Toto

aa5874 questions split off here

Chile posts have been split into a separate thread.

EarlDoherty

I did not say that Carrier does not endorse it as a present contrafactual. I don't know what he endorses at this time. What I meant is that by inserting Carrier into that sentence, it sounds like you are trying to imply that he would endorse the present participles as automatically relating to a present time simply because they are present participles. Present participles generally take the understanding of the main verb, and if you are going to parse this verse as tying the participles to "en", then they take on the tense meaning of that verb. But that is the very thing that is ambiguous, the meaning of the two "en"s in this particular contrafactual situation.

You yourself looked the matter up and decided that Ellingworth was right and Carrier's cut-and-dried statement was wrong.

My apologies for imposing 6 pages on you to make a key point. I really ought to have taken the average attention span of many of the posters here into consideration.

First of all, if that audience was already of a mind that their Christ had never been on earth, there would have been no doubt in their minds as to what that verse meant. And being native Greek speakers, they could recognize (as so many here do not and need grammarians to inform them) that this structure was ambiguous (no, it is not a case of "exception" but of alternative usages, as your own quote in the last posting indicates) and would be open to recognizing which option was meant--the only one, in fact, since they would not have been familiar with any incarnated Jesus on earth. As for later readers, well, the ambiguous structure also allowed them, fed on the Gospels, to interpret it in a safe manner, if they even devoted any thought to it at all. At the same time, they would hardly have been open to realizing the underlying contradictions that can be uncovered in taking 8:4 in a present sense.

And are you naive enough to think that those later ancient readers or hearers were perceptive enough to conduct such exercises on everything they read or hear, or that writers always had the limitations of their readers in mind as they wrote? Good grief, even the best scholars today are exercised to understand just what Paul is getting at in some of his passages.

And I have to repeat over and over, that questions like these can be answered by reading my book, since I address every single one them. Hebrews 7:14, for example, is a reference to gaining knowledge about Christ through scripture. But I'll be damned if I am going to post countless passages from the book every time a question is raised and an accusation made in my direction because people are too stubborn or lazy or cheap to have enough interest in the subject (and be concerned with covering their asses) to read the publications of the person they are so bent on attacking.

Even in The Jesus Puzzle (note 44) I address 7:14, though not as effectively as in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. And that is one reason why JNGNM is so long. Not because it is 90% speculation and digression, as Carrier absurdly complains, but because many subjects required expansion to cover as much of the argument as possible and to explain it with greater detail and evidence. If people don't want to get the fullest case on a topic and by a mythicist whom they apparently regard as a matter of life and death to discredit, then don't complain to me if you make mistakes all over the place.

I don't know what you think this demonstrates. The tense used in "obtained" is the perfect, not the present, and so is "sanctioned." But he is still regarded as the mediator of the new covenant. He didn't cease to be that just because his sacrifice was over. The use of the present and perfect in this passage does absolutely nothing for the understanding of 8:4. Just because the author in one place makes a reference to the ongoing present, does not confer a present meaning on his every other statement, regardless of context. Is that your methodology in literary criticism?

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

Yes but I think this discussion is so way above their intellectual capacities you can safely ignore them. I had aa unashamedly arguing the other day from the English translation against the sense of the Greek. I think he was unaware that there was a difference. The English should be preferred he demanded because it suited his position. Sometimes having little monkeys running around the forum is kind of funny.

I haven't joined in the conversation because I really don't want to pile on. I basically agree with the idea that Jesus and his offering were separate or separated from the Levitical priesthood because he and it was from heaven. It isn't just that Patristic sources ignore Heb 8:4, they avoid arguments emphasizing Jesus as the high priest because - I think - the preferred emphasis was that he was the Christ and moreover there was still a strong heretical interest in him as Melchizedek (cf. the so-called 'Melchizedekians' and others). Moreover this exegetical tradition undoubtedly went back to Jewish apocalyptic literature and thus wasn't easily dismissed (it exposed the hollowness of the Catholic definition of 'Jewishness' when a plurality of 'Judaisms' existed in former times). It was also clearly heretical and traceable back to the apostle which further complicated matters.

stephan huller

Has everyone seen Chrysostom's interpretation of the material in his Homily on Hebrews:

Vorkosigan

Whoa Stephen. That's excellent.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

We already know that you believe your interpretation or understanding of Hebrews 8.4 is the right one.

We already know that your position is that not one verse in Hebrews claimed Jesus was on earth.

The problem is that even your own peers disagree with you.

You need to show us the corroborative sources of antiquity that support your understanding of Hebrews 8.4.

Who in the Canon stated that the Jesus in Hebrews never was on earth??

Which Apologetic or Non-Apologetic source identified a Celestial Only Jesus in Hebrews??

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Son of God made of a woman so it cannot be Paul.

It is not Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, Aristides, Clement of Alexander, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Arnobius, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Melito, and Chrysostom.

Bernard thinks he right.

Scholars think he is right and you are wrong.

There are corroborative sources in the Canon that Jesus was on earth.

Since you already know in advance that most or very many Scholars already reject your intrepretation of Hebrews 8.4 and you have no corroborative sources then you have already lost the challenge before it even began.

stephan huller

I learned a long time ago that the Church Fathers can be your friends. What makes the argument even more powerful is the fact that they are witnessing the natural sense of the Greek. Theodoret is the only other interpretation and it is forced. He takes it that Jesus was on the earth and human.

aa5874

All Church Fathers argued that Jesus, the Son of God was on earth, or God Incarnate.

stephan huller

I don't think Clement of Alexandria did originally. Much of the material that has survived has been reworked over and over again especially the Instructor.

aa5874

What original writings do we have of Clement of Alexander?? Who in antiquity claimed Clement of Alexandria did NOT originally argue that Jesus was on earth??

Examine the Stromata attributed to Clement of Alexandria.


All the Church Fatheres argued that Jesus was on earth, baptized by John and was crucified. The Church Fathers not only argued Jesus was on earth, they gave times for his birth, his baptism at age 30 and Identified that he was buried by Joseph of Aritmathea as found in the Gospels.