Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Doherty is just looking at the text as it stands, .... Hebrews sets out the conceptual framework of the heavenly Christ that was subsequently enfleshed in the Gospels.

....

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

... The epistle to the Hebrews is a document produced by a group or sect which shows no connection to anything else we know of (the content of the epistle alone will tell you that), and probably only migrated outside its own circle sometime around the middle of the 2nd century. ...
Earl Doherty

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Robert,

No sir, according to Earl Doherty, Hebrews does not set out the conceptual framework of the heavenly Christ that was subsequently enfleshed in the Gospels

What Earl cannot grasp is that this is for all practical purposes, no different from Hebrews being written in the middle of the second century.

So what does Earl's argument amount to? That an unknown sect of Christians produced the epistle to Hebrews in the 60's CE, but it remained in total isolation from contact with all other Christianity in "its own circle" until after the mid second century. And Earl apparently assumes (without ever even realizing the issue) that this unknown sect preserved the text of Hebrews some 80 to 100 years later with no changes from that was allegedly penned in the 60's CE!

Sorry, but that is not the most parsimonious answer.

Jake

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

1) The epistle itself, through internal analysis, leads to a dating prior to the Jewish War. This is not, for all purposes, the same as dating it in the middle of the 2nd century. (Apparently, Jake has not yet checked out my JNGNM Appendix on the subject.)

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

2) The fact that no one attests to it until after the middle of the 2nd century indicates that it stayed in isolation for a virtual century (although some say that 1 Clement shows a knowledge of it--I'm not sure that this is necessarily correct).

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

3) There is no necessity to regard any epistle as having undergone notable change between its writing and it later being swept up in the collection of diverse documents by the (probably) Roman church when it suffered an imposed understanding in common with other diverse documents. Only a couple of documents show clear indication of layering over time, such as 1 John. Perhaps a few others suffered the odd interpolation.
All of that is based on actual evidence, on literary and historical criticism. I see that as parsimonious.

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Hebrews sets out the conceptual framework of the heavenly Christ that was subsequently enfleshed in the Gospels.

The logic of mythic development goes from simple (heavenly Christ) to complex (Jesus of Nazareth).

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

Where did the crucified Jesus come from, if not from Q which had no crucifixion story? Simple. He came from scripture. Just where the epistles tell us it came from. Everything about the epistles' Jesus came from scripture,

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

I said that it could be possible to see the Gospel Jesus' dying and rising dimension as not having to be based on the Pauline celestial sacrifice, but as an allegory of the believer's own fate, but that I still believe that it is more likely the Pauline faith had an influence, and my books put forward that theory.

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

If this is your position, Earl, that the crucified gospel JC came from an interpretation of scripture (OT), then the gospel JC story stands apart from the Pauline epistles; regardless of what dating is ascribed to either the gospel JC story or the Pauline cosmic JC. Dating of manuscripts is irrelevant here.

In other words: the gospel crucified JC story cannot be interpreted through the Pauline epistles. One cannot view the gospel JC story via a Pauline lens. One cannot read ones interpretation of the Pauline epistles into the gospel story. So, Earl, two unrelated JC crucifixion stories. Two crucifixion JC stories that, as it were, stand on their own two feet. Independent from one another. One JC crucifixion story set in a historical time frame. The other JC crucifixion story set in a timeless context. Now, Earl, you can interpret the Pauline cosmic JC crucifixion any which way - but this any which way - has no relevance to the gospel JC crucifixion story. They are two separate stories.

gMark, as you wrote above, added the “death and rising dimension” to the Q Jesus imaginary founder figure. gMark goes further: “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many”. Thus, within gMark is a storyline that does not need any input from the Pauline epistles. The JC figure of gMark is a ‘salvation’ figure. i.e. your imaginary Q founder figure, an imaginary flesh and blood figure, is deemed to hold ‘salvation’ potential.

What then, Earl, would be achieved by this Q community were it to fuse with a Pauline cosmic JC community? It already has it’s heavenly, resurrected, ‘salvation’ figure. Paul has nothing to offer such a community. They have a straightforward life, death and rebirth/resurrection story. Why would such a community seek to negate the basis of it’s theological ideas and run with Paul’s cosmic crucified JC - as though the crucifixion sacrifice of their imaginary Q founder had no salvation value - and salvation value was only to be found in Paul’s cosmic crucified JC figure? Or was it, Earl, a case of being able to accommodate two JC crucified figures, one, according to your theory, the imaginary Q founder, and the other the crucified Pauline cosmic JC.

Logically, it’s the two crucifixion stories that held sway. In other words; an accommodation rather than a fusing of their two crucified JC figures would provide a forward movement for the two communities. That way would enable both communities to keep their respective ‘salvation’ figures. One salvation figure with relevance for flesh and blood in a historical context(albeit in your theory - imaginary flesh and blood). The other salvation figure with relevance for a timeless intellectual, or spiritual, context. A win win situation for both communities.

Bottom line in all of this: a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic crucified JC figure (a theory advanced by some mythicists) is not only illogical it is also unnecessary.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There are strong arguments for identifying a Samaritan origin for the Epistle to the Hebrews http://books.google.com/books?id=bMZ...aritan&f=false. This would cause us to re-calibrate any arguments for a proper date of the text.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Hebrews 6 is clear about what the foundations of Christianity are

'Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.'

The foundations of Christianity don't seem to include an earthly Jesus teaching these things.

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

1) The epistle itself, through internal analysis, leads to a dating prior to the Jewish War. This is not, for all purposes, the same as dating it in the middle of the 2nd century. (Apparently, Jake has not yet checked out my JNGNM Appendix on the subject.)

2) The fact that no one attests to it until after the middle of the 2nd century indicates that it stayed in isolation for a virtual century (although some say that 1 Clement shows a knowledge of it--I'm not sure that this is necessarily correct).

3) There is no necessity to regard any epistle as having undergone notable change between its writing and it later being swept up in the collection of diverse documents by the (probably) Roman church when it suffered an imposed understanding in common with other diverse documents. Only a couple of documents show clear indication of layering over time, such as 1 John. Perhaps a few others suffered the odd interpolation.

All of that is based on actual evidence, on literary and historical criticism. I see that as the essence of parsimoniousness.

Earl Doherty

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Hebrews sets out the conceptual framework of the heavenly Christ that was subsequently enfleshed in the Gospels.

The logic of mythic development goes from simple (heavenly Christ) to complex (Jesus of Nazareth).

Originally Posted by maryhelena

There is no logic in such a "mythic development" from a heavenly cosmic crucified Christ figure to a "complex (Jesus of Nazareth)". The 'complexity', in fact the outright confusion, is with that specific mythicist theory. That theory has no legs, it does not sell, it cannot, it will not sell. i.e. It hinders rather than advances the HJ/MJ debate - and hence the search for early christian origins.