andrewcriddle

I think it is pretty clear that 1 Clement knew Hebrews.

Compare for example Clement 36 and Hebrews 1:1-14 Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar

Or Clement's script was actually the genesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Having studied Clement with its comparatively primitive and unpolished expressions, my bet is that Clement is actually the older document whose content was plagiarized and adapted to create 'Hebrews'.

Both are full of Hey'sooce caca.

sotto voce

The one that got canonised.

stephan huller

I think if anything Andrew's argument helps Earl's dating of the text. Why go argue against what is helpful?

EarlDoherty

Aa, your post is just rhetoric--nothing of substance.

1. You cannot ever establish that Epistle Hebrews was composed in the 2nd century with any actual corroborative evidence from antiquity.

2. You cannot show that Epistle Hebrews was composed after the Jesus story was known.

3. You cannot show that Epistle Hebrews should have been known as Heresy by any Apologetic writer that made reference to Hebrews.

4. You cannot show that apologetic sources that mentioned Epistle Hebrews also claimed Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a Virgin and a Ghost, and was crucified on earth--because they were imposing an historical Jesus understanding on the epistle, just as they were doing to all the epistolary literature by that time. And that includes Origen.

Aa, these are not arguments, they are declarations, although my last two also supply something of an explanation. When are you going to realize that you have to argue your case, consisting of analysis based on the evidence, not simply declare it and continually shout it to the world? You cannot simply declare an opponent's arguments nonsense without demonstrating why that is so, and--most important--deal in substantive rebuttal with the arguments he or she has put forward.

Why do you think I and so many others ignore you?

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

But you're not ignoring him. That's the problem. How long can the swami refrain from giving in to the urge to swat the fly?

aa5874

It must be noted also that the supposed Clement letter was composed by the Church of Rome which was not in existence in the 1st century.

The Church of Rome originated around the 4th century or later.

The Church of Rome has not ever denied that the letter originated in the Church of Rome and the very writers of the Church do NOT know when Clement was bishop.

Passages from the Epistle Hebrews will be found in sources that are questionable and most likely manipulated or forged.

Up to c 180 CE the supposed Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" did NOT mention Epistle Hebrews at all.

EarlDoherty

No, Jake, you did not ask to disregard or delete my response, you asked me to "disregard my previous message to you." While it did not merit me insulting you (for which I apologized), you came on to me and my postings about Hebrews with so much cocky assurance while demonstrating that you knew next to nothing about the nature of the epistle (other than being able, like so many others, to atomistically seize on a couple of passages while ignoring mythicist handling of those passages), that I was led to react in inappropriate ways.

And you continue to show that you do not read my arguments carefully. I have not said that by Greek grammar alone it could be demonstrated that Jesus had never been on earth. I said (as did Paul Ellingworth) that the Greek text itself, taken by itself, was ambiguous, but that it COULD mean (as Ellingworth admitted) that Jesus had never been on earth. I then set out to prove that this was the only reasonable option that could be chosen from that grammatical ambiguity. I did that on JM and I've done that here on Ted's thread about Hebrews 8:4. You have since not made any effort to rebut that analysis.

You then claim that my explanation for why the ancients did not perceive what 8:4 had to be implying was inadequate. But that declaration needed to be accompanied by an actual analysis of my explanation along with supplying counters to it. That is what rebuttal and debate is all about, not simple dismissal. If you or aa think that dismissal is "eating my lunch" you are both on a starvation diet.

When I pointed out the profound inadequacy of your response on JM to my discussion of Hebrews, you failed to make any further comment, let alone offer a further rebuttal. Now I have done a thorough response to TedM here on FRDB. Are you not going to offer any rebuttal to that, to demonstrate that my evaluation of your understanding of Hebrews was not justified?

And I can see that you, and others, are continuing to steadfastly refuse to read my material on the dating of Hebrews and the in/authenticity of its postscript unless I hand it to you on a platter. I had already considered doing that, so you can look for a posting of the JNGNM Appendix in question here shortly. And I would respectfully suggest that aa, if he wishes to respond to it, would do so with a substantive rebuttal addressing my arguments, and not simply with more loud dismissal and repetitive declarations of his own stance. I guess I could respectfully request the same from you.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

You are running away with my comment about 'possibility.' First of all, that is not the possibility that I choose to endorse, I would still judge the odds to be that Mark's crucifixion story owes something to the Christ cult represented in Paul and other circles contemporary with him. So don't think that my admission of possibility means you win by default, far from it. And please don't use me as claimed 'support' for your position. It is not....

Wait a minute! How do you make this leap? The possibility that Mark did not use Paul & Co. as the basis for his crucifixion story does not mean you can claim that Paul believed Jesus to have been on earth! Or that Paul's Christ was in any way based on real or imagined figures in Jewish history. That's non-logical.

This is another unjustified leap. Mark need have had no idea of his Jesus crucified having anything to do with an historical context in Jewish history. This is something you have not demonstrated let alone even argued, except to declare that this is the only way it could have been. Mark's story could very well have been an allegory for his own time and sectarian beliefs. It certainly could have been a symbolic representation of the Q ethos translated into the story of a symbolic character. Q embodied a present-day movement of Mark's time, and no particular historical figure other than regarding John the Baptist as its forerunner and mentor. But the Baptist was not crucified. And there is certainly less than zero basis for him having in mind any connection let alone relevance with the crucifixion of Antigonus.

I don't know what I have to do to stop you from blowing my comment (above) out of all proportion. When I speak of "historical figures" I mean nothing more than that elements in the Jewish experience, such as execution by the cross, are reflected in the story created by Mark. To say that in this way the story is 'rooted' in Jewish history is saying next to nothing, any more than you can say that the James Bond novels are rooted in British history because they are about British spies, or that a story in which characters talk on the telephone is about Alexander Graham Bell!

And it certainly does not justify you saying that now we can abandon the Pauline Christ as derived from scripture, and necessarily from Jewish history. That, too, is a completely non-logical leap. I would not bother with you simply on the basis of arguing that Mark's crucifixion story does not need to be based on the Christ cult and that you see this as an opening for denying that. But to go from that optional choice on your part to claiming that the mythicist view of Paul is therefore consequently wrong is a logical non-sequitur and I will definitely bother to oppose you on that--at least for the space of one or two postings. I usually give up on you after that, as you well know from past exchanges.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

You can read about that in my JNGNM Appendix on Hebrews which I am about to post.

Earl Doherty