EarlDoherty

Stephan, why do you keep repeating this point and ignoring my simple counter to it: that the unmistakeable setting of the original Psalm is not necessarily carried over into what early Christians made of it? Scripture was adapted in all sorts of ways by early Christians to apply to their Christ, why not a conversion of the earthly understanding of the original Psalm relating to mankind or Adam to a heavenly understanding relating to their Christ? I just cannot see a problem here.

And certainly all those epistolary passages contain no description of the Christ under whose feet everything has been placed as an entity who is or was on earth. The victory and obeisance received is perfectly understandable in a heavenly setting. Sometimes it is even spelled out, as in the Philippians hymn where the Son (now to be named "Jesus"), receives the bended knee in heaven.

If the epistles nowhere place Jesus on earth but consistently speak of him as "revealed" and "through scripture" (even Romans 1:3!) and never give him an earthly identity, never associate him with the elements of the Gospel storyline (just saying that he was crucified, but with never a hint of time and place, hardly serves), then why do you think all of that is trumped by the original meaning of the Psalm whose understanding had to have been carried over into the early Christian use of it?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Again, your claim is wholly erroneous. Jesus was God's son MADE of a WOMAN in Galatians 4.4.

A woman is an earthly being.

The Pauline letters are completely compatible with the Jesus story where Jesus was the Son of God--born of a Holy Ghost and a Woman.

Apologetic sources of the Jesus cult that used the Pauline writings ALSO claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate AFTER the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius after a trial with the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and was delievered to Pilate when Caiaphas was high Priest.

And you continue to read things into the Pauline letters. There is NO actual statement in the Pauline letters that they were composed in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

stephan huller

But this is what I take issue with. I have just cited 'what early Christians made of it.' That was the purpose of making explicit reference to the use of Psalm 8 in the writings of the New Testament and the early commentary on it (Polycarp as well as Tertullian). The evidence suggests (to your point) a supernatural angelic Jesus - 'Adam' - who (now against your point) appeared on earth. I am not disagreeing with EVERYTHING you are saying. I am meeting you halfway. Yes, to supernatural Jesus, no to your claims about an appearance exclusively in heaven.

Surely this is 'tolerable' dissent.

The point here is that we do have evidence from 'early Christianity.' You choose to ignore it (or aren't sufficiently aware of it). You have on occasion criticized or at least indicated that I may 'go too far' in my reconstruction of the Marcionite canon and its belief. That's fair enough. I accept that some - perhaps many - of my ideas go beyond what other people who have studied the Marcionites have concluded about the sect. But you have to do the same thing to be fair. In other words, the evidence from Hebrews suggests (yes) to a supernatural Jesus, but also (yes) to his being on the earth in his final triumph over the angels.

You can certainly reconstruct a different understanding of what 'early Christians' did with Psalm 8 but it is necessarily a weaker argument as it has no support from what exists about 'the early Christians did with it.' It is entirely theoretical and actually contradicts the existing evidence.

stephan huller

Vork

But this is a perfect example of the reactionary nature of your thought (and I might add Doherty's too). I think there is this unconscious idea that the Catholic canon 'is' the original and so too our inherited (Protestant) presumptions about Jesus being a man. But to the earliest Christians Jesus was God. This is a non-existent distinction.

That is true. But this again is near-sighted. In antiquity the Catholics were not warring against the Protestant notion of Jesus the man. This opinion was only voiced by Jewish and pagan detractors of the religion. Everyone assumed that Jesus was a God. The only question was whether he flew down to earth from heaven directly or by means of a woman's womb.

The point about the gospel not being present in the Pauline epistles only has revelance to the question of Marcionitism. For the Marcionites certainly did hold that the apostle wrote both the gospel and the Apostolikon. One necessarily was a commentary on the other. Now the Catholics certainly added things to the simplicity of the original Marcionite testament. This should be clear from the expansion of other texts (the Ignatius corpus).

To this end, the lack of gospel references in the Pauline letters is best explained by the process of de-Marcionitizing the Apostolikon. To this end, the principal Marcionite belief (beyond 'the other god' belief) is that of Paul being the only apostle ('the apostle' being a term used to describe Moses in early Pentateuch commentary).

In order to allow for a 'college' of apostles and many different points being tolerated by Christianity, the stranglehold of the Marcionite apostle had to be broken. To this end, the fundamental paradigm of one man writing every core 'thing' in Christianity was overturned. Hence, the Apostolikon is no longer a commentary on the gospel because the gospel in turn reinforced originally the understanding that Paul was the awaited Paraclete (a view reflected in numerous sources including the Marcionite testimonies, the Acts of Archelaus, Origen Homilies on Luke and the persistence of the original paradigm down to Mohammed in lands untouched by Catholic corruptions).

Yet even with this state of affairs, while Doherty's exercise or 'experiments' (all first steps to a new understanding of something should be so deemed) are certainly interesting they are in my opinion misinterpretations of the actual phenomena which is that the gospel and apostolikon were altered and developed into texts that don't 'talk to one another' (as they did for the Marcionites) because the original message of this testament were deemed subversive.

The echoes of this original 'talking together' is still found in Clement of Alexandria, the early writings of Origen and many other testimonies (even Irenaeus and other Church Fathers). The basic idea is again that Jesus is Adam 'ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν' but 1 Corinthians 15:45 puts it 'ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.' We were all made in Jesus's image but this Adam had to return to earth to make us in the image of the heavenly Father who was perfect. The story of the Son of Man, is necessarily that of a transformed humanity who was altered through Jesus's repentant handiwork.

This activity on earth necessarily assumes a gospel narrative (even it is no longer recognized). The existing Pauline material continues to reference this gospel material albeit in a 'centonized' form (i.e. the passages of the gospel and Apostolikon don't appear in their original order or context). But Secret Mark is the key to unraveling that order. For Adam basically established the first one made his Son by having him baptized into death and vivified according to the spirit as intimated in the recently discovered fragment.

sotto voce

Who testified that Jesus was God, as is totally clear. That is, the supernal 'Jesus' who not only spoke to Moses on the mountain, but who created both man and mountain, testified that the man called Jesus was indeed his own manifestation or 'Son'. So the dove and the voice at baptism, the transfiguration, the many miracles, the resurrection itself, not to mention perceived fulfilment of prophecy, were all witness to Jesus' divinity, because he in effect claimed to be divine. A person who claims to be divine and who gets such comprehensive supernatural support may reasonably be supposed to be neither deluded nor mischievous, but to be telling the truth. There are no grey areas available.

Or even gray ones.

It's not, for those who have accepted expert advice and actually read the gospels.

Astonishing drivel.

'In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son [personal manifestation]... This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and [supernatural] gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, [is] now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death... Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity. Surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants... For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way... he himself suffered when he was tempted. During the days of Jesus' life on earth....'

Heb 1:1-2, 2:3-4, 2:9, 2:14, 2:16-17, 2:18, 5:7 NIV

The phrase 'in these last days' signified in Greek a step change from the previous dispensation of promise and prophecy, and is emphatically not repetition of the OT.

sotto voce

True.

There is not a shred of evidence for that in the Bible. On the contrary, had Jesus 'flown down', just appeared as from nowhere, he would never have been accepted by Jews, whose particular role was to check their books, to ensure that the Messiah was actually descended from Judah and David. That role was largely the reason for Israel being established in the first place, to provide provenance. He was just 'the town carpenter' as far as his very ordinary neighbours were concerned, not superman to the president.

And Hebrews gives us another reason, which was that Jesus could not skip the hard bits, but had to be tempted in every way as we are. So he was born in the normal, mucky way; though not at home, and he spent his early years in a foreign, pagan country. His father evidently died early, so he suffered bereavement; his father possibly died because he realised that his wife hated his first-born. Jesus had an unsettled start, that probably did not greatly improve; in the way that we often suffer. He had no advantages. If he did, he did not make atonement.

ApostateAbe

You have a complex argument, but maybe I can make sense of it. Please let me know if I have understood the argument wrongly.

1) Hebrews 2:3 refers to the message of basic elements that were "was received first" from "the Lord."
2) This may seem to seem to refer to the earthly Christ.
3) But, Hebrews 5:12 refers to the basic elements as the "oracles of God."
4) If Hebrews 2:3 is understood to refer to a message from an earthly Christ, then it would contradict Hebrews 5:12.
5) If Hebrews 2:3 is understood to refer to a message directly from God, then it does not contradict Hebrews 5:12.
6) A non-contradicting translation is more probable.
7) Therefore, it is more probable that Hebrews 2:3 refers to a message directly from God.

My rebuttal is that the Christology central to the epistle means there is no contradiction given the interpretation in question as alleged, but instead full consistency with the main theme. The epistle modeled Christ as a prophet, or a conduit for God's messages to mankind. See, for example, the introductory passage of Hebrews 1:1-2.

1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.

Given this Christology, there is no contradiction between a translation of Hebrews 2:3 referring to a message of basic elements from an earthly Christ and Hebrews 5:12 referring to the the basic elements as "oracles of God."

Also, the "oracles" in 5:12 is best understood as it is normally understood: divine information coming via an earthly communicator. The approximately-same Greek phrase, "oracles of God," is used in 1 Peter 4:11, translated as "words of God" in the NRSV.

Whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God; whoever serves must do so with the strength that God supplies, so that God may be glorified in all things through Jesus Christ. To him belong the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen.

Your translation of Hebrews 5:12 would, therefore, be out of step with 1 Peter 4:11, where "oracles of God" comes from a human conduit.

I know there is plenty more to talk about, but it is boring and tiring, so I would like us to focus on this particular point, unless you have an objection, and I would like to leave the other points behind us.

stephan huller

The assumption of course is that Jesus is the God that made Adam. But as we all know, Philo assumed that there were two Adams. The relationship between cosmic Adam and earthly Adam is unclear in many respects but I still think that there is an underlying notion of even Jesus's imperfection in the Gospel of Mark's consistent portrait of Jesus's anger and his being prone to emotions.

The problem I have with placing Jesus in 'space' or 'in the heavens above' is that 'being brought near' to God is just such a fundamental concept in early Christianity. That's why having God (= Jesus) on earth is necessary. 'Following God' = 'being in his likeness.' 'Being brought near' (= 'those who are near') is also fundamental to the mysticism of Ephesians chapter 2. If we are to become God by being 'brought near' to him, how can that be consistent with a god in the third heavens or any heaven? Makes no sense.

BTW the iconic image seems to explain the nakedness intimation in Secret Mark:

Doesn't that seem 'Adamic' now in retrospect?

This is the ultimate context don't you think of Psalm 8 and hence the passage in Hebrews and the entire Pauline writings? I should look if there are literary parallels as well.

sotto voce

We all know where to file Philo, true.

Where most posts here go, eh?

EarlDoherty

Any dissent which is based on reasonable argument is "tolerable." I have not called your arguments "intolerable." They are fair, but I also have the right to consider them weak or not operating in the way that you claim. That's what debate is all about, each side seeking to persuade the other that their own arguments are more accurate and more persuasive.

I dispute that there is evidence from early Christianity (i.e., before the Gospels or their dissemination) that indicates that applying Psalm 8 to the early Christ (notably Paul's) was done in terms of seeing him as a man on earth. You have not given me any such evidence. It all involves reading such a thing into the text. You have presented a couple of things which could "sound" like it entails a human man, but I in turn can show you that these can enjoy the opposite interpretation, once one considers factors such as that "blood and flesh" can exist in spiritual counterparts in the heavenly world (my books provide proof of that), that Christ is consistently spoken of in the epistles as one who took on the "likeness" of men and never that he became an actual incarnated man on earth. By the way, once the Gospels come along with their clear picture of a supposed historical man, the "likeness" motif completely disappears, and is never heard of again.

Digression: How is it that a whole range of uncoordinated writings across the entire early Christian world happened to adopt this awkward language of likeness and revelation, etc., and never once uses more direct ways of saying that he was on earth or lived a human life? Why does even Hebrews 5:7's "in the days of his flesh" use such an awkward phrase and moreover tells us that the things he did in those days are passages from scripture, and are applied solely to things relating to his suffering and death? Why does 1 Peter 2:22 seek to give us examples of Christ's undeserved suffering and yet can only paraphrase verses from Isaiah 53? Why does no quoting of scripture as a picture of Christ ever present these things as prophecies of corresponding events on earth? Why does every christological hymn devote nothing to any identity of the Son on earth and the life he did there, anything fromt he storyline of the Gospels--other than the bare fact of being crucified? How can we explain such a bizarre situation which never changes throughout the entire documentary record of the first century outside what Gospel(s) may have been written toward its end?

So I'm sorry, Stephan, but this situation far out-trumps any understanding in traditional Jewish thought about the meaning of Psalm 8, or any other passage in the Jewish bible.

Perhaps you can spell out (i.e., quote) what that evidence is, and what exactly it is evidence of.

Earl Doherty