EarlDoherty

And you just don't get it, aa, despite repeated statements on my part. I said that Hebrews 8:4 was grammatically ambiguous, but that it was not ambiguous on other grounds. You have not even addressed the arguments I make for my latter claim, let alone rebutted them.

If you were faced with two doors in front of you, and told that one led to Heaven and the other to Hell, but not which one was which, then you would be faced with an ambiguous choice. You would face the theoretical possibility of ending up in either destination. But if it were demonstrated to you that the architect of those entrances always associated right with good and left with bad, or if you placed your hand on the left door and found it was hot, would you still use eenie-meenie-minie-moe to make your decision? Would you still maintain that the left door was ambiguous about its destination, or could still be the best choice?

I have no doubt you won't grasp this analogy, let alone apply it.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

That is precisely why Hebrews 8.4 is NOT a smoking gun. It is grammatically ambiguous.

Any evidence classified as a smoking gun cannot be ambiguous in any way.

'Smoking gun'--A piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence.

Grog

aa--one can disagree with elements of a theory but still respect the work and the arguments that stand behind it. That is the scholarly way to approach these sort of differences. I have said many times that I agree with many of your points, but have not accepted it as proven that all Christian literature is from the second century or later (the Paulina, for example). I am willing to consider that position and have been ever since first reading through Detering's material on his website.

What I see here on all sides is a staunch dogmatism. That isn't how things are done. Stephen (not dogmatic) can disagree with Earl on elements of his theory and still maintain that he has the most thorough and researched position (I tend to agree, but with caveats..in particular the point argued in this post). A theory gives us the framework within which to work and study and organize what we believe we know is true. Earl's position forces us to push the envelope out even further, did early Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice occurred in the mythical past or in the lower heavens? It seems Carrier takes the latter position (he's found of using the term "outer space" to describe the location of the crucifixion).

We can all disagree on elements but we should be working to strengthening the theory, deepening our understanding of Christian origins. Earl has made invaluable contributions to the mythicist position. This is all going around in circles belaboring a point that can't decided. Earl sees something in Heb 8:4 that many of us just don't see. Maybe he's right, maybe not. Who knows? Perhaps there will be a paradigm shift and Earl's position will become more accepted. Or maybe he's just wrong. Nothing much new is being said here though. The positions are laid out, no one is going to "win."

aa5874

You fail to understand that people can also disagree with you.

Initially I thought Earl did a proper research but it has been brought to my attention that his claim that Hebrews 8.4 is a smoking gun is hopelessly flawed based on his own admittance that it is grammatically ambiguous.

Earl must have known that in advance. Why did Earl put out an absurd challenge??

This is completely unacceptable from one who claims to be a Scholar.

DCHindley

Andrew has not missed it, I can assure you.

Are you referring to Birger Pearson, who had taken a second look at the work of Moritz Friedlander, a Jewish scholar who had proposed in 1898 that Gnosticism was an offshoot of a Jewish heresy? Despite what some folks say, Friedlander proposed that this Jewish heresy developed on account of the disappointment and broken hopes in the aftermath of the Judean rebellian in 66-70 CE. Friedlander was "laughed to scorn" in his day as everyone knew that Gnosticism was an offshoot of Christianity.

However, after close analysis of the Gnostic works in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, Pearson felt that concepts found in them largely confirmed Friedlander's hypothesis. He too concluded that the Jewish rebellion of 66-70 had a lot to do with its development. Pearson suspects that there may have been a pre-Christian pagan divine redeemer myth which was modified by the Jewish dissidents who created Gnosticism from it.

Andrew posted some 6 articles to Carlson's Hypotyposeis website pointing to Neoplatonic like ideas in the NH works. If Gnosticism was even 1st centurey CE, we would expect ideas from Middle Platonism, which had no theurgical element to it. Neoplatonism developed in the 3rd-4th century as a Platonic alternative to revealed religions like Judaism and Christianity, and did practice special rites usually based on a book called The Chaldean Oracles. This also just happens to be the period we start hearing about Gnostic teachers, who clearly practiced magic like rites in preperation for their attempt to ascend through the material heavens to unify with the Pleroma (fullness) upon death or in a trance.

I am drastically oversimplifying Andrew's posts, so I'd refer you to this addess.

Personally, I am inclined toward Jewish Gnostic origins in the late 1st century CE and its integration into Christianity in the 2nd century, but to be honest I have not had the opportunity to look closely at his series of posts.

DCH

Grog

I don't.

He didn't state that the instance in Heb 8:4 is ambiguous. I think he is convinced that, in fact, his interpretation is the correct one, in fact, the only possible one. He's made an argument to that effect, but I don't see you engaging that argument.

EarlDoherty

What does it take to get a simple logical idea across to you? I give up.

Those here who are able to think logically will get it. That's all that matters.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

:banghead:

Let me make one more attempt.

The grammar of the verse, the contrafactual structure using the imperfect tense, is taken by itself ambiguous in meaning. Taken by itself, it could have a present sense or a past sense. But this does not mean that when other factors are taken into consideration (such as context, or the theories put forward in the document as a whole, etc.), that the ambiguity is not eliminated. Those other factors and the arguments surrounding them which I have presented, do, in my estimation, eliminate the ambiguity--not the grammatical ambiguity per se, but the meaning that can be selected from that grammatical ambiguity. On the basis of the deductive logic applied to those other factors, it is impossible to read a present sense into the verse, regardless of the options based on the grammar alone.

It is no good standing up and bleating about the grammar as though it is the be-all and the end-all, because it is not.

As I predicted, aa was not able to grasp my analogy. Let me try another one.

Little Billy's parentage is uncertain. Some claim he looks like Arthur, with his freckles and red hair. Others point out that he has Jonathan's prominent nose. From appearance alone, the identity of Billy's father is ambiguous.

Fortunately, we are not stuck there. We have DNA testing. DNA tests show that Billy is in fact Arthur's son. This does not change the ambiguity of his physical appearance. Rather, the ambiguity has been superseded and eliminated by the DNA testing.

Now, I am not claiming that my arguments surrounding the other factors are as ironclad as DNA testing. That's not the point. The point of the analogy is that the ambiguity of the verse's "appearance" is not the sole and final consideration and that the ambiguity may be resolved through other means. If we get a result from DNA testing to decide on paternity, the previous ambiguity based on appearance becomes MOOT! If there are arguments making it impossible to accept a present sense for 8:4, then the ambiguity of the grammar becomes IMMATERIAL! Surely, surely, aa, you can grasp this principle of logic.

The task then becomes to evaluate and--if necessary, or desired--to rebut and discredit those arguments. This no one has yet done, despite attempts by several people. Those attempts have been consistently demonstrated to be faulty. This is not dogmatism. If I have used deductive logic to arrive at a conclusion, I will hold to that until my logic has been shown to be flawed. Why would I, in deference to those who simply want to deny it, back off and say, I guess we can't know one way or the other, or I guess the present sense might be possible?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

What?? Don't you remember these posts are recorded?? Earl did claim, as he now admits, that Hebrews 8.4 is grammatically ambiguous.

Once Hebrews 8.4 is found to be ambiguous then it cannot be incontrovertible evidence--it cannot be a 'smoking gun'.

Effectively, Scholars cannot determine how or cannot agree how to interpret Hebrews 8.4.

Doherty already knew that Hebrews 8.4 was not a smoking gun before he made his challenge.

Doherty is going around in a vicious circle and is basically losing his credibility. He should just admit that Hebrews 8.4 does not help his argument and move on.

What is discovered is that Hebrews 8.4 is indisputably ambiguous.

Hebrews 8.4 is indisputably not a smoking gun.

EarlDoherty

Clearly, there is no hope. Have a nice life, aa.

Earl Doherty