a faithful servant in all the house from Numbers 12:7; the 'tough love' passage from Proverbs 3:12), are more straightforwardly a common use of scripture than is the case for chapter 36, and if chapter 36 is not convincing then these other passages will probably not be convincing either. However there is a cumulative list of parallels which may be difficult to convincingly explain by common use of the same tradition or catena.

Secondly the "high priest" parallel is IMO stronger than you admit. We have: Compare Hebrews 4:14-16

Quote:

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

we have here not only a shared idea of Jesus as high priest but the idea of Jesus as a high priest who helps us in our weakness. (There are detailed parallels in the Greek here.) We also have references to the heavens in both passages. This common theme of a heavenly high priest who can help us in our weaknesses is IMO very distinctive.

Thirdly the language in the comparison of Christ and the angels in both Hebrews 1 and 1 Clement 36 involves some rather unusual words ANAUGASMA radiance, MEGALWSUNHS majesty (compare Hebrews 8:1), DIAPhORWTERON more excellent (compare Hebrews 8:6), at least some of which appear to be distinctive to the author of Hebrews rather than part of a common source.

Hence it appears more plausible to explain the parallels on the basis of the knowledge of Hebrews by I Clement rather than by a common source and/or tradition.

Andrew Criddle

And yet the one fly in the ointment here, Andrew, is the lack of any hint in 1 Clement of the distinctive Hebrews soteriology, the focus on redemption and forgiveness of sin coming through the act of Jesus entering the heavenly sanctuary and offering his blood there. It is hard to think that 1 Clement would have Hebrews in his library and be willing to make use of it when he shows no sympathy for the central aspect of the Hebrews scenario. He also shows no sympathy for Hebrews lack of sympathy for the temple cult.

However, as I've said, it's not clearly resolvable, and I'm comfortable either way. There are advantages to either option. But thanks for your reasonable response.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 01-26-2013, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And yet the one fly in the ointment here, Andrew, is the lack of any hint in 1 Clement of the distinctive Hebrews soteriology, the focus on redemption and forgiveness of sin coming through the act of Jesus entering the heavenly sanctuary and offering his blood there....

A letter from the Church of Rome cannot be trivialised as a fly in the ointment.

Doherty, don't you realise that 1 Clement is actually from the Roman Church to the Church of Corinth??

The Church of Rome did NOT preach at anytime that Jesus Christ was Celestial or was crucified in a heavenly realm.

1 Clement

Quote:

The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

...It is hard to think that 1 Clement would have Hebrews in his library and be willing to make use of it when he shows no sympathy for the central aspect of the Hebrews scenario. He also shows no sympathy for Hebrews lack of sympathy for the temple cult.

Oh Doherty, how you have tangled yourself!! You don't think the Church of Rome had Hebrews in its library!!! May I remind you that Epistle Hebrews is in the Canon of the Church of Rome where it is claimed Jesus was crucified after a trial with the Sanhedrin and then under Pilate.

Sheshbazzar · 01-26-2013, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And yet the one fly in the ointment here, Andrew, is the lack of any hint in 1 Clement of the distinctive Hebrews soteriology, the focus on redemption and forgiveness of sin coming through the act of Jesus entering the heavenly sanctuary and offering his blood there. It is hard to think that 1 Clement would have Hebrews in his library and be willing to make use of it when he shows no sympathy for the central aspect of the Hebrews scenario

Personally I'm quite convinced by the internal evidence that it was 1 Clement that was written first, and this work was plagiarized, added unto, editorially improved and rearranged to fashion the text of 'Hebrews'.

It is clear by the overall Epistle of 1 Clement that it accepts "Iesus" as being the Saviour. There then is no conceivable reason that the writer(s) of 1 Clement would have omitted all of those prominent soteriological claims made within Hebrews -if the writer(s) were at all familiar with any 'Hebrews' text that contained them.
1 Clement nowhere 'quotes' from the text of Hebrews, rather it was Hebrews that was latter fashioned out of 1 Clements material.

jakejonesiv · 01-26-2013, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

the negative attitude toward the Temple cult which is so prominent in Hebrews.
Earl Doherty

All references in Hebrews are to the wilderness Tabernacle. No Temple ever mentioned.

Exodus 25:9 According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it. cf Heb 8:5

Jake

sotto voce · 01-27-2013, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Woops, you might have the wrong guy. I don't think Constantine was a Christian.

Jake

Then

'OMG, our cover is blown!! :hysterical:'

is hard to explain.

Dear sotto voce,

It was meant as irony

Irony? So you 'quoted' the Jesuits who post here? You agree with me? :constern01:

'All references in Hebrews are to the wilderness Tabernacle. No Temple ever mentioned.'

Well now, Jesuits will thank you for this, because, as you have doubtless read here recently, if there's one book that Constantine's poodles found hard to include in their canon, it was Hebrews. It is of course unjustified, nay, crass, to say that this book was written pre-Temple, and Jesuits and skeptics alike have heads firmly up fundaments if they hope to convince of it.

EarlDoherty · 01-27-2013, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

the negative attitude toward the Temple cult which is so prominent in Hebrews.
Earl Doherty

All references in Hebrews are to the wilderness Tabernacle. No Temple ever mentioned.

Exodus 25:9 According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it. cf Heb 8:5

Jake

For Chrissake, Jake. If the writer regarded the sacrificial cult as no longer applicable and needed to be chucked, then he regarded the contemporary practice in the Temple equally negatively. I used the phrase "temple cult" to refer to the entire picture, including the wilderness tabernacle.

You are becoming extremely annoying with your often niggling responses that are clearly meant only as mischief. If they aren't, it reveals something else about you.

And it's no wonder Stephan complains that my exchanges are sometimes shrill.

Earl Doherty

jakejonesiv · 01-28-2013, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

All references in Hebrews are to the wilderness Tabernacle. No Temple ever mentioned.

Exodus 25:9 According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it. cf Heb 8:5

Jake

For Chrissake, Jake. If the writer regarded the sacrificial cult as no longer applicable and needed to be chucked, then he regarded the contemporary practice in the Temple equally negatively. I used the phrase "temple cult" to refer to the entire picture, including the wilderness tabernacle.

You are becoming extremely annoying with your often niggling responses that are clearly meant only as mischief. If they aren't, it reveals something else about you.

And it's no wonder Stephan complains that my exchanges are sometimes shrill.

Earl Doherty

Dear Erl Dohrty,

Well Earl, you are shrill. You are dogmatic and you have hardened your positions so much that the insult springs ever ready from your keyboard. And you are closing yourself off to an extent of increasing irrelevance. You need to quit seeing every contrary comment as niggling and mischievous. I sincerely hope you have not reached the point where you now think you have all the answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Price, PNNT p. 930-931

Hebrews is often said to employ Platonic allegory, a la Philo of Alexandria, with its talk of earthly copies of heavenly realities. But this is unnecessary. Nothing in the text goes beyond what Exodus itself says about Moses making sure the earthly tabernacle exactly conforms to its heavenly prototype, which God showed Moses atop Sinai (Exod. 25:9). References to Jewsih sacrificial ritual are often said to imply a date before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in CE 70, but that is to misread the text, which refers in ideal terms not to the Jerusalem temple but to the desert tabernacle, as if it were still in operation. The point is simply to compare and contrast the terms of two covenants on paper, as it were.

I really do not care at this point whether you agree with the above quote or not. I see now you do not want to engage in any discussion with me, and that is fine. The point is to illustrate to the readers that you are too quick to to respond to differences with ad homenien attacks. I am not going to defend you any more.

Jake Jones IV

maryhelena · 01-28-2013, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

All references in Hebrews are to the wilderness Tabernacle. No Temple ever mentioned.

Exodus 25:9 According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it. cf Heb 8:5

Jake

For Chrissake, Jake. If the writer regarded the sacrificial cult as no longer applicable and needed to be chucked, then he regarded the contemporary practice in the Temple equally negatively. I used the phrase "temple cult" to refer to the entire picture, including the wilderness tabernacle.

You are becoming extremely annoying with your often niggling responses that are clearly meant only as mischief. If they aren't, it reveals something else about you.

And it's no wonder Stephan complains that my exchanges are sometimes shrill.

Earl Doherty

Dear Erl Dohrty,

Well Earl, you are shrill. You are dogmatic and you have hardened your positions so much that the insult springs ever ready from your keyboard. And you are closing yourself off to an extent of increasing irrelevance. You need to quit seeing every contrary comment as niggling and mischievous. I sincerely hope you have not reached the point where you now think you have all the answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Price, PNNT p. 930-931

Hebrews is often said to employ Platonic allegory, a la Philo of Alexandria, with its talk of earthly copies of heavenly realities. But this is unnecessary. Nothing in the text goes beyond what Exodus itself says about Moses making sure the earthly tabernacle exactly conforms to its heavenly prototype, which God showed Moses atop Sinai (Exod. 25:9). References to Jewsih sacrificial ritual are often said to imply a date before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in CE 70, but that is to misread the text, which refers in ideal terms not to the Jerusalem temple but to the desert tabernacle, as if it were still in operation. The point is simply to compare and contrast the terms of two covenants on paper, as it were.

I really do not care at this point whether you agree with the above quote or not. I see now you do not want to engage in any discussion with me, and that is fine. The point is to illustrate to the readers that you are too quick to to respond to differences with ad homenien attacks. I am not going to defend you any more.

Jake Jones IV

Jake, thanks for bringing up that quote from Price. I've realized that more has been going on here than simply Doherty's interpretation of Heb.8.4 in regard to whether or not the Hebrew JC figure can be interpreted as having been on earth in some mythological or spiritual form.

Price says it's a misreading of the text to place it's setting prior to 70 c.e. The fact that the Jerusalem temple is not mentioned does not necessarily place the text of Hebrews post 70 c.e.

The text could also be referencing a period of time when that Jerusalem temple existed - but a time when that Jerusalem temple was not recognized as being legitimate. That could well be the time period when Herod the Great started appointing the Jewish high priests. That is also the time when HG had the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, handed over to Marc Antony for execution.

Herod's temple, his rebuilding that Jerusalem temple; would that temple still hold it's spiritual significance for any remaining Hasmoneans or any devote Jews for that matter?

And does not the gospel JC go about overturning the tables in that Jerusalem temple. A 'den of robbers' - is that not one way, from a Hasmonean perspective, that the Jerusalem temple could be viewed?

Whether the Jews of Alexandria ever built a material tabernacle as a rival to the Jerusalem temple, who knows. But what they could well have been building was a spiritual temple. An intellectual or philosophical temple, a heavenly temple. And that possibility squarely places Hebrews in the context of Alexandrian Jews - and Philo. And dating - Philo died around 50 c.e.

Place the Pauline epistles late by all means - but Jake, if it's a late, very late date for Hebrews that you are looking for - methinks it's not going to go well for you....:constern01:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.