Ted Hoffman

This post is a brief examination of Layman's article, Earl Doherty's use of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

General comment

By far, this is Layman's worst article in his Contra Doherty corpus. It is poorly written and is riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors from the first line and is almost incoherent in some sections - even where Layman can be thought to be making a good argument.
He still uses falsified and hyperbolic statements like "...radically late dating of the Gospels and Act" [sic], contradicts himself and sidetracks often.

I will examine it section by section and will attempt to focus on the main arguments. I will structure this post in the same manner Layman structures his article for easy comparison.

The Worldview of the Author of Hebrews

A On Plato Philo and Judaism

Layman "agrees that there was Platonic influence on the author of Hebrews" but states that Doherty overestimates it. Then Layman says that Doherty "tends to ignore and explain away many references in Hebrews which affirm other, Jewish influences which stress the linear thought of Jewish eschatology and Jewish messianic expectations".
Then Layman, without touching Doherty's arguments even slightly, quotes N. T. Wright, Graham Hughes and Luke T. Johnson, who state their observations concerning the manner that Platonism is "reworked" in Hebrews, the way it is "spun" etc. Layman goes further to explain that "The author of Hebrews recounts example after example from the Old Testament to demonstrate the power of faith. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Noah, Enoch, and Rahab are all historical examples of God's intervention in earthly affairs. Moreover, he places them in a horizontal, eschatological framework".

This is a claim Layman never demonstrates. In any case, is a "horizontal, eschatological framework" a worldview (in the sense of cosmogony)?
Layman attempts to equivocate and hopes the user doesnt notice the shift in argument. He equivocates cosmogonical order (vertical) with historical order (horizontal). This is fallacious as the latter is not a worldview and thus cant be equated as a "spin" on the platonic framework.

Layman goes on to explain the distinction between an allegorical approach and symbolical/typological one. This section is done well and he brings out the meanings of the two terms very clearly. Then he proceeds to compare Philo and the author of Hebrews. Except, Layman chooses to sell what other authors have written on Philo and doesn't mention Doherty's arguments concerning Philo who Doherty mentions in pages 78, 81, 89, 134, 137, 203, 204. Layman's tactic of parading the opinions of scholars while at the same time muzzling Doherty's take on the same, is simply a smokescreen and what he attempts to achieve is hoodwink readers so that they don't see what Doherty states on the matter. He instead advertises what other scholars state.
He has, at this stage, aborted his mission, which is to criticize Doherty's work. He is indulging his readers with irrelevant material.

His conclusion comes as no suprise: "In summary, although the view that the author of Hebrews writes from a strongly Platonic perspective used to hold much sway in the academic community, more thorough and recent scholarship has rightly rejected this notion. There are simply too many important differences."

It does not matter that scholarship has rejected "this notion" and have different ideas. What matters is whether Doherty's arguments are false or right. Because Layman doesn't confront them, we may never know from his article. Layman's use of the word, "recent", while fallacious (appeal to novelty), is not supported in his article.
Having "simply too many important differences" does not explain to us whether or not "the author of Hebrews writes from a strongly Platonic perspective". Thats a red herring and doesn't address the arguments advanced by Doherty.

In addition, has "simply too many important differences" to what - Philo? So if there are "simply too many important similarities" between Philo's writings and Hebrews, then we can say that "the author of Hebrews writes from a strongly Platonic perspective"?

Is that Layman's argument?

B. The Essenes and the Author of Hebrews

Layman begins : "Another potential influence on Hebrews that Doherty ignores is that of Essene thought" He continues "Both there and here, we find a New Covenant community, separation from cult with appropriation of its symbols, the expectation of a priestly as well as kingly messiah, even an interest in the figure of Melchizedek." Johnson, op. cit. page 420).

Doherty doesn't ignore the Essene thought. Doherty expounds on the Essene thought when he explains the riotous diversity from which Christianity evolved. He explores the Essene thought when he examines the Odes of Solomon and "the Son" that the Qumran Essenes, through the Dead Sea Scrolls (p. 133) held as a source of wisdom and salvation. Melchizedek is handled by Doherty (p. 62) and how the author of Hebrews compares him to Jesus.

Thus Layman's claim that Doherty "ignores" Essene thought is erroneous.

Layman concludes this section as follows "These similarities shows that Doherty has ignored or downplayed a promising source of ideas for Hebrews. Why? Apparently so he can cram all of Hebrews' main ideas into his Platonic box. "

Thus we see his objective: to impute motive to his false claims on Doherty's omissions while not addressiong Doherty's arguments.

The Human Jesus

B. A Flesh and Blood Messiah

Layman quotes Hebrews 2:14-18: "Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted."

Then he concludes: "On the surface, the reference to Jesus and his "flesh and blood" would seem clearly to be a reference to Jesus as a human being."

This is false in view of Doherty's sublunar incarnation theory. Since Layman quotes Carrier, I shall do the same. Carrier states:

"...his theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times, he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement).

The actual phrase used, kata sarka, is indeed odd if it is supposed to emphasize an earthly sojourn. The preposition kata with the accusative literally means "down" or "down to" and implies motion, usually over or through its object, hence it literally reads "down through flesh" or "down to flesh" or even "towards flesh." It very frequently, by extension, means "at" or "in the region of," and this is how Doherty reads it. It only takes on the sense "in accordance with" in reference to fitness or conformity (via using kata as "down to" a purpose rather than a place), and thus can also mean "by flesh," "for flesh," "concerning flesh," or "in conformity with flesh." I have only seen it mean "according to" when followed by a cited author (e.g. "according to Euripedes," i.e. "down through, or in the region of Euripedes"), so it is unconventional to translate it as most Bibles do (a point against the usual reading and in favor of Doherty's). Even the "usual reading" is barely intelligible in the orthodox sense, especially since on that theory we should expect en sarki instead. The word kata can also have a comparative meaning, "corresponding with, after the fashion of," in other words "like flesh." In short, all of the common meanings of kata with the accusative support Doherty's reading: Jesus descended to and took on the likeness of flesh. It does not entail that he walked the earth. It could allow that, but many other strange details noted by Doherty are used to argue otherwise. At any rate, he makes a pretty good case for his reading, based on far more than this.

It came to my mind as I went along that Doherty's thesis resembles what we know of ancient Sumerian worship of Ishtar, better known in the Bible as Astarte, Ashtoreth, or Ashera, which had evolved by Jesus' day into the goddess Cybele. Though the texts are over a thousand years prior to the dawn of Christianity, the tradition remained in some form throughout the Ancient Near East, and extant then or not it remains relevant as a "proof of concept." In Sumerian tablets, we learn that the goddess Inanna descended from Heaven, past earth, down into Hell, crossing seven gates there (Samuel Kramer, History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Man's Recorded History, rev. ed., 1981: cf. p. 162). Eventually she is killed by a demon in Hell: "The sick woman was turned into a corpse. The corpse was hung from a nail. After three days and three nights had passed," her vizier petitions the gods in heaven to resurrect her. Her Father gives her the "food of life" and the "water of life" and resurrects her, then she ascends back to heaven, sending another God (her lover) to die in her place: "the shepherd Dumuzi" (aka Tammuz, a forerunner of Attis). Doherty argues that Christianity began with a story like this: where all the action takes place in realms beyond earth. Ishtar still had flesh and could be killed, even crucified, and resurrected, then ascend back to heaven, but she was never "on earth." There is a lot more to Doherty's theory than that, of course. I offer this analogy only to show that such an understanding of a dying and rising God actually was, and thus could be held by ancient peoples who were among the ideological ancestors of the Christians.

A contemporary analogy is Plutarch's "higher" reading of the Isis-Osiris myth (On Isis and Osiris, composed between the 80's and 100's, the very same time as the Gospels), where he says, using the vocabulary of mystery religion, that the secret truth held by priests is that Osiris is not really under the earth, but is:

Far removed from the earth, uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter that is subject to destruction and death...[where] he becomes the leader and king [of the souls of the dead and where] Isis pursues and is enamored and consorts with Beauty, filling our earth here with all things fair and good that partake of generation (382e-383a). ... For that part of the world which undergoes reproduction and destruction is contained underneath the orb of the moon, and all things in that are subjected to motion and to change (376d).

It is there, in the "outermost areas" (the "outermost part of matter"), that evil has particular dominion, and where Osiris is continually dismembered and reassembled (375a-b). As Plutarch puts it, "the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but Typhon oftentimes dismembers his body and causes it to disappear, and Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again" since his body is perishable and thus "driven hither from the upper reaches" (373a-b). In effect, Osiris is "incarnated" in the sublunar heaven and actually dies and resurrects there, later ascending beyond to the imperishable heavens (see also my essay " Osiris and Pagan Resurrection Myths: Assessing the Till-McFall Exchange "). Plato, says Plutarch, "calls this class of beings an interpretive and ministering class, midway between gods and men, in that they convey thither the prayers and petitions of men" (361c) and Isis and Osiris were such, but were later exalted into the heavens as full gods (361e). There are many resemblances here with Doherty's reconstructed Pauline Christology, and it is such schemes as this that prove his theory fits the ancient milieu well."

Layman cites Carrier as follows: "Richard Carrier, while discussing Doherty's similar attempts to explain away references to Jesus being "born of a woman" or "descended from David" takes notice of Doherty's failure to provide any examples of such usage" then Layman proceeds to cite Carriers criticism of Doherty's handling of Gal. 4:4.

Its wrong for Layman to import criticisms on Doherty's take on Galatians while he (Layman) is discussing Doherty's take on Hebrews. It basically means that Layman can find no criticism of Doherty's handling of Hebrews and thats why he cites criticisms on Doherty's handling of Galatians. This is a classic case of poisoning the well: a shoddy approach to argumentation.

Members of the jury, please ignore any criticisms directed at Galatians as we are handling Hebrews. Counselor, please stick to evidence thats relevant to Hebrews. and don't waste this court's time.

C. A Little Lower than the Angels

Layman's disagreement with Doherty that the phrase "a little lower than the angels" in (Hebrews 2:5-8) means "a lower celestial realm" is inconsistent with Layman's own admission that "there was Platonic influence on the author of Hebrews".

Carrier explains the sublunar incarnation theory above very clearly. There is nothing more to add to an explanation so clear.
OTOH, Layman could also help readers understand exactly how "there was Platonic influence on the author of Hebrews"?

D. Descended from Judah

Here, Layman attacks a strawman by stating "Nothing about the term prodelon implies that Jesus being descended from Judah is known only from scripture" since Doherty doesn't argue that prodelon means "Jesus being descended from Judah is known only from scripture"
Secondly, Layman disagrees with Doherty over the contextual meaning of the word prodelon. Layman cannot read Greek. And where he can, he is not competent to deal with exegesis of Greek texts. Doherty is the very opposite of that. Layman cites no Greek scholar to support his interpretation. Thus he has no basis for his disagreement and is not competent to argue over semantics with a private scholar who deals with ancient Greek texts "directly" (Carrier says Doherty "...deals with ancient texts directly and competently"). Carrier, an expert in ancient history and Greek, often credits Doherty for having a better interpretation of certain Greek words than biblical commentators. Often. Kata sarka being one of them. This points to Doherty's competence.

It follows that if the author of Hebrews got the story of Jesus from scriptures, he did not get it from a historical source, thus the story is not historical even if the author wants it to be historical. The source determines the historicity of a story: not the storytellers sentiments regarding the story.

Layman's argument, that "Even if it is true that the author of Hebrews got many of his ideas from the OT, nothing about that fact suggests that the author did not believe it to be historically true" is a red herring because it addresses the belief of the author of Hebrews not the source of his 'gospel' - which is what is at issue.

Layman includes a quote from G.A. Wells who talks of Doherty's stance on other issues not directly related to "descended from Judah", but who also talks of what other people believed. One cannot argue against the fact that if there was a historical Jesus, there would have been no need to resort to the OT for a story about his life and teachings.

E. The Garden of Gethsemene?

This section regards Hebrews 5:7-8, which is similar to the "flesh and blood" section above in some respects.

Layman asks "Do we have examples of divine beings going into the "lower celestial regions" and praying to God in the upper celestial regions? As discussed, above--and noted by Carrier--Doherty offers us no evidence that this kind of language was used, especially by Jews, to describe God's action in a "lower" celestial region."

Clearly, he is ignorant, or pretends to be ignorant, or expects his readers to be ignorant of Carrier's explanations as I have quoted him above. I refer Layman to it to answer his question and also to correct him regarding Carrier's take on the matter.

F. The Incarnation

This regards Hebrews 1:6: "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world...."

Layman states : "Although the term "firstbegotten" need not imply a physical birth, the reference to bringing Jesus "into the world" is a clear reference to the incarnation. Doherty no doubt would argue that this need not mean that Jesus came "into the world," but into a "lower celestial realm."

Doherty "would argue"? What is this - a prophecy?

Anyway, this does not need further attention because by Layman's own admission, "the term "firstbegotten" need not imply a physical birth"

G. Taking on Humanity

This regards Hebrews 4:15: "For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin."

Layman states "Doherty does not spend any time on this scripture, but it is similar to the statement that Jesus became "in all things" like a human being. The idea that Jesus had to become human to save humans is strongly reinforced by this passage."

I refer readers to the section titled "A Flesh and Blood Messiah" above and Doherty's handling of Hebrews 13:11-14.

H. Jesus Executed Outside the Gate

This regards Hebrews 13:11-14 "For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come."

Layman states : "The thrust of Doherty's argument is that Hebrew's reference to Jesus' suffering "outside the gate" is not based on any historical tradition, but is entirely created from the author's imagining of Hebrew scripture. However, as the discussion below demonstrates, the author is not creating accounts from scripture, but attempting to make existing historical traditions fit, often in a rather forced way, existing Hebrew scripture."

He cites Doherty thus: "The first thing to note is that the name of Jerusalem is not used. Only the Gospel story would lead us to identify the author's thought about a gate with that city. Nor does the name of Calvary or Golgotha ever appear. "

To which Layman responds: "The idea that the lack of a references to "Jerusalem," "Calvary" and/or "Golgotha" has any relevance to the issue of whether the author of Hebrews is referring to earthly events or historical tradition is demonstrably false. Example after example of later Christian writings which even Doherty admits refer to an earthly Jesus discuss Jesus' death, crucifixion, or passion without ever mentioning "Jerusalem," Calvary" and/or "Golgotha." I will discuss some notable examples:"

Then Layman cites some second century documents mostly from the Ignatian corpus, The Octavius of Minucius Felix (160 - 250 CE), A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion (73 - 200 CE), The Epistle of Barnabas (80 - 120 CE).

Specifically:
Layman writes:

Doherty clearly mentions that Ignatius mentions Pontius Pilate and Mary the mother of Jesus. The idea that each writer MUST " reference to Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary" is a strawman on Laymans part. Mention of historical places and clear refecences to historical people suffice as evidence that a writer is referring to a historical person.

Polycarp was a friend of Ignatius. Whats remarkable about his beliefs of an earthly Jesus is that they are not drawn from an apostolic tradition or any written Gospel. Its likely he was drawing his beliefs about Jesus from the oral traditions that were circulating at the time.

Its unlikely that Minucius 'bought' the stories of a flesh and blood of Jesus were circulating at the time given the tirade he levelled at those speculating thate Jesus was a man and his cynical attitute towards the idea of worshipping a dead man.

Barnabas does not draw his story of Jesus from any apostolic tradition or from the Gospels. He draws from Isaiah 50 and 53, and Psalms 22 and 119.

Now, what we see above are apologists who believed in a fleshly Jesus but who never relied on an apostolic tradition or on the Gospels as we know them. This fits comfortably in the Jesus myth Hypothesis.

Then Layman concludes: "Obviously, therefore, the fact that the author of Hebrews mentions Jesus' crucifixion without specifically mentioning Jerusalem, Golgotha, and/or Calvary, does not tend to show that the author was ignorant of such traditions. It only shows that the author did not see fit to include them in the particular letter before us."

I will ignore Layman's remarkable ability to read the minds of dead authors and his ability to explain why they omit certain information from their works.
My question to Layman is, when was Hebrews written? and when he quotes the predominantly second century documents, Is he aware that the second piece of the Jesus Puzzle states that : "There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the Second Century"?

Does Layman understand how the above apologists fit in the wider context of the Jesus myth argument?

"Outside the gate", and "outside the city" is an argument Doherty has handled very well. I wouldn't want to dilute it. The readers will have to decide whether Layman's arguments qualify as a rebuttal. Whats important is that Layman seems to misunderstand what an analogy is, what an "exact analogy" is and what "the same thing" means.
In any event, the scholars Layman cites state that, going by Layman's preferred interpretation, find "historical tradition being "forced" to fit into the sacrificial system of Leviticus 16", "parallel seems inexact, since the animals of the sin offering were actually slaughtered within the camp." F.F. Bruce.
By Layman's own admission, "It's not a perfect fit by any means". But Doherty's parallel dovetails perfectly.

There is nothing more to add.


Conclusion

I think Layman wrote the article in a hurry. If he is putting up an article on a website, basic standards like grammar and spelling, at the very least, should be observed. If I were Doherty, and I read such a poorly-written article, I wouldn't respond to it either because the writing is not focused and doesn't address the arguments he (Doherty) has spent decades building. Instead, it refers to anemic, old school arguments made by scholars who presume the existence of a HJ and who bring in their knowledge of the Gospel Jesus into their interpretation of texts: people who basically need reschooling first before they can look at texts without blinders.

Layman doesn't understand the thrust of Doherty's wider argument and wastes time by quoting authors Doherty disagrees with. What this achieves is show that other people hold a different view without offering the readers an adequate explanation as to why and whether Doherty's arguments are false. It renders a number of Layman's arguments "ad infinitum" arguments. Layman cites Carrier selectively, even when his citation is irrelevant. This further shows Layman is not disciplined in his efforts to criticize Doherty and is ready to stoop low, so long as he can move ahead and throw an objection.

PS:

I may not be able to examine Layman's other articles in the next five weeks. My Lecturers are back from their 2 months strike over pay (lowest paid lecturers in Africa - ponder the implications of that) and I have to go and read Markov Analysis and Bayes Theorem. I will have exams in a few weeks time.

But I shall respond at least twice to this thread.

Layman

You cannot change the fact that Doherty latches on to every radical theory to support his radically late dating of Acts and the Gospels. Most notably his reliance on the refuted ideas of John Knox and Vernon K. Robbins to eliminate Acts as a source of history about the early Church.

Since Doherty barely makes any such arguments here, there was not much to touch. Like I said, Doherty tries to cram everything into his Platonic framework without discussing the other options.

Actually, yes I do. You mistake your ability to ignore my arguments with the existence of those arguments.

What are you talking about? The Jewish view of history moving towards God's grand moment is not a world view? Of course it is. How is that inconsistent with also believing that there exists a heavenly realm of God and other spiritual beings and their activities?

Nice spin. But still not a defense of defending Doherty's cramming everything in sight into a Platonic framework.

More baseless characterizations. Do you care to explain why Doherty concludes there is no typology? Why the references to a Priestly Messiah are not a product of Essene influence? Or the references to Melch? Just what are Doherty's arguments for ignoring these?

Doherty's only real attempt to link Hebrews to Platonic thought is by his comparison to Philo, who is the most prominent Jewish writer who incorporated Platonic into his Jewish worldview.

The author of Hebrews writes in terms not of a static universe of perfect and imperfect/perfect forms, but in Jewish terms of before and after as God moves history towards his own purposes. He develops this idea by using Jewish typology to compare Jesus to the prophets of old. To inspire the modern church in its faith by those who have gone before.

Also, you use your usual disdain for scholarly opinion as an excuse to ignore the arguments of those scholars. I do not provide string cites, but quote full arguments from the scholars you are so dismissive of.

In short, you have refuted nothing and failed to defend (or even explain) any portion of Doherty's argument.

Spare me the red herrings. You will look in vain for any mention of the Essenes in Doherty's online article on Hebrews. As for his book, your references are completely irrelevant. Doherty does not mention the Epistle to the Hebrews on page 133 and does not mention the Essenes on page 62. In fact, you have completely failed to give me any reference indicating Doherty spared a second in considering Essenic influence on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Especially regarding the parallels I address in my article.

So what have you shown here? Only your ability to find yet another baseless excuse to ignore yet another argument harmful to Doherty's theory.

Several of the elements in Hebrews Doherty insists indicate Platonic thought can more easily be attributed to Jewish ideas related to the Essenes. This is most true of the idea of the Messiah as High Priest. As far as I have learned, no other Jewish group expected a Priestly Messiah, much less insisted that the priestly attributes of the Messiah were more important than the Davidic/Kingly attributes. Furthermore, the mutual interest and portrayal of Melch. is remarkably similar. Why is this important?

Because the Essenes were not Middle Platonists. They expected the Priestly Messiah to come to earth and live as a human being. Just as the author of Hebrews spoke of Jesus as a Priestly Messiah who came to earth and lived as a human being.

Because though they thought of Melch. as spiritual figure, they also believed he had come to earth and lived as a human being. Just as the author of Hebrews spoke of Jesus as a spiritual figure who came to earth and lived as a human being.

No, Doherty spends no time addressing these correlations. That he mentions the Essenes 100 pages later in his book is irrelevant.

Since we have no reason to attribute sublunar incarnation theory to the author of Hebrews, this counter argument fails.

Furthermore, Doherty and you simply ignore the fact that we know what "flesh and blood" means. It does not mean a sublunar realm. It is a Jewish idiom for a human being:

Doherty is being very inventive here, but he ignores the well-established meaning of having "flesh" or "flesh and blood." "The phrase flesh and blood is a common expression for human nature. The rabbis use it chiefly where the corruptible nature of man is compared with the eternity and omnipotence of God, but the usage is older than the rabbinic literature and the idea of mortality and creature lines seems to be bound up with it from the outset." Wilson, op. cit. page 60). His decision to ignore the established meaning of the terms for his "lower celestial realm" argument is also unpersuasive because he fails to provide relevant examples. In other words, where is the evidence that people during the first century, especially Jews, spoke of purely spiritual beings who had never been to earth as having such attributes as "flesh and blood"?

So contra Doherty, Carrier, and you, the phrase "flesh and blood" is an idiom that stresses true humanity. Neither Doherty, Carrier, or you can provide a single example of the use of this phrase in any fashion even remotely approximating Doherty's construction of it.

If you have any such examples, please provide them. Truly.

Jacob. Carrier is talking about Paul's use of "according to the flesh," not the Jewish idiom "flesh and blood." Do you think it is fair to attack me for noting that Carrier takes Doherty to task for failing to offer relevant examples to back up his theory while you cite Carrier's discussion of the phrase "according to the flesh" used by Paul? There is nothing bizarre about the idiom "flesh and blood." It means human being.

In any event, I have utterly refuted Doherty's rendering of "according to the flesh," Carrier's examples notwithstanding. I did so by examining how Paul uses the same phrase elsewhere in his writings, something Carrier simply ignores.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm

And you completely ignored yet another argument against Doherty's rendering of this passage that is quite powerful:

Perhaps I should have spelled the passage out. Right after saying that Jesus became flesh and blood like us, he notes that "[f]or assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham." Heb. 2:16. Here, the author of Hebrews clarifies that Jesus was NOT a spirit like the angels, but a human being like other human beings. The author of Hebrews is explicitly denying Doherty's spin on this verse.

Once again you find excuses to avoid my argument, rather than respond to it.

The evidence is clear that Doherty's attempt to interpret "lower" as a level of heaven below the angels unfounded. The evidence is clearly otherwise. Hebrews refers to the LXX Psalm 8:5-7 here. That Psalm does not use "a little lower than the angels" to mean a level of heaven, but to mean a man. The "Son of Man" to be precise. I find it hard to believe that in all those commentaries that he obviously read, that Doherty missed this use of scripture. It is inconsistent with his fanciful interpretation. The author of Hebrews is declaring that Jesus became a human being, not that he visited a particular sub-heavenly realm.

You also ignored this:

Actually, Doherty and Carrier's approachs to kata saka are seriously flawed. Their failure to examine Paul's other uses of the phrase is inexplicable. If this is a sampling of their expertise then I lack confidence. Though I do not doubt that Carrier knows plenty more about Greek than I do, he did not show it in this analysis. Nor am I sure he could be called an "expert."

But I did not disagree with Doherty's translation of this word. I adopted it ("clear, manifest"). Thayer's Lexicon describes it as "openly evident, known to all, manifest." Joseph Thayer, Thayer's Greek English Lexicon, page 538. I paraphrased by noting that this is similar to saying "everybody knows." The point is simply that there is nothing about the term being used that suggests Doherty's mythical reading of it.

True, if you assume that the author of Hebrews got the story of Jesus from scripture, he did not get it from a historical source. Which means if you assume you are right you will conclude you were right.

Actually, the belief of the author is a core part of Doherty's theory. He does not just say the author of Hebrews was mistaken about their being a historical Jesus, he cites Hebrews as evidence that the early Christians -- the author included -- believed only in a spiritual Jesus. If the author of Hebrews believed in a historical Jesus, but added details about him from the OT, Doherty's theory is refuted--though some other Jesus Myther will no doubt carry on in some other argument.

Wells is making the point I mentioned above. And as I understand Wells, he's retreated from the idea that there was NO Jesus figure behind the traditions. In any event, Wells point is that even if the author of Hebrews got many or most of his ideas about Jesus from the OT, this does not mean that he believed Jesus was a spiritual entity. This is inconsistent with Doherty's theory.

You also ignored this argument:

And as I indicated above, Carrier's explanation of kata sakra is untenable. And once again, that is not the phrase that is used here. Hebrews does not say "according to the flesh" but "in the days of his flesh." He then goes on to describe an event that sounds very much like something that happened on earth. Neither you, nor Doherty, nor Carrier have provided any examples of such language being used to describe a purely spiritual being in a lower heavenly realm.

What are his options? Of course he would do so.

You missed the point. I focused not on that term--I agree it's insufficient--but on the phrase saying that Jesus was brought "into the world." Firstbegotten is just another title for Jesus, the action here is on where Jesus was brought. As I argued:

So do I. And my responses.

You missed the point. I am refuting Doherty's argument that the author of Hebrew's failure to mention Jerusalem, Golgotha or Calvary indicates that he did not write about a historical Jesus. Hence his argument that: "The first thing to note is that the name of Jerusalem is not used. Only the Gospel story would lead us to identify the author's thought about a gate with that city. Nor does the name of Calvary or Golgotha ever appear."

By pointing to later Christian writers who Doherty agrees did believe in a historical Jesus also wrote about Jesus' Passion without mentioning the same specifics that are "missing" from Hebrews, I refuted this notion. It is irrelevant whether they got their traditions from an apostolic one or not, all that matters for the purpose of this argument is that they show how easily Christians could write about the Passion, believe in a historical Jesus, but not always mention Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Once again you come up with excuses to avoid the arguments you cannot respond to directly.

Perhaps you missed the "Next Page" icon? There is much more on the other side of it. Here is a direct link:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price2.htm