srd44

Reconstructing history from the perspective, worldview, and beliefs of an ancient writer???? I don't understand what goes on in this forum. Really? And so-and-so-says and so it was. ....

EarlDoherty

I am glad you reconsidered on your strike 2, because of course it was actually a ball, very wide of the plate. I need only remind you of 1 Thess. 4:9 in which Paul says that "We are taught by God to love one another." Or 1 & 2 John in which the writer(s) speak of the "commandments of the Father" on the subject of love. Or 1 John 2 (v.20-27) in which "you need no other teacher, but learn all you need to know from his initiation" the latter being a rite of chrisma (anointing) which is "the gift of the Holy One" referring to God. Even the phrase "oracles of God" (Heb. 5:12, cf. epistle of Barnabas 21) defines those oracles as God's product.

Which brings us to your strike 1, prompted, we may presume, from the passage in Hebrews (6:1) initially brought up by Steven Carr, and which I addressed in my long posting earlier—this time in connection with a related passage, 5:12. Let’s remember that I brought the latter up as evidence that in the sect’s foundation scene described in 2:1f, the writer is not speaking of the preaching of Jesus in a ministry on earth. I said:

I would ask you to rebut the argument and conclusion laid out here if you disagree with it. If you don’t, then you accept that 2:1f does NOT refer to the preaching of Jesus on earth. Given this, it is difficult to reject Steven’s contention about the 6:1 passage, for it once again refers to “the elementary teachings” and the “foundation” of faith and ritual itemized in verses 1 and 2. In all of this, there is indeed no reference to the teachings of Jesus on earth. An argument from silence? Not exclusively. It is indeed a startling silence, but as I have so often pointed out, such silences are found within descriptions of some aspect of the movement (in this case, what started it and what teachings were instrumental in those “beginnings”) which actually make no room for an HJ, in effect they exclude any such figure. This is more than simple silence. The writer could never have created such a picture of the beginnings of the sect and leave out all role for an historical teaching Jesus.

And as I pointed out in that long posting earlier, consideration of the passage in chapter 12 strongly indicates that the voice heard at the beginning of the sect was the voice of God, a message received from God, not through “the lips of Jesus” (as the NEB arbitrarily translates it with their Gospel-colored glasses firmly in place).

So your contention in your strike 1 hardly has much force:

The problem is, Abe, that there is no mention of a teaching Jesus at all, not just as to whether he was on earth. And are you really serious that in multiple passages speaking of the ‘beginnings’ of the sect, who gave the message and who received the message, and who transmitted it through what channels, you can blithely dismiss the fact that not a single reference to an historical Jesus is anywhere in sight, that a recurring discussion about the foundations of the movement would make no mention of any earthly Jesus? Just to state it makes it clear how ludicrous that is. Of course, that same kind of inexplicable silence is in evidence in other places in the epistle, such as 1:2’s “…but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom…” As you no doubt know, the writer goes on to define the Son entirely in heavenly terms (mimicking Greek philosophy about the Logos and Jewish philosophy about personified Wisdom), with not a hint of an incarnation or an identity on earth. He also goes on to prove the Son’s superiority over the angels solely by appeals to scripture, and no reference to the superiority of an incarnation or what he had done in his earthly life, including rising from the dead! He goes on through 13 chapters without giving us a single word by an earthly Jesus through whom “God has spoken”, not a saying, not a teaching, not anything that could be assigned to an HJ. The voice of the Son is entirely present in scripture, and never as a prophecy of an earthly fulfillment.

So I would respectfully suggest that your strike 1 is about as unconvincing and lacking foundation as your strike 2 was.

Now for your strike 3. That is probably the most popularly appealed-to passage in Hebrews to demonstrate that the writer envisioned an earthly Jesus. But those appeals do not take into account several ‘strikes’ against it in turn.

Strike 1 – The actual point of the passage is to demonstrate a familial relationship between Jesus the High Priest and those who believe in him, so as to maintain that this High Priest can confer upon those believers the guarantee of conquest of death for themselves. To establish that familial connection, the writer declares that “the Son is not ashamed to call men his brothers” (2:11) (sorry, ladies, I guess that rules you out). To demonstrate that this is the case, the writer does not quote any saying of Jesus on earth, neither ones ‘recorded’ in the Gospels or ones that any sect might be expected to make up for themselves and attribute to the founder (a very common practice, as scholars can see in the Gospels themselves). Instead, as always, the ‘voice’ of the Son declaring this is taken from scripture (three passages). By the way, we might also note that these “brothers” of the Lord are not thereby rendered “siblings.”

Strike 2 – The Son has ‘taken on’ the characteristics of “blood and flesh” to do what? Is there any mention of this blood and flesh being used to do things in an earthly life? Even in regard to the “tempting” referred to a few verses later, is there any mention of temptation regarding normal earthly activities? No, it is entirely in terms of his salvific activities:

...so that he might be merciful and faithful as their high priest before God, to expiate the since of the people. For he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are meeting their test now. (NEB)

In other words, the only thing the writer has in mind is Christ’s heavenly activities. That is certainly the case in regard to what he presents as the “sacrifice”, namely, the offering of his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. And there is no location of the preceding suffering and death on earth—another inexplicable silence. The writer has given them a Son who is described solely in terms of what renders him able and fit to save believers from death, and none of that has anything to do with being on earth.

Strike 3 – Here is where knowledge of Greek comes as an advantage. And here I am sure you will not mind if I quote from what I have already written, in this case in JNGNM (p.116-7). It is in a context of discussing the pervasive motif in the epistles of the heavenly Jesus taking on only a “likeness” to men. This quote also contains comments relating to my strike 2 just above.

That “in all things” (kata panta) can be taken in the sense of “to the fullest extent” in regard to the characteristics of the ‘likeness of flesh and blood’ needed to undergo his paradigmatic death and sacrificial offering of his blood. The kata panta is “so that…” what? To teach on earth? To perform miracles? To provide an example of how to live a life in flesh and resist all those human temptations? Not a hint of any of that. It is in order that “he might be merciful and faithful as their high priest before God (something done in heaven) and to expiate the sins of the people, which as this writer presents it is something done in the heavenly sanctuary, with the actual crucifixion that preceded it given little space and certainly never located on earth.

That’s enough for now. Over to you, Abe. Any thoughts?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

No, one reconstructs history from what those who created it have actually said about the matter, bringing in as much understanding and corroboration as we can derive from the culture of the times. That's what SHOULD go on in this forum. Instead, too many defend a phoney history based on the entrenched beliefs that have been imposed on those texts in the intervening two millennia.

And if you are really being ironic, perhaps you are being a little too subtle for us.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

In order to use Epistle of Hebrews as a source for the foundation of Christianity it is imperative you first establish that Hebrews is an early source and was not composed AFTER the Gospels were already known.

Cherrypicking random verses from the Epistle does NOT show at all the actual date of composition.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is effectively a source of dubious provenance--Not even the Church can account for the Epistle to the Hebrews AFTER HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

It is most disturbing that people would knowingly use highly questionable sources like the Epistle to Hebrews to argue for the Foundations of Christianity.

stephan huller

I am not trying to twist anyone's words. I am interested in learning how Hebrews chapter 2 can be used to support the idea that supernatural Jesus who never came to earth concept.

EarlDoherty

Read my posting to Abe (which is not the sum total of what can be said in its favor). Unlike 8:4, this passage is not ironclad. Rather than saying that ch.2"supports" the idea of a supernatural Jesus, it is better to say that the passage in question can be seen to be "compatible" with a supernatural Jesus, and thus not in contradiction to other passages and considerations within Hebrews which clearly support the idea of a supernatural Jesus. IOW, it can be interpreted to fall within that context.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

The epistle to the Hebrews makes no sense as coming after the Gospels. There is a complete absence of the Gospel storyline. It is in fact quite alien to anything relating to the Gospels, and demonstrates that Christianity in the first century was a diverse phenomenon, with some expressions of it having no contact or derivation from other expressions.

There is nothing "random" about the verses one can appeal to within Hebrews. They form a consistent and mutually corroborating picture, perhaps more efficiently than any other NT document.

And there are very good arguments for dating Hebrews prior to the Jewish War. Of course, you wouldn't know them, since you refuse to read my material on the topic. (See my Appendix 4 in JNGNM.)

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

Okay I am following this (I think):

Maybe but I am not so unsophisticated to assume that Hebrews isn't a composite text. I find it hard to deny that chapter 2 is about a supernatural Jesus coming to earth ('a little lower than the angels'). Psalm 8 is about the Christ's victory over the angels. It is central to the Pauline epistles and early literature. Psalm 8:6 is often combined with Psalm 100:1 and in my mind can only be read as implying an earthly appearance of Jesus. I don't necessarily need to go through the material do I? You have already acknowledged the difficulties in applying this material for your argument. Right?

stephan huller

The LXX for Psalm 8:

You diminished him a little in comparison with angels;
with glory and honor you crowned him.
And you set him over the works of your hands;
all you subjected under his feet,
sheep and cattle, all together,
and further the beasts of the plain,
the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea
—the things that pass through paths of seas.
O Lord, our Lord, how admired is your name in all the earth!

stephan huller

Tertullian (Against the Jews ) certainly understands this as a reference to Jesus on earth:

And remember I am not arguing that all Christians believed Jesus was a physical man. I am just saying that he was a supernatural being who came to earth. I am wondering (on a separate note) whether Jesus was Adam. But that's another point entirely. Tertullian is consistently reluctant to apply angelic qualities to the Son of Man.