Toto

Harold_W._Attridge

Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Epistle to the Hebrews by Paul Ellingworth

Jeffrey Gibson

They are NT scholars who, along with E. Grasser, C. Spicq. C. Koester, H. Hegermann, H. Strathmann, B. Weiss, H.-F Weiss, H. Windisch, G. Hollmann, L.D. Hurst, O. Michel, E. Riggenbach, A. Strobel, K. Backhaus, A. Cody, M. R. D’Angelo, D. A. DeSilva, J. Dunnill, F. V. Filson, G. H. Guthrie, D. M. Hay, M. E. Isaacs, E. Käsemann, S. Lehne, D. F. Leschert, B. Lindars, W. R. G. Loader, D. G. Peterson, M. Rissi, J. M. Scholer J. Swetnam, K. J. Thomas, J. W. Thompson, H. Thyen, W. G. Übelacker, A. Vanhoye, and H. Zimmermann, have each produced "major works on academia’s study of Hebrews" .

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

And here, Earl, are the addresses of some of those scholars you say you'd like to see respond to your "thorough case for [Hebrew's] entirely 'cosmic Christ'" and to your detailed demonstration of how they have employed "erroneous methodology and reasoning in reading an HJ into" Hebrews

Harold Attridge harold.attridge at yale.edu

Paul Ellingworth p.ellingworth at abdn.ac.uk

You might want also to send your work to Craig Koester, author of the Hebrews commentary in the Anchor Bible Commentary series. (He may be reached at ckoester at luthersem.edu) and to W. R. G. Loader, author of Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes ( loader at central.murdoch.edu.au) as well as to D. F. Leschert, author of Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms (dleschert at telus.net). I'm sure they'd be interested to see how they've screwed up in thinking that there's an HJ in Hebrews.

Please let me know if there is any one else within academia whom, being misguided about the HJ in Hebrews, you'd like to see respond to your work, and I'll see if I can find their addresses for you.

Jeffrey

Antipope Innocent II

That's very helpful of you Jeffrey. I wonder if Earl will contact the scholars you mention. Or even submit his work to a peer reviewed journal. Or at least descend from Sinai once more to explain unto us why not.

Perhaps he's too shy. Or too modest. :huh:

Steven Carr

Perhaps peer-reviewed journals have a habit of declaring such works as off topic for NT studies...

Scholars often just ignore works rebutting them.

For example, the Bishop of Durham read a review at Easter 2006 of 'The Empty Tomb', a review about which he has written not one word.

So if Doherty sends copies of his work, expect silence or claims that such topics are not legitimate fields of study.

Antipope Innocent II

If he doesn't ever send them in the first place, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy though doesn't it? That's still not a reason for not submitting them. Though it can be seen as an excuse to hide behind.

Will he descend from the sublunar sphere to make all this clear unto us or will these mysteries remain in the spiritual dimension? :huh:

Toto

Please keep the personal comments out of this thread.

Thanks

Jeffrey Gibson

<discussion of moderation issues removed>

PhilosopherJay

Hi Earl,

Thanks for this wonderfully exciting, passionate and stimulating work.

Unfortunately, I don't have time for a respectful review. 'Tis the season for grading final papers and making up final exams.

I will give an unfortunately, but necessarily, brief first reaction. I think your negative hypothesis that the writer is not referring to a recent, nearly contemporary, human being when we see the term "Jesus Christ," or some variant thereof, is wonderfully proven. The positive hypothesis that he is referring to a heavenly deity I find more problematic. (Here I should like to give five or ten examples of the problems, but I don't have time.)

An alternative hypothesis is that the Philo who wrote the original text did not write the term "Jesus Christ" or its variants at all. It is a later interpolation. Actually, it is not even an interpolation properly understood; rather, it is a defacement of the original work. It is, in short, no matter how seriously one may take it, a rank joke.

Think of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q.. Duchamp has not hired a model with a beard and mustache because he thinks that she is beautiful (comparable to the mainstream hypothesis), but neither has he imagined the "Mona Lisa," painted her and then imagined her as a heavenly vision having a mustache and beard (equivalent to your hypothesis). The original writing is the defense of Judaism, the original "Mona Lisa." The term "Jesus Christ" and its variants are the beard and Mustache added by an unknown prankster.

It may be seen as a joke with serious implications/consequences or a simple defacement. It is not a ready-made religion, no matter what Hyam Maccoby might think.

Hopefully, over the Krismiss vacation period, I'll have time to do a proper review.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd like to see some evidence for this. Drews' "work" was published in such journals. So was that of Couchoud. And if what you suppose is the case, really is the case, it's hard to explain the series of articles in response to mythicists writings that S.J. Chase. A. Loisy, M. Gougel and others published in such journals. And if nothing else, the book reviews sections of these journals show that your supposition is groundless.

In any event, the issue is whether Earl is really serious about getting his work into the hands of the people he says he wants to see it, not whether it will be ignored once its in their hands.

Jeffrey