Spanky

<edit>

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm not sure that what I take to be the intended force of this claim (i.e., that the JP's publishing record and the response that it's generated is proof that the work is good) has any weight in the light of the fact that as of May 2005 James Redfield's originally self published The Celestine Prophecy had sold over 20 million copies worldwide and had been translated into 34 languages and received god knows how many testimonials from grateful readers for the ideas it puts forward. Much the same could be said of the "works" of Josh MacDowell and Henry Morris.

Jeffrey

gstafleu

I don't see too much of a problem. Jesus in the above world took on aspects that humans have in the below world. He then performed his sacrifice above so that it would affect humans below. IOW, as his sacrifice above led to release/reconciliation with God, so our believe in it below will lead to the same release/reconciliation: as above, so below.

Gerard Stafleu

KrisK10

If the skeptical community can't hold together, there's not much hope for ever bridging the much larger gap between believer/non-believer, fundamentalist/secularist. Perhaps the skeptical community needs practice in acknowledging that other views are possible given the mounds of difficult and often ambiguous evidence.

Kris

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gurugeorge,

Good points. Where is the unambiguous reference to the gospel's Jesus in "Hebrews" or any of the letters for that matter?

I think Earl captures it perfectly when he writes in his article, "It is plain that the writer of Hebrews is oblivious to the entire world of orthodoxy's Christian origins."

Since you said that "they look like a bunch of fairy stories, almost like superhero comics about a Jewish spiritual Superman," I have a good analogy for the specific situation of the relationship of the gospels 'Jesus' to the NT 'Jesus' references in the letters.

A whole mythology has evolved in the past 40 years around Mary Jane Watson, the girlfriend/wife of Parker Parker in the Spiderman comic books. Although two other characters, Betty Brant and Gwen Stacy were Parker's earlier love interests in the original 1960's Amazing Spiderman comic books, the three movies have portrayed Mary Jane as his original lover/friend. Her name was mentioned first in Amazing Spiderman #15 (August, 1964), but she did not fully appear until Amazing Spiderman #42 (November, 1966).

Janis Joplin wrote the song "Mary Jane" in 1965, so we can be certain that she was not referring to Mary Jane Watson when she wrote the song. Here are the lyrics

[I]Now when I go to work, I work all day,
Always turns out the same.
When I bring home my hard-earned pay
I spend my money all on mary jane.
Mary jane, mary jane, lord, my mary jane.

Oh if a man should look tame now, mean and mature,
They all turn out the same.
cause they cant do nothing to make a man feel good
Like my old mary jane.
Mary jane, mary jane, lord, my mary jane.

Now I walk in the street now lookin for a friend
One that can lend me some change.
And he never questions my reason why,
cause he too loves mary jane.
Mary jane, mary jane, lord, my mary jane.

Well, I have known women that wanted no man,
Some that wanted to stay.
But I never knew what happened in this world
Till I met up with mary jane,
Mary jane, mary jane, lord my mary jane.

Oh, when Im feelin lonesome and Im feelin blue,
Theres only one way to change.
Now I walk down the street now lookin for a man,
One that knows my mary jane,
Mary jane, mary jane, lord my mary jane.

Now, let us say that the mythology of Mary Jane Watson
leads to a cult, which leads to a religion whose members believe that Mary Jane Watson was a real historical personage who lived in the 1960's in New York City. Might not the members of this cult point to the Janis Joplin song as proof that Mary Jane actually existed and that Janis Joplin met her and was wildly in love with her. The Mary Jane mythicists might point out that Mary Jane was a slang term for marijuana. The historicists would point to verse three:


Well, I have known women that wanted no man,
Some that wanted to stay.
But I never knew what happened in this world
Till I met up with mary jane,

They would say, "Is it not obvious that Janis is talking about 'women' in this verse. Mary Jane can only have been a woman. The phrase "met up with" is used universally to mean meeting up with a person. How can someone meet up with a plant?You mythicists are being inventive when you don't go by the plain meaning of the text."


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Amaleq13

I have "actually read" your article and that alleged correspondence is precisely the point I question.

Except the author appears to me to be describing Jesus as becoming the replacement (superior, of course) of the sacrifice "below" so that it would truly have an impact "above".

First, I condemned nothing. I questioned. Second, where your memory fails you, the archives do not. If you bother to search, you will find that I was one of your most adamant defenders when I first joined IIDB. In fact, you had personally convinced me to read your book prior to joining and I purchased it directly from you as my signed copy will attest. I didn't stop being skeptical or rational, though, so I have continued to evaluate the arguments and evidence to the point where I no longer consider your thesis to be convincing. This lame dodge that I don't understand your thesis is simply and demonstrably false.

I would disagree if it was not for the repeated and relentless sandbox squabbles that consistently disrupted and destroyed any hope for genuine discussion. You have certainly not been solely responsible but neither have you been entirely innocent. As far as I'm concerned, there is plenty of disappointment available to spread around regarding supposed "professionals".:banghead:

Neither of which is relevant to the fact that your statements violated the rules.

You underestimate the intelligence of our membership. They are, on the whole, generally bright enough to recognize a spade from the evidence alone and do not need to have their hands held.

Sour grapes like this are unlikely to increase your credibility among those who are actually familiar with the relevant evidence. It seems clear, however, that this is not your target audience.

Amaleq13

But that doesn't provide the sort of correspondence that "as above so below" is supposed to convey. A sacrifice above should correspond to a sacrifice below. What I see in Hebrews is Jesus being described as a superior replacement for the sacrifices "below". The execution of the heavenly Messiah doesn't just correspond to the sacrifice of an animal but replaces it.

James Madison

Well, thanks for the compliment. One of my job responsibilities is to examine texts and determine their meaning, specifically legal texts, whether it is a statute, U.S. Constitution, or state constitution. So I have been exposed to a wide range of methods for ascertaining the meaning of a text. Doherty's argument is really quite simple and no different of an argument than those espoused by lawyers when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, statutes, or state constitutions. While Doherty's argument is different in terms of "substance," he actually employs a method of interpretation many other lawyers have espoused when construing a legal text or constitutional provision.

Like with all texts, the central issue is what is being said? One of the best ways of determining what is being said in the text is to determine and focus upon the text itself. The rules of construction in the legal realm are equally applicable and useful in the academic world and when analyzing non-legal texts. If the text is ambiguous, then it becomes necessary, in seeking to understand what the text is saying, to focus upon extraneous evidence, such as how the author construed, interpreted, or understood his own text, specifically what he understood it to say or mean. The author had a particular point in mind and set out to articulate this point in his/her writings. The author of the book of Hebrews is no different. The task, then, is to ascertain what the author of the book of Hebrews was saying and Doherty sets out to accomplish this task, albeit with some rather flimsy evidence (I will develop this point later in this post).

So, Doherty sets out to argue the author of Hebrews was talking about a Cosmic Christ, a Christ who existed entirely in heaven, as opposed to on earth. Yet his analysis suffers from a fatal flaw. As I said previously, the first step in any textual analysis is to begin with the text itself. If the text itself does not contain any ambiguity, then there is no need to go any further in the analysis. There is no need to go beyond the text if the text itself is clear and unambiguous. Doherty, however, assumes for the sake of making his point, one cannot merely rely upon a plain text reading of some of the verses in Hebrews because the plain text reading is contrary to the actual point the author is making. In other words, Doherty does not at all make an argument why the plain text reading of some verses needs or should not be relied upon. Doherty merely assumes, out of thin air, the author of Hebrews cannot possibly be talking about what the plain text of those verses suggests but MUST BE in fact talking about something else, specifically the location of what the verse are talking about is in heaven or a sublunar realm.

Why is this important? Because someone reading Hebrews for the first time, without any exposure or understanding to the Gospels or Platonic philosophy, can reasonably arrive to an interpretation I will provide below. Now, Doherty can certainly insist this is an erroneous understanding of Hebrews and argue the proper way to read and understand Hebrews is not from a plain text reading but rather from reading into ALL of Hebrews the Platonic philosophy. Hence, he needs to make a compelling argument as to why a plain text reading of some of the verses is wrong.

What verses am I talking about? "In the days of his flesh), (S)He offered up both prayers and supplications with (T)loud crying and tears to the One (U)able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His (V)piety.

Hebrews 2:14 14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for[f]the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (NIV)

NASB reads: 14Therefore, since the children share in (AK)flesh and blood, (AL)He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that (AM)through death He might render powerless (AN)him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and might free those who through (AO)fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17Therefore, He had (AP)to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might (AQ)become a merciful and faithful (AR)high priest in (AS)things pertaining to God, to (AT)make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Chapter 8: 3For every (G)high priest is appointed (H)to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who (I)offer the gifts according to the Law;


Doherty asserts the location for Christ's existence in the flesh, death in the flesh, and sacrifice on the cross was in heaven or a sublunar realm, as opposed to having transpired on earth. Yet, the plain text of these verses does not support such a proposition. There is no reason at this point to abandon the common sense notion that human beings are born on earth, die on earth, and not any place else. The author, in these verses, has not provided us with anything to believe this transpired some place else other than earth. If this were a passage out of Shakespeare or some other text describing flesh, blood, human form, and dying in human form, we would immediately understand this to transpire on earth, since it is on earth where human beings exist and die after all, and not some other realm unless clearly indicated by the text. Consequently, this Jesus, being born in human form, being flesh and blood, was born on earth and died on earth.

Rather, Doherty is ignoring the plain text and imposing upon it a view not found anywhere in these verses. His justification for it is the fact subsequent chapters refer to Jesus as a High Priest in Heaven. Yet, once again, this ignores a plain text reading of Hebrews. One can read the entire book of Hebrews, and relying on the plain text of it, arrive to the interpretation Christ existed on earth in the flesh, died on earth in the flesh, somehow makes it to heaven after his death, and performs sacrifices as a High Priest.

Look at the verses I have submitted up above. He had (AP)to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might (AQ)become a merciful and faithful (AR)high priest in (AS)things pertaining to God, to (AT)make propitiation for the sins of the people......4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who (I)offer the gifts according to the Law


A plain text reading of these verses leads to the interpretation that he was first a man, in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh on earth so that he might BECOME a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God. He is a man first, in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh so he can BECOME a High Priest, and he so becomes this High Priest after first suffering and dying in the flesh on earth. This is supported by the verse that if he were on earth, he would not be a high priest at all. Ergo, a plain text reading of Hebrews would be Jesus existed on earth, not as a high priest, but as a human being, who suffered and died in the flesh, and this consequently, allowed him to BECOME a High Priest when he made it to heaven subsequent to his death in the flesh. The fact he is now in heaven after his death in the flesh, and suffering in the flesh, on earth, allows him now to be a High Priest in Heaven.

This is a plain text reading of the book of Hebrews and one does not have to be exposed to the Gospels to arrive at this interpretation because it is supported by the plain text itself. What Doherty proposes is we abandon our common sense and reasonable assumption regarding human form, existing in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh, as all transpiring on earth because we do not know humans to experience these things anywhere else, in favor of another assumption, i.e. this took place not on earth but at a different location.

Why is this important? Because someone reading Hebrews for the first time, without any exposure or understanding to the Gospels of Platonic philosophy, can reasonably arrive to the interpretation I just provided because it is supported by the text itself. Now, Doherty can certainly insist this is an erroneous understanding of Hebrews and argue the proper way to read and understand Hebrews is not from a plain text reading but rather from reading into ALL of Hebrews the Platonic philosophy. Hence, he needs to make a compelling argument as to why a plain text reading is wrong.

The reasons or evidence Doherty provides in advocating for abandoning a plain text reading and imposing upon all of Hebrews a Platonic interpretation is rather flimsy. Rather than beginning with the submission of evidence the author of Hebrews was intimately familiar with the Platonic philosophy (He says specifically, "No other New Testament document so clearly illustrates the higher and lower world thinking of Platonic philosophy as the Epistle to the Hebrews.," he begins building his case the author is using and relying upon Platonic philosophy with the use of weak circumstantial evidence, the argument from a lack of evidence, and speculation.

The weak circumstantial evidence comes in the fact he finds similarities between the author's use of a heavenly item existing and an earthly inferior one. To be sure there are some similarities between Plato's notion of the "forms," where a perfect and universal form exists out in the heavens but on earth there is an inferior and incomplete representation of it. Yet, this is merely a correlation and a correlation cannot be confused with causation. It could be a coincidence, accident, or intentional the author composed his text in this fashion but such parallels does not translate into the fact the author is actually relying upon or understanding his text to be making a mythicist or Platonic point at all BECAUSE OF his exposure to the Platonic tradition. Some evidence the author was exposed to this Greek/Platonic idea, as opposed to merely assuming so and then assuming it inspired his work, is necessary.

A parallel legal example would be in regards to the words "due process." It has been contested by some in the legal field the words "due process" had a particular meaning when those words were used in the 5th and 14th amendments. Specifically, they assert the meaning of those words and understanding of them was identical to, similar, or inspired by Sir Edward Coke, who just so happen to expound upon the meaning of those two words in the 1600's. Sure enough, there is a plethora of evidence indicating the Framers of the 14th and 5th amendment had read Coke's institutes regarding the words "due process" and consequently, construed those majestic terms as Coke did. Absent this fact, all we would have is a correlation and it is not logical to assume causation from a correlation.

Yet, even if we are to assume the author of Hebrews was exposed to Platonic ideas, and this proved to be the cause for his writing style in Hebrews, do we necessarily need to assume ALL of Hebrews comes within it? In other words, is it not possible the author of Hebrews merely wanted, desired, and understood his text to be limited to the Platonic description in regards to the comparison between the High Priest in Christ, the priests on earth, and no further? Why assume, as Doherty does, the Platonic account of a Heavenly High Priest, in contrasts to an earthly priest, extends to the authors account of Jesus existing in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh? Essentially Doherty's argument amounts to nothing more than, "Well the author of Hebrews used the Platonic idea here, in regards to the heavenly priest in contrast with the earthly ones. Ergo, since he used it here, then he is also using it elsewhere in Hebrews, such as the discussion about Jesus' flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh. This is not a very convincing argument.

Perhaps it is possible the author did not desire, want, or understand his Platonic characterization to be extended to those verses discussing Jesus time, suffering, and death in his flesh, and the mere fact he used it elsewhere in Hebrews does not mean nor should it be assumed he wanted other parts of Hebrews construed in a like or similar manner. After all, those verses discussing Jesus' existence in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death are very devoid of those Platonic elements we find later on regarding the High Priest as compared to the inferior earthly priests. The author of Hebrews goes into much greater detail contrasting the earthly and heavenly priests, along with their places of sacrifice, than he does regarding Jesus' time in the flesh.

It is Doherty's job to provide evidence the author of Hebrews understood, wanted, or desired for the Platonic characterization which appears in later chapters in Hebrews to be extended towards those earlier chapters in Hebrews discussing his days in the flesh, his suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh. He has not done so and merely asserting and assuming the author does so in some part of Hebrews does not mean he has done so for ALL parts of Hebrews. The fact some parts of Hebrews has this Platonic element to it cannot be relied upon to assume ALL of Hebrews, or those other verses I reference should likewise be understood and read with this Platonic element such that we can READ into those verses Jesus existence in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh, transpired in a heavenly realm.

Eventually, Doherty does decide to focus upon the wording in the "text." Unfortunately, he does not do so for the purpose of articulating a plain text reading of the text but to assert the author was getting at much more than the text says.

Doherty then decides to focus upon the peculiarity of the author's choice of words. So peculiar they cannot possibly be talking about any time on earth, presumably because the author could have chosen better wording. Doherty says, The writer has chosen to style this by the phrase “the days of his flesh.” (This would certainly be a peculiar way to put it if he only meant “when he was on earth,” or “during his life among us.”)

The flaw here is this just begs the question because the issue here is what exactly is the author saying, or more precisely what does he mean? Once again, why abandon a plain text reading, a reading free from any influence of the Platonic/Gospel tradition, where human beings are the only ones with "flesh" and exist and die on earth in exchange for the notion the phrase "in his flesh" is best understood as not referring to a human being on earth but a human being in a sublunar realm? (The argument because the rest of Hebrews relies upon a Platonic characterization is addressed above and such an argument needs to demonstrate why ALL of Hebrews should be construed this way). Aside from this, the only evidence he provides is peculiarity, pretty flimsy, which probably explains why does not spend much time expounding upon it.

Yet, Doherty assumes if these events did happen on earth, then they could not have spiritual consequences in heaven. (This is a point I raised in my last post). Previously I said, "First you assume the author is not talking about two different sets of events. The author of Hebrews is focusing upon Jesus, in the flesh, on earth, dying as a sacrifice on the cross, and then subsequently operating as a High Priest in Heaven. Jesus is still a "sacrifice" entering the Most Holy place in heaven, despite the fact he may not have been personally sacrificed in heaven. You assume the author of Hebrews is not talking about events in heaven which transpired after the death of Jesus on earth. You assume this is not the case.

Next, your entire argument assumes Jesus' death on earth, as a sacrifice and shedding of blood on earth, does not equate into or have the effect of operating in the manner as described in those verses you cite to support your proposition (for example, the verse in Hebrews chapter 9 which says Jesus took his own blood into the Most Holy Place). If the author of Hebrews is assuming Jesus' existence in the flesh, shedding of blood in the flesh, and death in the flesh transpired here on earth, and in doing so, accomplished the goals you focus upon as described transpiring in heaven, then there is absolutely no need to assume all of these events transpired in heaven.


If Jesus' death on earth operates as a sacrifice in heaven, i.e. has the same effect has described in those latter verses, then this erodes and undermines his contention of reading a Platonic interpretation into those verses where Jesus existence in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh has to transpire in heaven. He does not provide any evidence or reasons to demonstrate the author believed this was not so in exchange for his Platonic analysis he imposes in its place.

In the end, we are not left with much by way of compelling logic or evidence to read all of Hebrews, i.e. those verses where Jesus is referenced as existing in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh, from a Platonic perspective. Doherty does not makea very convincing argument other than to assert, "Well the author did it here, so he must also being doing it here." This is not a very good argument.

In addition, someone reading the book of Hebrews, without any exposure to the Platonic/Gospel tradition, and merely relying upon the plain text and their common sense, and reach the reasonable interpretation those early verses are talking about a man who lived and died on earth and subsequently went to heaven. After his death on earth, he earned the right to become a High Priest in Heaven, where he is then contrasted with priests on earth. Doherty does not provide any compelling logic or evidence as to why this plain text reading of Hebrews, untainted by the Gospel/Platonic tradition, should be abandoned and his Platonic interpretation substituted in its place; other than to rely upon some similarities, mere correlations, between those verses in Hebrews and Platonic philosophy.

I am familiar with the concept of "explanatory power," or as you refer to it the Argument to the Best Explanation. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to really answer your question in regards to this point but I will do so tomorrow.

gstafleu

Let's try this step by step and see how far we get. First, the kind of direct 1-1 correspondence that you are looking for exists in Jesus' taking on human aspects so that he could suffer:
So in order for Jesus to be a good salvationer, it was necessary for him to suffer as his human charges do. 2:11 as good as calls this "as above, so below."

Jesus then rams this salvation home via his self-sacrifice in the above realm. As you point out, this corresponds 1-1 to the animal sacrifices below. You are right, this sacrifice was of a final nature, after it no other sacrifices need apply. But how does that diminish the correspondence?

2:14-15 then goes on to describe the "as above so below" idea:
So Jesus needed to take an a below-type aspect, flesh an blood, in the above-world, so that he could establish the necessary above-below correspondence. 15 points out the reason for this: once the above-below correspondence is thus established, Jesus could release the "belowers" of their fear of death (i.e. they could overcome death), which he did by overcoming death himself in the above world: his resurrection. So again we have a direct correspondence between Jesus overcoming death in the above world and we doing the same (by believing in him) in the below world.

2:16 reinforces the idea that the people he was to help from his above position were those below: "16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham." The angels are above and do not get help, but we, the Seed of Abraham, are below and get the help via the above-below correspondence sketched, err, above. So again, Hebrews emphasizes here the above-below relation by pointing out that above creatures like angels do not get help but we below creatures do.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

James,

the problem with a "plain reading" of the text is that, to paraphrase Einstein, common sense is just the set of currently popular prejudices. That means that a "plain reading" is likely to come out at the point where one was standing when one began the reading, a rather circular exercise.

Let's take one of the verses you mention:
We hit a problem straight away: "In the days of his flesh" (or "In his flesh days") simply does not have a plain reading. Now, from the POV of one who assumes an HJ, a "plain reading" can easily be arrived at, to wit "when he was alive in human form." One can then add another bit of common sense, another cultural prejudice (since the Enlightenment): entities alive in human form occur only on earth. From this one then derives the final "plain reading," and one translates the phrase as "while he was on earth." Getting to this plain reading took a few steps, though. But much as a fish doesn't notice the water, these steps are so fast and automatic they are easy to miss.

The fact remains, if the author had wanted to say something as plain as "while he was on earth," he should have done so and should not have used the paraphrase he did. The use of this paraphrase means the text is no longer unambiguous, and hence your plain reading idea falters.

What one then has to do is something like I sketched in this post. Test the meaning against various hypotheses and see how it fares. In this case, we find that the flesh phrase is at least neutral, it fits both hypotheses.

In general I have to wonder if there is such a thing as a plain reading of ancient texts, and certainly of religious ancient texts. It seems way to easy to read one's current religious convictions (or the convictions of the surrounding culture) into these texts. Here is an instance where you do this:
No, you are right, there is no reason to do that. But the whole point at issue is whether Jesus was such a human being! Actually, the text of Hebrews makes it pretty clear that he most definitely was not. He had to take on human aspects, be "put a little lower than the angels" before he could become (an approximation of) one and do his salvation thing. So we cannot just plain-read his humanity into the text, especially when the text itself says he wasn't!

So it is probably best not to come up with plain-reading arguments. These may work within the context of current culture, where the set of common prejudices and the ideas held by the author have at least a chance of coinciding. But the larger the distance between the culture of the plain-reader and that of the text, the riskier the exercise becomes.

Gerard Stafleu