Toto

Roo: as Doherty pointed out, Ellingsworth bases his preferred translation on "context" - any other meaning would imply that Jesus was not on earth and we can't have that, can we?

This is looking more and more like an obsession on your part.

aa5874

Toto, you are the one who seems obsessed with Doherty. It is illogical to prefer an "out of context" translation.

We can't have "out of context" translations!!! We can't!!!!

The story of Jesus was a product of "out of context" translations.

Isaiah 7.14 is a perfect example.

Now, Hebrews 8.4. We had enough.

Duvduv

Hebrews sure has mixed metaphors in it. On the one hand the Christ is the heavenly priest who performs the rituals of purification, while on the other hand he is the person who sacrificed himself to redeem others, and to save those who are around when he returns to earth (Hebrews 9:28).

And yet the power of his "blood" as even compared to an animal sacrifice provides no evidence of where the blood of sacrifice appeared? Was it from the crown of thorns? The nails? What constitutes that sacrificial blood comparable to that of the sacrificial animal by the priests in the Temple??

If mere death is the redemption act then "blood" is merely a metaphor. But then the comparison to the actual blood of an animal sacrifice makes no sense.

For that matter, where does the author of Matthew 26:28 find out that his blood was "shed" for remission of sins? Was blood gushing down from his throat? Or where does GJohn 1:29 or Ephesians 1:7 get the metaphor on this?

I won't worry about 1 John 7 since the conjunction of "and" in that verse of the epistle shows it was interpolated to the idea preceding it.

EarlDoherty

I am interrupting my sabbatical from FRDB because someone informed me that Roo had posted Ellingworth’s comments in answer to his e-mail. They certainly merit some observations.

Let’s take his first statement:

But that is precisely what a “statement capable of two or more interpretations” is: it is “itself ambiguous”. Ellingworth’s statement is contradictory. What I am sure he meant, however, is that other considerations, such as context, may render it unambiguous. And that is precisely what I argued. I acknowledged the grammatical ambiguity of the contrafactual statement itself, but argued that once past the grammar per se, other deductive considerations rendered it indeed unambiguous.

Of course, my unambiguity goes against the unambiguity that Ellingworth has claimed. And on what basis did he make his claim? It lies within the quote I made from his book. For one thing, he says: “it could also be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never 'been on earth.'” IOW, preconception that Jesus was an historical figure determined his own choice of unambiguity. And we can see from his limited response to Roo’s query, he made no attempt to argue against, let alone rebut, any of my own argumentation that the unambiguity must lie in quite a different direction. One can presume that he at least read though the 9 pages from my book which Roo submitted to him. Clearly, nothing jumped out at him that could be criticized or rebutted and he chose to ignore it.

Now let’s take his Epworth Commentary quote apart:

And in what way do those ministries differ? First, Christ’s ministry is spoken of as taking place entirely in heaven. Both elements of that ministry took and take place in heaven: first, the sacrifice of his blood, in parallel with the earthly priests’ sacrifices of animal blood, took place in the heavenly sanctuary; no reference to him having performed his duty as a priest in connection with his suffering and death is ever made, let alone placing it on earth in the same venue as the earthly priests’ activities. Second, his intercessory duties are only taken up following his sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary; no reference is made to any intercessory duties while he was on earth, and no room has been made for them. And the idea that he could in any way be thought of as taking up either category of duties if he were now on earth, in that present sense which everyone is trying to impose on the verse, is non-sensical.

Christ’s sacrifice also differs in that it needed to be made only once, whereas the earthly priests’ intercession with God has been ongoing. It never needs be made again, it never CAN be made again. No thought, even in theory, needs to be put forward that he cannot make it again. And as far as intercessory duties are concerned, they have taken place only SINCE Christ’s heavenly sacrifice, so that no thought, even in theory can be put forward that he could perform intercessory duties at the present time on earth.

This statement is fraught with confusion. Ellingworth has mixed past and present situations, past and present tenses, which contravenes any valid contrafactual statement. He offers an “if” part in the present, “if he were on earth (which now he is not),” and thinks to contrast that with a “would” part in the past, “Jesus could [lit., would] not have been a priest during his earthly life.” (What editor let this go by?) It would be like saying, “If I were in Florida right now, I could not have visited Disneyworld last summer because it was undergoing reservations.” Such a statement is gibberish.

Moreover, the only relevant reason why he could not have been a priest during his past earthly life is because his priesthood did not begin until he undertook the two activities which have been assigned to his priesthood: the sacrifice of the blood in the heavenly sanctuary after his death and resurrection, and the intercessory duties he subsequently undertook in heaven with God. Any statement regarding him being a priest “now” on earth, is utterly irrelevant and a non-sequitur.

There is also confusion in what Ellingworth is saying in regard to the contrast between the “if” part of the contrafactual and verse 6. The latter is a general statement about Jesus’s and the new covenant’s overall superiority to the priestly activities and old covenant on earth. How can the thought of “if he were now on earth” relate to this overall superiority, let alone for the reason that there are already priests on earth? The contrast in verse 4 does not relate to the question of superiority, but of location. No priest on earth because there are/were already priests here. If there is an implication (reading on into verse 5) that the earthly sacrifices are inferior because they take place in an earthly sanctuary which is only a copy of the heavenly, that makes it even more unlikely that the writer have any concept of Jesus performing his sacrifice (as on Calvary) and being a priest on earth. It only makes limited sense in the past when he DID perform his sacrifice (in heaven), as a way of stressing (I called it a trivial point) that the respective priesthoods occupied different territories which did not overlap, a point he has been focussing on in various places, as in 8:2 and 8:5, and fits his overall Platonic conceptions.

“Because he belonged to the wrong tribe” makes little or no sense. No statement is ever made in Hebrews that a human Jesus was of the wrong tribe because he belonged to the tribe of Judah. That’s reading the Gospels into the epistle. In fact, the writer declares in a positive fashion that “it is clear that our Lord is sprung from Judah” (7:14). Nothing “wrong” in that, in fact it’s an advantage because in the writer’s mind a new covenant requires that its instigator belong to a different tribe than that of the old. But where does the writer point out that it’s a good thing Jesus was born on earth as a descendant of David and is thus of the tribe of Judah to begin with? No mention of David in connection with his Jesus is ever made. In fact, he goes on (7:16) to declare that Jesus’ legitimacy is not dependent on a law of physical ancestry! Instead, as I have argued, the basis for the “it is clear” is scripture. More “reading into” on Ellingworth’s part.

Ellingworth also suggests that one reason why he could not have been a priest during his earthly life is because “there are no vacancies in the earthly priesthood.” What would lead the writer to have such a bizarre thought, let alone express it? What purpose would it serve? Jesus and his work stand in contrast and opposition to that of the earthly priests. There is no question of him joining their ranks.

Two things are clear. Roo did not post Ellingworth’s comments until pressured to do so because they offered nothing which could rebut my claims regarding 8:4. The second is that deficiencies in logical thinking and the presentation of arguments can be found throughout the world of biblical scholarship, both at the professional and amateur level. Not a single dissenter to my “9-page argument” regarding the only possible way 8:4 can be understood has presented anything but the most ineffectual and easily countered objections, if indeed any attempt even gets made. I can only conclude that this field as a whole suffers from wholesale failures of critical thinking, due in great measure to preconception, biased and vested interests, and ingrained hostility (for a variety of reasons) toward the very concept of Jesus mythicism. Several here on FRDB have certainly demonstrated that deficiency. You know who you are.

And dogmatism has nothing to do with it. This thread should be an eye-opener for many, especially now that we've had this input from a professional scholar. Of course, nothing blinds one’s eyes like obsession, whether against an idea or against the messenger of an idea.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

All we are getting from you is that you are right and every one who disagrees with you are wrong.

You must have realized that such dis-agreement is always inherent when opponents argue.

You have failed to present the corroborative sources of antiquity that clearly claimed Jesus was crucified in the heavens.

Please name your sources of antiquity that clearly state that Jesus was never on earth and was crucified in some heavenly place.

1................................

2...............................

3.................................

Sheshbazzar

Should always keep in mind we are dealing with a STORY, and whether the STORY setting is in heaven, or is on earth,
the only place Jesus was ever crucified was only within the STORY books, minds, and imaginations of men.

aa5874

The story of Jesus in the Canon is that Jesus was Baptized by John, did miracles, Walked on the Sea of Galilee, Transfigured on a mountain, Crucified AFTER a trial with the Sanhedrin when Caiaphas was high Priest and under Pilate.

In the Canon the Setting is the EARTH whether or not the story is fiction.

The Setting for Romulus is ROME even though the story is fiction.

What is the setting for Hebrews?? Which century??

Whether Jesus was on earth or heaven Epistle Hebrews was NOT composed in the 1st century and do NOT represent the early Jesus cult.

James The Least

All of whom your supposedly "learned scholars" studiously ignore.

You strangely neglected to mention that aspect.

TedM

Ok, I'm back from my self-ban. After this post I'll go back on it.

Earl, thank you for engaging in this discussion on 8:4. You have been quite patient and dealt with most of the issues. I personally feel like my last response on this was my most coherent--making a strong case against your smoking gun viewpoint for a past tense meaning. For those interested, it is here:www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7399416#post #7399416

I was pretty surprised at how you were treated on this thread, which clearly was created to discuss your conclusions about the verse based on interpretation. They got hung up on what they saw as extreme use of the phrase 'smoking gun'. I think several on this thread went way overboard in ganging up on you by amplifying minor points to ridiculous degrees. Roo was different. He doesn't trust you apparently, and his comments reflect that. He says some interesting things, and is clearly no dummy, but does seem to get overly personal at time. Of course, that's to be expected if he is convinced you are dishonest... I don't see it though. I just think your are highly 'committed'.

Jake, your last post to me on another thread indicated you think I'm anti-Jewish since you said something to the effect of "if Jews were too stupid to not see the Messianic parallels". My point though was that they were NOT too stupid to not see them. Some saw and believed, most saw but still didn't believe. I wasn't judging their belief or non belief -- that was irrelevant to my point. I"m not anti-Jew at all. I gave a post that was sincere on that thread. I think the Jews have an amazing history, and that the Christian viewpoint is quite accepting of the Jews as special in their role in God's plan.

Spin, I'm sorry I didn't finish our discussion, but I think we were at an impasse. I saw the groundwork in the Dead Sea Scrolls for a Messiah similar to Jesus in the Gospels. Interestingly, Stephan posted an article by Tabor soon after that talked about the idea that Jesus himself may have taken on the roll of Messiah with influences from the Qumran group -- an idea I have thought is possible.

MaryHelena, I didn't mean to offend you by the idea of human sacrifice being seen as possibility for a Messiah/martyr by the Jews, nor the idea that some of the Jewish believers could have seen it as beautiful. I think sacrifice is a laudable practice when in the service of others, but I wasn't advocating human sacrifice. The whole discussion was with regard to the ability of Jewish culture to see a connection between Passover religious figure crucifixion and salvation sacrifice by a martyr - morphing into Messianic speculation.

Stephan, I found it amusing that you had such a problem with my using the term 'website-based business'. Perhaps you prefer the phrase "web-based business"? In any case I made great progress on it in the last month, and having worked now on and off for 4 years in preparation, it now has something like 70,000 lines of computer code and is near the big launch.

Ted