Clivedurdle

Should this not for academic purposes detail who has argued what and when and how the arguments have changed? Might these be hyper - linked to?

Is not your argument that the Christ of Hebrews is a platonic one - is that the same as cosmic or vertical - the argument was more that the wizard of oz is real and we are in the shadowland, seeing as through a glass darkly?

I am not sure that there is much to argue against that! What needs to be done is to marshal coherently who has said what about that and what your conclusions are. Has anyone summarised approaches to Hebrews already? Why did the platonic view go out of favour? Was that to do with apologists?

Would a platonic Christ be more acceptable to academia than a mythical one? Surely the resistance to myth cannot be about the words used?

Are we looking at a perfect platonic "real" Christ being duplicated into an "unreal" (from a platonic perspective) historical one, adding a bit of death and resurrection as abracadabra to create a new heaven and earth where we no longer see as in a glass darkly?

A very impressive intellectual solution to their issues of the reality of everyone living in a cave but glimpsing the reality of the light outside, themes repeated in the initiation rites of Mithraism, in churches facing East and many ideas like bright and morning star and Paul going up to the third heaven.

The apocalyptic and new heaven and earth stuff all make sense then.

So why has the platonic view fallen out of favour?

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually all I did was to ask you to admit (1) that you had misrepresented what I said and (2) that the claim that you based upon it -- that I had not done my homework and cracked open part one of your article was wrong.

I did not ask you to tell me what the cause of your misreprepresenting what I said was, espcially since at that point you had not admitted that you had misrepresented me.

But I suppose the fact that you say you "misremembered" what I said is such an admission (albeit a round about one). But what about the claim you made -- with, apparently, great relish and delight - on the basis of what you now say you "misremembered"? Is it or is it not wrong?


Do you mean to say that when you are intent to show how wrong and untrustworthy someone is, it is your genreal policy not to check your "facts"?

Maybe it's not, but in the present scheme of things you indicated that impeaching my character through pointing out that I had purportedly not done my homework was important. Otherwise, why raise the issue at all, why end a pararagraph with it, and why take the time to note all of the the "evidence" that I supposedly ignored?

Come on, Earl -- methinks thou dost protest too much.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

So far as I can see, no one said that your article couldn't or shouldn't be sent to Attridge and/or Ellingworth (or to the other two Hebrews scholars whose addresses I gave you) as is or that it had to be "polished up" in any way, let alone according to JBL house style, before you do so. And if they did, they are wrong. So since "nothing hinders", the "I don't have time to recast things" demural is not only inapplicable here, it's inexplicable that you are making it, especially given your stated confidence that the article is eminently understandable (even a layman can do so) and "contains standards of content that would be acceptable to scholarship".


Do you want "academia" to respond to your work? Will you send your article to Attridge et al. or not? If not, why not, especially if, as you say, it is up to snuff in terms of intelligibility and, in content, satisfies the canons of scholarship?

Jeffrey

youngalexander

While perusing this thread (the latest in an ongoing series), I was reminded of a comment made recently in the ‘HJ & marriage status’ thread.
Would that it were so!

I was reminded of this comment while reading the december issue of Scientific America which contains a fiftieth aniversary ‘History of Physics’ article: The many Worlds of Hugh Everett. The saga is interesting in its own right, but also perhaps for the light that it may shed upon the subject of this thread.

Briefly, from the Key Concepts bar:
Why is this of relevance?
Firstly because of that word – interpretation. As may be seen from the link, there are numerous ‘interpretations’ of quantum mechanics, despite half a century of solid success in ‘exegesis’ of the evidence. Many worlds is now quite respectable, underpinning quantum computation and being the subject of a conference at Oxford earlier this year.

Secondly because Everett took on the physics establishment in promulgating his thesis. The Copenhagen School invented the subject matter and as a consequence virtually owned the copyright on its meaning. Arguing against their ‘interpretation’ was tantamount to disputing the Christology of the Apostles. Everett was no wilting flower. Responding to criticisms by Bryce S. DeWitt the editor of Reviews of Modern Physics he replied

”The Copenhagen interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of it’s a priori reliance on classical physics … as well as a philosophic monstrosity …”

Thirdly because Everett did submit his thesis to the Academy for peer review, and he did so in the required format. In short, he played the game according to their rules, because they are the only rules in town.

Forth because in doing so he had to compromise by removing 75% of his original thesis in order to have even the bare bones of the idea accepted as scientific. For example DeWitt had stated that

”the real world does not branch.”

Everett even changed the thesis title.

Fifth because times and scholarly fashions change in the light of further evidence and analysis. Within 13 years decoherence theory (crediting Everett’s work) had been published and DeWitt had become a supporter, publishing the unabridged thesis in 1973.

A true story of aberrant scientific theory makes good! So what?

Perhaps we may take some pointers from this tale:
1. Bucking the Acadamy is never going to be easy, no matter what the discipline. Nevertheless, there really is no alternative but to bite the bullet.

2. Disagreable as it may seem (particularly timewise), a piecemeal approach to the presentation of material is far more likely to be successful than an all out assault. GDon has pointed this out on several occasions.

3. Times change. Outside the USA the developed nations are predominantly secular in outlook. It has become obvious that the HJ position is upheld mainly by old tradition rather than evidence. Altho such things die hard, and may not necessarily be replaced by a MJ, who knows how much the climate may change in the future.

In short Earl, submit and be damned!

Antipope Innocent II

That should read "It has become obvious to me that the HJ position is upheld mainly by old tradition rather than evidence."

I think everyone is agreed that Earl should submit his work to the academic process and see what happens. If the MJ/"non-historical Jesus" ideas are as solid as their supporters here maintain then it's time they stopped lurking in the (conveniently safe) shadows of self-publishing and cosy online cliques and stood on their own two feet in the rough and tumble of peer reviewed analysis.

The timid reluctance of their proponents to do this is very odd, considering how strident and confident they are outside of that arena. Anyone would think they like those safe shadows ... :huh:

GakuseiDon

Some thoughts on Earl's article:
I'm not sure why Earl sees this as an anomaly. The author refers to Moses's sprinkling of blood on the Book of the Covenant as sealing the covenant. This was done on earth, so why can't Christ's sprinkling of blood be done on earth as well? In fact, the author goes on to state that it is Christ's blemish-free sacrifice sprinkling of blood, as well as his death, that was enough to seal the covenant, in Hebrews 9:

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

So I'm not sure why Earl finds "anomalies" there.

Here Earl makes his usual point: we shouldn't read Gospel accounts into the early epistles, but OTOH he is happy to determine what Gospel accounts ought to be found in those early epistles. Yet if we let the text speak for itself, we see what appear to be references to a historical Jesus without any need to refer to Gospel accounts. As Chris Price writes in his article on Earl's use of Hebrews: http://www.bede.org.uk/price3.htm:

Hebrews contains many references to a historical, earthly Jesus. According to Hebrews, Jesus 1) came "into the world," 2) "took part" "in all things" human in "flesh and blood" form, 3) was of the "the seed of Abraham," 4) was born of "the tribe of Judah," 5) "cried out to God" during "his days on earth," 6) was "crucified" at a geographical location "outside the gates" of a city, 7) suffered and died as a result of his crucifixion, 8) was resurrected from the dead, and 9) ascended into heaven.

These arguably relate to a historical person, even in the absence of Gospel accounts. Could they relate to activities being carried out in a "fleshly sublunar realm" above the earth? (Earl calls it "the lowest celestial sphere (below the moon, where ‘corruptibility’ began)" in his article) It's possible I suppose, but there is NOTHING to support the idea, so I can't see why we should assume this. If we don't read either Gospel accounts OR "fleshly sublunar realm" accounts into the epistle, I suggest Occam's razor would favour the idea that these actions took place on earth.

I think it was Zeichman who stated that one of the problems with Earl's claims is that he gives himself the benefit of doubt far too often. This is one of those situations. Does the idea that Christ can carry his blood into a heavenly sancutary mean that it is reasonable to assume that he can shed blood on a heavenly cross? I don't see anything beyond the bare assertion to support the idea. The simplest reading of the text supports that a blemish-free sacrifice on earth purifies objects in heaven. Earl's suggestion -- that the blood was shed on "a heavenly cross" and then taken to heaven -- is not supported anywhere AFAICS. There is simply no reason to bring in this unsupported idea.

I would like to see Earl expand on this point, since "flesh" referring to non-human flesh seems to refer to angels appearing on earth, e.g. to Lot. But when taken with "tribe of Judah", "seed of Abraham", etc, I just can't see Earl's reading as the more obvious one. Again, he appears to be giving himself the benefit of doubt here.

A point Earl doesn't seem to address:

Hebrews 12

1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself

Who were the "sinners"? Earl doesn't address this AFAICS. Demons? But why not call them demons?

On Christ "entering heaven":

Hebrews 9:

24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Christ has entered "into heaven itself". Where was he before? In a lower celestial heaven, in the "days of his flesh"? Earl can't support the idea that this was anywhere but on earth, AFAICS.

And who is "eagerly waiting for Him to appear a second time"? The demons in the lower celestial heaven? I suggest the people on earth is a better fit for the passage.

Finally, on the temptation passages:

Hebrews 5

7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered."

Hebrews 2

18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4

14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

On this point, Earl writes:
Again, Earl responds with what the author should have written about. Whether Earl's response is valid or not, I'll leave to others to decide. But for me, the author talking about how Jesus "in the days of his flesh" suffered temptation "as we are", in conjunction with the other points that appear to give him an earthly origin, suggests a more earthly Jesus than a "sublunar fleshly" one.

Most of the rest of Earl's article deals with what he thinks the author SHOULD have said if he believed that Jesus was a historical figure, and commenting on points raised by Christopher Price here.

Jeffrey Gibson

And the question is not only how Earl knows both that and how a Hellenistic author should/would have expressed himself differently than he does if it had been his intent to assert what Earl says he does not assert (a belief in an HJ), but what evidence from the rules of Greek grammar and syntax and from contemporary usage there is that proves his (Earl's) point, and why Earl does not appeal to that evidence to do so.

Is it legitimate, given that Koine Greek is not English, to use the rules of English grammar -- and/or to appeal to how a modern North American English speaker would/should have said or phrased something had he/she a particular intent -- to determine what is and is not being said by someone who is using a language that is not only not bound by those rules, but who works from different ones altogether?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

I have read so far only part 1 (I know, I'm a much slower reader than some here), but I thought I'd throw in my two bits anyway. I agree with all that an attempt to somehow get this into "academia" would be a good thing. But the whole article seems, to my amateur eye, to cut too broad a swath to make that feasible (and I say the without in any way addressing the validity of the content).

Would it be a good idea to start a step-by step approach? E.g. an article with a title like "The origins of the Christ Concept in Hebrews," which would (try to) show that all ideas about Christ in Hebrews do indeed come from scripture? In part this would be easy, since the epistle often justifies its ideas by giving LXX quotes. Passages like 5:7-10 are more problematic, but going by Earl's article not impossible to overcome.

Article two then could be "The Christ Concept in Hebrews in not Necessarily Earthly," which could try to show that there is nothing in Hebrews that compels (as opposed to leaves open the possibility) the view that reference is made to an earthly Jesus. If the first article were successful, this second article could build on it in the sense that it would have been shown that the epistle does not build on any transmissions from recent history. Possibly this article could also include argumentation as to why a "spiritual" Christ is a more likely hypothesis in the world of the epistle.

Both articles would emphatically leave out any arguments from silence, since they are (hopefully) not necessary to make these points. This, BTW, is one thing that I noticed: the repeated assertions in the article about how the author does not say something we would expect him to say seem to intrude on the argument. I'm not saying these assertions are without value in the greater scheme of things, I just wonder if the main points could not be made without them. In other words, completely ignore the gospels and any thoughts derived from it, just focus on the epistle. Would that work?

Gerard Stafleu

EarlDoherty

Maybe if I were writing a two-volume work in which an essential aspect were to present a history of scholarship on Hebrews. Neither is the case.

But that is reading something into the text, because the writer does not present a duplication into an historical Christ. There is no sacrifice on Calvary in an historical setting, despite scholarly attempts to create one.

Because turning things into Jewish historical linearity avoids the risk of losing an historical Christ and having to admit that the presentation of Christ's sacrifice is entirely in heavenly terms.

I've already said as much. Just that I will not be doing it this week. And apparently, we are trying to sort out just what form various people are suggesting (or demanding) that it should take.

This is Don putting his spin on what he would like to think is all that my article says, so that he can dismiss it. Of course, his claim is nonsense. I will deal briefly with some of the points he has raised here later today.

Earl Doherty

Clivedurdle

Sorry that is me being unclear - is Hebrews presenting a perfect heavenly real platonic Christ who then later via the gospels and tradition becomes an "unreal" human one?

Is Hebrews the earliest xian document?