RParvus

Hi Jake,

Yes, that is an interesting quote from Origen. And he presents the attribution of Hebrews to Clement as something that went back further. It is “the statement of some who have gone before us.” But he adds that “others say that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.” I suspect that both attributions may be correct. Namely, that Clement not only wrote Hebrews but was also the “Luke” who wrote the original gLuke and Acts. P.L. Couchoud has some interesting pages on this possibility in his “The Creation of Christ.”

But regarding Joshua: I don’t see him playing a prominent role in Hebrews. It is Moses, Aaron and Levi who are explicitly connected with the tabernacle ministry. And Joshua’s name isn’t even mentioned in chapter 11 of Hebrews when it gets to the Jericho battle: “By faith the walls of Jericho fell after being circled for seven days” (Heb. 11:30). Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David and Samuel receive honorary mention in chapter 11, but not Joshua.

Then too, the “outside the camp” phrase you mention is part of a chapter (13 ) which many scholars think was a later addition to the epistle. It is thought the chapter was added to try to bring a Pauline-style ending to it.

But I will try to keep an open mind.

stephan huller

If we are going to talk about 1 Clement the place to start is ask - is the author the same as he who wrote 2 Clement. I think he was and that the differences in style and character are a result of an orthodox interest in transforming 1 Clement.

stephan huller

But why does Clement of Alexandria think so? You can't find a more sophisticated early Christian writer. What's up with that?

RParvus

I think the Ignatians were originally letters of Peregrinus. Irenaeus just refers to him as “one of ours” because Peregrinus’ subsequent apostasy from Christianity was an embarrassment. At some point between the time of Irenaeus and that of Origen the letters were transformed into letters of Ignatius. If you are interested, I have posted a fuller exposition of this theory on Neil Godfrey’s Vridar blog (See series with title: “The Letters Supposedly Written by Ignatius of Antioch”).

maryhelena

Earl, keep focus here with what I write. It is Heb.8.4. that is under discussion. This is what I wrote:

[T2]If the Jesus of Hebrews was on earth he would not be a priest offering a sacrifice at the illegitimate Jerusalem temple. If the Jesus of Hebrews was on earth he would not be offering a sacrifice at any temple - not even the tabernacle of Moses. The sacrifice of human blood is an abomination.[/T2]

That’s it. That is all that verse is saying. If the Hebrews Jesus, 8.4, was on earth he would not be a priest offering gifts under the Law. Why? I gave a suggestion above regarding the abomination a human sacrifice would be. Therefore, this verse, (8.4) offers nothing for the JC historicist/ahistoricist debate. Nothing. This verse is not, as you wrote in your post on Vridar,

“.... the sound and smoke from this ‘smoking gun’ has been so obscuring that it has prevented the entire history of New Testament scholarship from reading the verse in any logical fashion.... And from hearing its implications as a bell tolling for the historical Jesus.” “....the contrafactual nature of “if he had been on earth” makes it a denial that he had been on earth.” “I have called Hebrews 8:4 a “time bomb.”

https://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/06...thicism-pt-16/

A heavenly high priest, Jesus, offering his blood as a salvation value, cannot, logically, be historicized as a gospel JC offering a flesh and blood no value human sacrifice in real time. There is, likewise, no logic in working from a real time human Jesus offering the blood of a non value human sacrifice in a heavenly temple. Logic cannot be sidelined by appeals to magic tricks. Turning a non-value into a value is the stuff of storytelling not reality. Putting the magic tricks aside - what is left is that we are dealing with two very different contexts. Two different contexts that are able to uphold different concepts of value. One context upholds human life as a value. The other upholds death as a value. One context is physical reality. The other context is intellectual reality, heavenly reality. (a reality where the death of ideas produces new, 'salvation', ideas...)

Earl, in Hebrews and the Pauline epistles we are dealing with an attempt to explain a heavenly, intellectual, reality. This unseen intellectual reality is understood to have parallels to our physical reality. The earthly, material, tabernacle and the heavenly tabernacle are paralleled. However, parallels are limited; while reflections can be observed, the entities being viewed for parallels still retain their specific identifications, their core identities. What is of value in one entity, one context, need not have a corresponding value within the other entity. As in Hebrews 8.4.. If Jesus was on earth he would not be a priest under the Law. His priestly function, offering a symbolic, a spiritual ‘blood’ offering, only has value within a heavenly, an intellectual, context.

Questions regarding whether or not the Hebrews Jesus figure came to earth are questions for philosophy (or theology) not history. Historical questions regarding the NT Jesus figure are focused on the gospel Jesus story.

Earl, as far as I can see, Hebrews only once makes reference to Jerusalem - and that reference is to the heavenly Jerusalem. So - don’t read the physical Jerusalem temple into Hebrews 8.4! Yes, interesting of course, as to why the writer of Hebrews did not reference the Jerusalem temple in his Heb.8.4. parallel - but he did not - and so......we have no justification for reading into that verse what the writer did not put there...

[T2]Hebrews 12:22

But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly,[/T2]

Your answer, Earl, is pure speculation. If it’s answers to the questions raised by the gospel JC story that we seek - it’s not speculation that will help us. That story makes a historical claim. A Jewish messiah figure was executed via Roman sanction. That execution is the foundation upon which all else is built. And no, an interpretation of Heb.8.4 (or the Pauline epistles) will not help in seeking answers to the gospel story.

Yes, Earl, there is no historical gospel JC, of whatever variant. But that position does not negate the relevance of history to the creation of that figurative, literary, mythological, gospel figure. And if as you once wrote, and which quote I have many times referenced, those gospel writers used elements of several historical figures in the creation of their gospel JC figure - then Earl, if we are seeking early christian origins - we have a hook, we have a historical hook by which to grab on to in that search for early christian origins. As much as the gospel writers have turned to the OT and mythological elements in the creation of their JC figure - so too have they turned to historical figures in Jewish history. If, through that gospel story, we can see reflections of historical figures - then Earl, we can open up the road forward in a search for early christian origins. Philosophizing with Hebrews or Paul is the cherry on the cake - but, Earl, we can't enjoy that cherry until we have the cake to support it...

aa5874

The foundation of Christianity is not based on the execution of any historical figure. Even the Church admitted their Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

The foundation of Christianity is based primarily on an historical Event---- The Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Using Jewish Scriptures or similar sources, anonymous stories to explain the Fall of the Temple were invented in the 2nd century.

It can be easily seen that the anonymous stories of Jesus were invented in the 2nd century because that is when the very stories IMPACTED Non-Apologetic writers and many 2nd century apologetic writers show that the nature of Jesus' existence was NOT established.

EarlDoherty

Roger, I can only admire those who can find an entire landscape in a document which is so obscurely to be seen on the surface that it is virtually undetectable. Your phrase about a forger not wanting “to tip his hand” simply makes no sense to me. If someone has an agenda to put forward in a forged writing, why would he make it so hidden from view? Why indeed would any forger adopt the strategy of disguising desired ideas in a supposedly earlier document from a time when the agenda situation was not current? Why, for example, attempt to get across an argument for Roman Church hegemony by forging a document like 1 Clement and pretend it came from a time before Roman hegemony was an issue, thus forcing him not to “tip his hand” that this is what his forged document was about? Why not forge a document which pretends to be more recent, of more current relevance, which can openly present its agenda? And how could any forger be so proficient that he would indeed not “tip his hand” and reveal more clearly what he was up to?

When the forger produced his document, did he hold seminars for readers to attend so that they could detect that agenda and understand how it was to be interpreted? How could he seriously have thought that his efforts would achieve their goal and create the effect on thinking that he hoped for? There isn’t a breath of a hint of Simon in Hebrews. Even when you attempt to point it out I am unable to see it, beyond the odd coincidence of the odd word one might ambiguously link to someone like Marcion. And show me corroborative evidence of there existing forgers and forgeries capable of adopting this kind of deliberate and ultra-subtle approach to promoting an agenda. All one has to look at is the obvious forgeries like the Testimonium Flavianum. “He was the Christ!” “He rose on the third day according to what the prophets foretold!” This is subtlety? This is “not tipping one’s hand”?

Not only is there not a hint of Simon, there is not even a hint of “heresy.” There is nothing, not a single verse, in Hebrews that conveys the idea that the writer is dealing with opposing, let alone heretical, viewpoints regarding soteriology rivalling his own. He is urging his readers to stand fast, not to abandon their faith; but he is not urging them to hold to “correct” faith, their own revealed and received faith, as opposed to adopting some other unapproved and erroneous doctrine. This is beyond subtlety, it is alleging a meaning which is non-existent. Even Heb. 13:9, which raises the basic thought of not being “carried away by strange teachings...” pretty well indicates what is being referred to: “…for it is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.” Not even here can the forger see fit to make even the barest allusion to some kind of gnostic or Simonian doctrine he is allegedly seeking to challenge and discredit.

But I am obviously not able to change the minds of a whole swath of “radical” exegetes who insist on creating an entire range of allegedly later second century documents masquerading as something that is barely recognizable, if at all. And especially when it is so unnecessary in the context of mythicism. These are strange byways into which so many have ventured.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

You appear to be in denial mode. Every passage in Hebrews which contradict you are twisted. There is a hint in Hebrews that it was composed after there were heresies. There are hints that Hebrews was a late composition.

Hebrews 13:9 KJV The author was supposedly writing to the Hebrews with salutations from the Church of Rome.

Hebrews 13:24 KJV The Church of Rome was already established before Epistle Hebrews was composed.

Doherty you are 100% wrong about Hebrews.

Hebrews is about a character called Jesus the Son of God that came in the Flesh, and was crucified and the Epistle was composed AFTER the words of the Son of God were composed in the Last Days and AFTER heresies were known.

EarlDoherty

I just dealt with that passage right in the posting you've just quoted! Do you not read or understand anything?

No, the Church of Rome was already established before the postscipt containing that line was written and added to the original letter. Do you not read or understand anything that I've posted?

For the benefit of others, let me reiterate a constant complaint. When you present an argument (especially a repeated one) after a counter to that argument has been supplied, common sense debate rules require that you address that counter-argument in the process of (re)presenting your own. Of course, if one's mind is so set in cement that one can't even recognize or acknowledge that a counter-argument has been made, by rights you shouldn't be here.

Apparently aa has also overlooked the argument that if Hebrews was composed after the middle of the second century when the idea that the End was imminent was virtually dead in Christian circles, and if the topic was discussed at all it was to try to explain why the End had been delayed and such promises were so long in coming (as in 2 Peter), why does it show no sign of such a problem but declares that "the last days" are here (as in gMark in contrast to later Gospels which start to hedge on apocalyptic expectations)? This is yet another reason why we need to date Hebrews early and why a late 2nd century dating is bankrupt.

And just where do we find in the later heresiologists any conviction or preaching that they are living in the last days?

Not that I expect any of this to penetrate aa's lead-lined armor.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Your reply is not a counter-argument.

Again, you have NOT presented any original Epistle of Hebrews. This is not Sunday School. You ought to know that you cannot present your imagination as evidence.

Those days are done--Finished.

I am dealing with the actual contents of Hebrews NOT Doherty's imagination.
You do not present counter arguments when you respond to my posts but threaten to put me on ignore whenever I expose your errors.

You are totally incapable of countering my arguments. It just cannot be done based on the existing evidence from antiquity.

You expose your bankruptcy of the NT Canon. Christian always believe mankind is in the Last Days. Jesus is always coming soon.

You seem completely unaware that it is claimed Jesus would come like a Thief in the Night.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 KJV This is Justin writing in the mid 2nd century.
First Apology LII Even 1800 YEARS LATER Christians today still claim we are living in the Last Days. Christians are anxiously waiting for the day when those who did NOT believe in their Jesus get burn forever.

I am just an ordinary poster and I have a LEAD-LINED ARMOR. How come you don't have one??