Clivedurdle

Should it not look more like an academic paper? Abstract at the front, introduction, detail, conclusions, bibliography?

EarlDoherty

Some of you guys are priceless...

So much friendly help and encouragement. If I had any doubts about submitting this study to various interested parties, that has evaporated. However, I will NOT be doing it this week, despite all the eagerness. (For one thing, I would like to have a bit of reaction and perhaps discussion on it under my belt before submitting it formally to anyone.)

But I do not intend to undertake any major rewrite or reorganization. Since the odds are that any Journal will simply toss it, I'm not putting a large amount of additional work into it. However, I will be glad to take up Ben's very kind and generous offer for a pdf version, as I don't have the program to do that, and I will contact him before long on that. (And I thank Jeffrey for indicating that I need not spend time or money having a printed copy done, although I had other possible uses in mind for that.)

Jeffrey, of course, has listed all the "major" works on Hebrews probably since the document was written, as though I should submit to them all. Since several of them have already entered the great beyond, if he is able to supply personal addresses in whatever layers of heaven they now inhabit (I'm quite sure they're above the moon), I might be able to consider it. (I wonder if cyberspace extends into the realm of the incorruptible, or is limited to the corruptible.) He mentions that I have "only" referred to Attridge and Ellingworth, which indicates he didn't even crack open Part One of the article, at the head of which I list all those commentators on Hebrews referred to in my text:

Bibliography of works cited in the text:

The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 (Loeb Classical Library)
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, J. H. Charlesworth, ed., vols. 1&2 (Doubleday) 1983-1985
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vols.1-10 (Eerdmans) 1964-1976
Harold W. Attridge: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Fortress Press) 1989
-- “Hebrews” (in Harper’s Bible Commentary, p.1259) 1988
F. Blass & A. Debrunner: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (U Chicago) ET 1961
F. F. Bruce: The Epistle to the Hebrews (New London Commentary) 1964
G. W. Buchanan: To the Hebrews (Anchor Bible) 1972
Marcus Dods: Hebrews (Expositor’s Greek New Testament) 1910
Paul Ellingworth: Epistle to the Hebrews (Eerdmans) 1993
Eugene Van Ness Goetchius: The Language of the New Testament (Scribner) 1965
Donald Guthrie: The Letter to the Hebrews (Tyndale New Testaement Commentaries) 1983
Jean Héring: Hebrews (Epworth) 1970
J. H. Huddilston: Essentials of New Testament Greek (MacMillan) 1934
Graham Hughes: Hebrews and Hermeneutics (Cambridge) 1979
William Manson: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hodder) 1951
James Moffatt: Hebrews (International Critical Commentary) 1924
Hugh Montefiore: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Black’s New Testament Commentaries) 1964
Scott, E. F.: Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh) 1922
C. H. Talbert: “The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity” (NTS 22) 1976
B. F. Westcott: Epistle to the Hebrews (MacMillan) 1889
Ronald Williamson: Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Brill) 1970
R. McL. Wilson: Hebrews (New Century Bible Commentary) 1987

If you are really looking for clarity about sublunar spheres, etc., why not try actually reading the article? Then you could better judge to what extent an acidic tongue is warranted.

Yes, unfortunately, there has been a lot of 'misguidance' in traditional New Testament scholarship, not all of it simply to do with Hebrews. Jeffrey may scorn (without actually reading the thing, of course), but as I said in an earlier posting, the scientific method brings one in whatever direction the evidence leads (and despite the humility of the researcher).

Earl Doherty

Steven Carr

Doherty's talk of earthly and heavenly copies of things reminds me of Muslim claims that earthly Korans are a copy of the Heavenly one.

Steven Carr

Also it seems to me that 'shedding blood' on the cross was pretty much a metaphor.

The killing of animals for their blood was a procedure that produced as much blood as possible, and the procedure was designed to collect blood.

By comparison, crucifixion was a relatively bloodless death, and the blood was spilled on the ground.

And the whole emphasis of the author of Hebrews is on the blood of the dead thing , rather than the death itself.

Could the author really have thought that the relatively small amount of blood Jesus shed, and which went on the ground, have purified Heaven?

He must have been talking about a heavenly shedding of blood.

Ben C Smith

Maybe Jesus died in cyberspace. Meaning that his MySpace account was suspended (but it was not his fault).

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, what I did (here at least) was to list authors, not works. Moreover, most of the authors I listed in post 230214 are -- as one would think you know if you are as up on Hebrews scholarship as you would have us believe -- fairly recent ones. And your intimation that I thought you should submit your work to them all is puzzling in the light of the fact I did not provide e-mail addresses for them as I did for those whom I specifically stated I thought you should send your work to.

But why it is that you think, as you imply you do, that you shouldn't submit you work to the authors I mentioned (providing they are alive) is puzzling. Didn't you say you wanted academia, and especially those who has written major works on Hebrews see your work and to "reciprocate". Is it because , despite your claims about your work's thoroughness, you didn't consults the "major works" on Hebrews that they have written?

What I actually said was:

thus showing that I was aware that you had mentioned more scholars than just these two. (BTW, if you doubt me on this, write to Chris Zeichman and Ben Smith. They can testify to the fact that I did indeed read your list since I sent them a copy of the bibliography that you posted in Part one before I wrote my post to you).

So I did I not "mention" what you say I did. And how would I know that you used Ellingworth if I hadn't cracked open Part one? You don't mention Ellingworth in your announcement.

I'd be grateful that in your attempts to excoriate me, you didn't do so by misrepresenting things I saids.

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

If you like, you can supply addresses for all those on my Bibliography list, except those deceased or otherwise incapacitated. And, Jeffrey, it never ceases to amaze me that you apparently have no ability to recognize humor. Of course I didn't expect you to recommend me to JBL, whether it "works that way" or not. I was being facetious.

Also, I hope that you realize that your constant reference, heavily loaded with sarcasm, to my view of traditional scholarship on Hebrews as being "misguided", and other words to that effect, is simply a poorly-disguised appeal to authority. Not that there's anything wrong with sarcasm itself (I suppose within limits, the mods would say), but there very much is something wrong with reliance on that appeal. What you are doing is criticizing my effrontery in challenging established viewpoints about Hebrews (and, of course, other things in scholarship) solely on the basis of that viewpoint being "established," in other words, it's the "authority." That's hardly a valid method of argumentation.

On the other hand, you are not really "arguing." You never do. You give us lists of definitions and others' viewpoints (or usually just their names, since I hardly think that even you have read all of those major works on Hebrews), but I don't ever recall you arguing or challenging on the basis of your own ideas. Sometimes I am led to think that you don't have any of your own, since you rarely if ever give us any. (I think this is a valid observation to make, since Jeffrey is ostensibly here to argue for his position, and yet he never actually argues it, merely prowling around the edges of others' argumention, throwing out trivialities, irrelevancies or roadblocks to honest discussion in which he would actually have to contribute something substantive.)

Instead of listing all those names, why don't you show that you are familiar with all of the major works, or at least those I list and have dealt with in my study, and challenge me with knowledge and opinions of your own on their behalf--or simply on your own behalf? I have to say that your behavior on these discussion boards gives something of the impression that you are a "groupie" to scholarly circles, without actually getting your hands dirty yourself. (Again, I regard this as a valid observation, since participants here, including Jeffrey Gibson, should surely be expected to contribute argumentation, and not simply be here to snipe at those who do while claiming that challenging established scholarship constitutes some kind of blasphemy.)

So I would suggest that you cease the pointless exercise you usually engage in, read my article on Hebrews, and then argue against it, based on your own knowledge, which we all know is second to none. (I could make the same suggestion to Antipope and others, and that would include Chris Weimer, if he were still here.)

I am not infallible, nor do I regard myself as such. No one ever gets everything right. There are almost certainly errors and insufficiencies to be found in those 66,000 words, which you could take advantage of. Then we'd actually be doing something, and people here, including myself (and maybe, dare I suggest, including you) might actually learn something about the subject matter, instead of the colossal waste of time that usually obtains when you take part in the exchange.

I'm willing to go out on a limb. Why aren't you?

Earl Doherty

Solitary Man

It seems disingenuous of you to complain that academia is not taking your work seriously and then refuse to conform your work to academic standards. Why in the world would you want anyone reviewing your work if you yourself will not put in the time required to make it acceptable for review?

Ben C Smith

Hi, Earl.

I recall that you once said much the same thing about me, and I had to explain that I am not here to argue a (set of) position(s) so much as to press for a certain kind and quality of argumentation. (You once wondered aloud, for example, why I was arguing that Justin and Tertullian were quite possibly relying on Matthew for their information about Jewish accusations against the disciples; had you realized that the argument itself, not the actual position, is the brass I am polishing against my sleeve, you could scarcely have wondered at my argument.)

You were mistaken about my motivation, and I suspect that you are also mistaken about that of Jeffrey. It seems reasonably clear to me that Jeffrey is here principally to point out instances in which people claim more than they ought to claim on the basis of less research than they ought to have done. (This might also, I might add, help to explain why he sometimes runs the ragged edge of the IIDB guidelines on personal attacks; it can be difficult to point out such things without making it seem personal; is one attacking the argument or the arguer?)

I also suspect that this difference in focus lies behind many of your more strident encounters with Jeffrey. Jeffrey attacks a claim of yours as misguided -- such as, say, that most critical scholars hold position X -- and does not bother much with whether position X is sound or not; yet whether position X is sound or not is virtually all you care to talk about. This leads to all manner of friction, since Jeffrey cannot understand why you are so cavalier about claiming more than you ought, and you cannot understand why he is dwelling on a point that, even if correct, does not directly impinge on your main point.

I am not at all claiming that this is the only sticking point between you and Jeffrey; but it seems to be a pretty big one. I wonder whether perhaps you assume too much about your opponents sometimes.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

I see your work Earl as very important. The problem is that you are doing the equivalent of going into a court of law on trial for murder (of a classic Jesus!)

Now it is excellent strategy that a defendant presents themselves as well as possible, and martial their arguments coherently. You have done most of this, but you do need to tidy it up and formalise it. Jeffrey, Ben, are you able to help with this, putting aside your views on the validity of the arguments - these can be covered appropriately in the paper.

I suppose I am suggesting a collaborative editing.