jakejonesiv

These are good observations which bear repeating. In addition, I cannot find a single commentary which references to the section of Hebrews containing Hebrews 8:4 before the middle of the 5th century. That would suggest that no controversial interpretation of it was known at any time in antiquity, and thus fails the first test of a smoking gun. Earl certainly understands an argument from silenece, and finds two hundred of them in the Pauline Epistles. Then why does he neglect this one? Perhaps he developed his smoking gun before he was even aware of the silence, and after he found out, it was to late to reconsider. Earl?

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

EarlDoherty

Valentinian association with Hebrews is only a matter of attestation. There are no clear grounds to extend this to composition. Hebrews does NOT reflect Valentinian ideas (just as the Pauline epistles do not reflect Marcionite ideas). Irenaeus is the first clear attestation to Acts that we have. Does that make Irenaeus the writer of Acts???

And the argument for dating Hebrews before the Jewish War has been put forward, and no one has rebutted it in its particulars. Nor is it inconceivable, considering the sparse state of the early Christian record and the uncoordinated nature of the entire movement, that a document like Hebrews could have lain in one community's library for decades before migrating into the outside world, or being discovered by some outside collector.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Again, I am forced to repeat myself. I have made it clear more than once that we should not find it unusual that no Christian commentator would have noticed anything particularly threatening about Hebrews 8:4. Every document in the NT was approached by later commentators (mid-2nd century on), with the preconception that it was speaking of an historical Jesus. All you have to do is consider the many passages in those later commentators interpreting passages in Paul, for example, which scholars today regard as mistaken, as a case of misinterpreting what Paul was saying. We need merely look at Minucius Felix's condemnation of believing in a crucified man as an object of worship and note that no one before the modern era even questioned what it was actually saying, and yet it is staring one right in the face (GDon's desperate counters notwithstanding).

There is absolutely no problem here, Jake. There was indeed no controversial interpretation of it in antiquity. And why so many people seem to think that every document written from day one by some "Christian" or other across half an empire should automatically have been known by every other Christian from day two onward is beyond me. There are documents by apologists in the 2nd century that show no attestation until the 4th. You and aa are indulging in pointless arguments that have no compelling merit.

The very fact that Hebrews presents a soteriology that no other document in the Christian record does simply shows the uncoordinated and uncentralized nature of the diverse movement we now call "Christianity", and makes it perfectly reasonable that products of some small groups could remain in isolation until the effort to amalgamate and harmonize the movement's various ideas in the latter 2nd century. And no doubt there were countless other documents that were written and stayed for a time in relative isolation and then died, never to be seen again. The epistle to the Hebrews just happened to be an exception to that fate.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

We are also forced to do the same because of your repetitive errors.

Again, I must expose your errors.

You very well know that Christian writers of the Jesus cult did NOT argue that Jesus was historical.

Christian writers of the Jesus cult argued Jesus existed as the Son of God and born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Please, Doherty in the HJ/MJ argument a figure of history is a human being NOT God Incarnate.

Christian writers of the Jesus cult support the argument that Jesus was a Myth--God Incarnate.


In "Against Celsus", Tertullian categorically denied Jesus had a human father.

In "Against Marcion" Tertullian categorically denied the Son of God was ONLY Spiritual.

If it was already known that Hebrews promoted a Celestial Only Jesus then we would NOT expect it to be Canonised.

The writings of Celsus and Marcion were NOT Canonised and the so-called Heretics were identified and ridiculed as agents of the devil and even the anti-Christ.

The writings of the Valentinians, those of Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Menander, Marcos, Basilides, Simon Magus, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, Saturninus, the Ebionites and many more were identified as Heretical and they Perverted the Scripture.

It is utterly erroneous that no-one in antiquity would have noticed the Perversion of Scripture in Hebrews when it was being Canonised and while Christians writers argued AGAINST Marcion's NO Flesh Jesus.

Doherty you are reading things into Hebrews that are NOT there. The Celestial Jesus was read into Hebrews directly from your own imagination.

stephan huller

I didn't say Valentinus wrote Hebrews. I simply said that the earliest witnesses to Hebrew are consistently Valentinian.

No but Acts was certainly developed from the anti-Marcionite tradition (Antiochene?) from which Theophilus and Irenaeus belonged.

stephan huller

There is no way to firmly date Hebrews as the Samaritans - and the Dositheans in particular - never stopped giving sacrificial offerings. The reference to a tabernacle rather than a temple is also significant. Again, I don't know who wrote Hebrews, no one does - and that will always prevent us from claiming any sort of 'absolute knowledge' about its contents.

stephan huller

But using my 'last place you see it probably = provenance' analogy its probably Valentinian or proto-Valentinian.

jakejonesiv

Thank you!
Not every other, but any other. Not day two, but a hundred years, or more if we are interested in Heb 8:4.

Perhaps, but it does not date the document.


Sure, anything is possible. Mary Helena suggested a date of before 50 CE. Why not that? Or maybe it was written by the mole people in 38 BCE and lay insidiously hidden in their underground tunnels until the latter 2nd century?
But rather, the first place you saw it, that is where you start looking for the origin. (Stephan says 'last place you see it probably = provenance' , but he really must mean 'first place you saw it'. Otherwise, I do not get the analogy).

Jake

stephan huller

When you are finding your keys it is the last place but it is the last place in that 'other time' - i.e. when you had you keys. The last place you had your keys instantly becomes 'the first time you didn't have them' even though you weren't immediately aware that you'd misplaced them. So perhaps I should have said 'the first time you lost them' or 'the beginning of perdition' (if we take the word strictly literally from the French perdre = to lose). But this is so unnatural. No one ever speaks of the 'beginning of losing something' even though strictly speaking it is quite accurate.

maryhelena

50 c.e.?

Why not? We have Hebrews, we have the 'crime'. Who did it? Motive? Opportunity? Ability?

Why not Philo?

Sometimes the obvious is just too simple. A mystery is far more exciting and also prevents one from ever having to get 'real'.