Vorkosigan

• 3.1. Jesus as the Son of David (and seed of Abraham):
  In chapter 8, on page 83, Doherty quotes Romans1:3-4: Ro1:3-4 Darby "concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;" Then Earl writes: "Is it a piece of historical information? If so, it is the only one Paul ever give us, for no other feature of Jesus' human incarnation appears in his letter." Shock!!! See my answer in the next paragraph. Then Doherty actually does not address the issue of a human Jesus straight on, but drifts away from it by questioning the historicity of 'Son of David' and the title of 'Son of God'. Nothing much is related to the "incarnation"; only some "stuff" is thrown against it, such as:
  "... for scripture was full of predictions that the Messiah would be descended from David. In reading these, Paul would have applied them to his own version of the Christ, the Christ who is a spiritual entity, not a human one." So now human ancestry was assigned to Jesus by Paul, even if the later (allegedly) thought Christ was never an earthly man! Does that make sense? Of course not. And Doherty keeps obsessively interpreting anything as concerning an entirely mythical Jesus: again for him, "according to the flesh" becomes "in the sphere of the flesh", with the "sphere" being "the lowest heavenly sphere, associated with the material world"!

The opening paragraph of Bernard's analysis contains not a single argument against Doherty, it is merely a heap of rhetoric, using words like "drifts" and "obsessively" to evoke emotional rather than rational responses in the reader, or conclusory rhetoric "Does that make sense?" Of course not!" as if this were an argument. Unfortunately, Bernard does not tell us here why this does not make sense. He does warn us, however, that we can expect an argument in the next paragraph:

• Is there nothing else about a human Jesus in 'Romans'? Of course not, but all of the ensuing verses from 'Romans' are ignored in Doherty's book:
  A) Ro15:12 Darby "And again, Esaias says, There shall be the root of Jesse [David's father], and one [Christ] that arises, to rule over [the] nations: in him shall [the] nations hopes."
  Here Jesus' alleged descendance from David is reiterated.
  B) Ro8:3 Darby "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..."
  Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?
  C) Ro4:13 Darby "For [it was] not by law that the promise was to Abraham, or to his seed, that he [Jesus, the Son] should be heir of [the] world, but by righteousness of faith."
  Jesus is a seed of Abraham here. Who else is a seed of this patriarch?
  a) Ro11:1 Darby "I [Paul] say then, Has God cast away his people [Israel]? Far be the thought. For *I* also am an Israelite, of [the] seed of Abraham, of [the] tribe of Benjamin."
  So "flesh & blood" earthly Paul is also from the seed of Abraham!
  b) Ro9:7 NKJV "nor are they all children because they [Jews of Israelite descent] are the seed of Abraham ..."
  Most Jews were also from the seed of Abraham during Paul's days!
  D) Ro9:4-5a YLT "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..."
  Here Jesus is from Israelites, "according to the flesh". Who else are from Israelites? Paul, according to Ro11:1, previously quoted, and also many of his contemporaries, by flesh:
  Ro9:3b-4a NASB "... my brethren, my kinsmen [Paul's] according to the flesh, who are Israelites ..."
  Did Paul think himself and his brethren/kinsmen lived "in the sphere of the flesh", some upper world above earth?

Bernard's arguments here contain only misunderstandings and misinterpretations. First, he claims "....all of the ensuing verses from 'Romans' are ignored in Doherty's book." Bernard clearly does not understand Doherty's point. If the first reference to Jesus being of David's stock (in Romans 1) can be shown to be symbolic, then all subsequent references to it are similarly symbolic. Thus, simply piling on more quotes, as Bernard does here, will not make Doherty's arguments disappear. Bernard must come up with compelling reasons to reject them, either on linguistic or content grounds. In any case, Doherty spends several pages in several places discussing the problem of Jesus' alleged Davidic ancestry (82-85, for example). Finally, there is a telling Doherty-style silence here. If Jesus had really been born of David, Paul, after all, knew his brother, James. All Paul had to do was cite his personal knowledge of the family of Jesus and firmly link Jesus to the mortal sphere. But no, Paul's ideas come from divine revelation. Doherty has a very strong argument here, and Bernard's rhetoric cannot dismantle it.

Bernard then goes on to say: "B) Ro8:3 Darby "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..." Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?" Merely asking this question does not refute Doherty's point. Bernard would have to demonstrate that the word likeness here means something other than what it very plainly says. All Bernard does here is use an emotional appeal to invite the reader to fall back on the biases built in by 2000 years of historicist exegesis. He does not make an argument based on logic, content, linguistics, or history anywhere in these remarks.

In his exegesis of Romans 4:13 Bernard has made an error of interpretation. In Darby, 4:13 says:

• For [it was] not by law that the promise was to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of [the] world, but by righteousness of faith.

This passage DOES NOT say Jesus is of the seed of Abraham. In this discussion Paul is arguing that God's promise is made in faith, regardless of the law, using Abraham as an example. "He" in this passage is not Jesus but Abraham. Thus Bernard's rhetorical thrust at the end is goes badly astray, as NONE of the remaining passages applies. This is a gross error. Thus, his argument contained in the notes....

• "So I think Doherty should reconsider "no other feature of Jesus' human incarnation appears in his letter"! And we have ample evidence the seeds of Abraham and descendants of Israelites (such as Paul) were all understood as earthly humans. Why would it be different for Jesus?"

....does not apply because Bernard has not read the language of the passage properly.

An irony of Bernard's analysis is that he is adopting the "rhetorical question" tactics of Doherty when he asks questions like: "Did Paul think himself and his brethren/kinsmen lived "in the sphere of the flesh", some upper world above earth?" or "Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?"

Let's move on:

• 3.2.1. Doherty on Galatians4:4
  Gal4:4 YLT "... God sent forth His Son, come ['ginomai'] of a woman, come under the law"
  In chapter 12, page 123-125, Doherty comments on "born of woman" from Gal4:4. He admits this passage "most suggests that he [Paul] has a human Jesus in mind."
  But then he goes to work, starting by "God sent his own Son" but does not take in account "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..." (Ro8:3 Darby)! His convoluted argumentation does not disprove anything and looks rather like a series of red herrings. He is trying to raise doubts by way of speculative suppositions, using expressions "this can be taken", "seem", "not necessarily tied", "do not have to be seen" & "one interpretation that could be given" in order to counteract the obvious. And any writing/myth known during Paul's time is considered a likely inspiration, such as Isa7:14 and Dionysos' birth, as if no man were born of woman in antiquity!
  Doherty ventures "National gods were often regarded as having the same lineage as the nation itself, which is one interpretation that could be given to Christ as "born" under the Law [as a Jew]."
  But he does not give any example for these "national" gods (personally I know of none), more so when (originally) gods are not born from humans in ancient mythology.
  Finally Earl goes into some flamboyant rhetoric, calling for "dramatic reversal, even on the order of something like the Copernican revolution in astronomy" to change our views on Jesus' human origin. May I say Copernicus came with (a lot of) solid evidence for his theories, when Doherty can only be doubtful about 'Jesus as born of woman' and fling "feathers" at it.

Everyone admits that this passage is a problem. One of the strengths of Doherty's approach is that he rarely wusses out by claiming that things are interpolated. Yet here, if Doherty is right, it would probably be best to point to interpolation. If Paul actually wrote this, it is likely then, as Doherty claims, he is invoking some ritual or symbolic meaning, like Matthew's use of Isaiah to make Jesus a virgin's son. Bernard again deploys senseless rhetoric: "...as if no man were born of woman in antiquity!" instead of rational arguments, though in fairness Doherty's rhetoric is no better. Bernard is dead on, though, when he argues that Doherty should have given us examples of national gods who had ethnic characteristics. Note Bernard's clear bias -- he demands we take "born of woman" at face value, but objects to us taking "in likeness of flesh" at face value. And again that strange silence: since Paul knew James, why not simply name the woman? The answer is simple: because she was not a real woman!

Bernard then discusses Carrier's comments on Galatians, and a fine discussion it is. He then goes back to Doherty's argument:

• 3.2.3. By examining the whole of Galatians3:15-4:7, can we figure out what kind of woman Paul was thinking for Gal4:4? Paul started by making a claim: "But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ."(3:16 Darby) That seems to refer to Genesis17-22 but it is never specified here according to Paul's words. Anyway, the promise is about inheritance (3:18) for all (Gentiles and Jews --3:28-29,3:8,14) but the former is supplanted by the Law "until the seed [the Son] came ['erchomai', clear expression of the first coming!] to whom the promise was made" (3:19). Then everyone would be liberated from the Law by Christ (3:22-24,3:13) and "the promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus Christ, should be given to those that believe." (3:22), allowing Paul's Galatians to be God's sons & heirs and honorary seeds of Abraham (3:29,4:7,3:7). What remains is for the Son to come as the seed of Abraham, that is as a Jew and earthly human (as other seeds of Abraham, like Paul, as previously discussed), in order to enable the promise: Gal4:4-7 Darby "but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman [as an earthly human], come under law [as a Jew], that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship. But because you are [Greek present tense] sons ... So you are [present again] no longer bondman, but son ..." So Paul was thinking about an earthly "flesh & blood" mother! And Christ had already come and gone (1:1)!

Here I think Bernard goes badly wrong. In Gal 3:16 he has misread the last sentence. It does not say Christ is of Abraham's seed. Rather it says (to expand it properly): "And to thy seed; [a promise] which is Christ." In other words, read in context, it does not say that Christ is of Abraham's seed. It says that Christ is the fulfillment of a promise to Abraham's seed. Bernard has erred again (on the same point) and thus, his argument falls to pieces.

Bernard's argument further demands that we take the meaning of "sons" in Galatians 4 to be historical when it refers to Jesus, but allegorical when it refers to humans. In fact Gal 4 is one long allegory on Abraham, sonship, and the Law. Note that Paul uses "according to the flesh" here in a symbolic sense. Abraham has two sons, both by human women, and both born by sexual intercourse and a trip down the birth canal. But he distinguishes them by their relationship to the Law...

• 23 But he [that was] of the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the free woman through the promise.

...in other words, when Jesus came down through the flesh, Paul means that his sphere of operations is the one outside the Law. Far from refuting Doherty, Galatians 4 shows this apposite relationship between "flesh" and "law" decisively. Bernard has simply misread it.

Bernard takes this passage....

• 19 Why then the law? It was added for the sake of transgressions, until the seed came to whom the promise was made, ordained through angels in [the] hand of a mediator.

...to say the verb 'come' here implies a first coming on earth. Nowhere is that present in this passage. The whole discussion is an abstract discussion of the Law and Christ. "Came" here simply represents the appearance of Jesus in our reality, not necessarily on earth. If Paul had meant come on earth, he would have said it. Bernard is simply back-reading the story of the Gospels into Paul, invoking his and the reader's unconscious assumptions -- the ones Doherty wants you to give up -- in interpreting these passages. Pulling a whole history on earth out of a single verb is the ultimate in historicist desperation.

• 3.3.1. Comments on Galatians 1:19
  In chapter 6, page 57, Doherty tackles the problem caused by "James, the brother of the Lord" (Gal1:19). Here is the whole passage: Gal1:18-19 Darby "Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter, and I remained with him fifteen days; but I saw none other of the apostles, but James the brother of the Lord." First, Doherty states the term "brother" ('adelphos') appears often in Paul's epistles to indicate fellow Christians. Certainly, and even nowadays, it is used extensively in the fields of religion, cult, ethnicity, labor union, monastic institution, etc., in order to indicate the ones in the same group (of yours). It also confers a notion of equality & similarity. Then Doherty claims that "brother of the Lord" has the same meaning than "brothers in the Lord" (as appearing only in Philippians1:14, meaning Christian preachers). Here I object: Paul used often "in (the) Lord" or "in Christ" meaning "Christian(s)" or "in the Christian faith" (such as, for example:
  Romans 16:11 Darby "Salute Herodion, my kinsman. Salute those who belong to Narcissus, who are in [the] Lord."Ro16:7 NKJV "Greet Andronicus and Junia, ... who also were in Christ before me." Ro16:8 Darby "Salute Amplias, my beloved in the Lord." but he never wrote "of the Lord" in a similar context. If Paul wanted to express James was a Christian, why didn't he wrote "James, brother in the Lord"? Later, Earl claims the group in Jerusalem, headed by James, "seems to have called itself "brethren of/in the Lord." But we do not have any evidence on that whatsoever. In the NT, they are referred as 'the church of Jerusalem', the 'poor' (of Jerusalem) or the 'saints/holy ones' (of Jerusalem) but never as what Doherty claims. Actually, Paul never said those were "in (the) Lord" or "in Christ", not even "brothers/brethren". And James is the only individual identified as "brother of the Lord". Other pillars of that church, as named by Paul (Peter/Cephas and John), are not. Could a group or individual be titled "brother(s) of the Lord" in Jerusalem then? That would be understood as "of God" by Jews and consequently extremely sacrilegeous & liable of execution! Further on, Earl makes an argument from silence (as he is well known to do a lot!): because James is not said to be Jesus' sibling in 'James', Christians then did not know about it! And, as in an act of desperation, in note 26 (p.335) Doherty suggests a Christian interpolation.

It is Bernard, not Doherty, who is in desperation here. The greetings of the letters of James and Jude are powerful evidence that early Christians did not consider James and Jude to be the physical brothers of Jesus. I doubt that if Jude were really the younger brother of Jesus, he would only have identified himself as the brother of James when speaking to the Christian community. Further, in Luke 2, when Mary and Joseph find Jesus in the Temple, there are no hints of other children. James the younger is the son of Aphaeus according to Matt. Did the early Christians have any idea that Jesus had sibs? Apparently not.

Bernard asks: "Could a group or individual be titled "brother(s) of the Lord" in Jerusalem then? That would be understood as "of God" by Jews and consequently extremely sacrilegeous & liable of execution!" After chiding Doherty for not supply evidence for his claims, it would be nice if Bernard supplied any evidence that individuals who had called themselves Brothers of the Lord would have been executed.

I don't see any need to argue on the passage in Antiquities. Both the Jesus' passages in Antiquities are obvious forgeries, and I am tired of discussing it. For those who disagree, your disagreement is noted. One point, however, should be noted:

• I do not think Doherty, despite all his efforts, makes a dent against the authenticity of the combined mention of Jesus' brother in Galatians4:4 and Josephus' Antiquities, XX, IX, 1. Maybe, at some points, he can raise some doubts, but overall, that amounts to almost nothing. It looks Doherty, as usual, is agenda-driven and trying to eradicate any blood brother because that would prove a human Jesus. Let's also note that Josephus was living in Jerusalem around 62, where and when James was tried & stoned.

Accusing someone making an argument of being "agenda-driven" is an act of rhetorical desperation. I quite agree that it is a strong point that Josephus was living around Jerusalem in 62 when James was handed over for stoning (Josephus nowhere says James was actually killed). Unfortunately for Bernard, that strength runs against his position: if Josephus really knew James and his position, why doesn't he ever mention Christians and Christianity in his many discussions of messianic pretenders?

I'll get to Hebrews in a moment. But it is apparent that Bernard's arguments are weak indeed; they are 90% rhetoric, and include blatant errors of interpretation, as well as historicist biases and assumptions that render them impotent against Doherty.

Vorkosigan

capnkirk

Vorkosigan, composing that response took a real effort. I congratulate you for taking the time to wade through it. I think that you nailed Bernard's critique. I wholeheartedly agree that it was far too long on rhetoric and too short on substance...That is no faint parise coming from someone who doesn't agree that a lot of Doherty's evidences are as unambiguous as he claims they are. I started reading through the links with a very sympathetic bias, and still detected the shortcomings you have so eloquently described. So much so that I started skimming, all the while asking "where's the beef?".

There WAS one rhetorical question you posed in your rebuttal that deserves a specific response. You asked:If, as I have contended, James and TJC weren't Xtians in any sense of the word, but were observant Jews still waiting for a failed Jewish messiah to return some 30 years later, Josephus would have had no reason to mention Xtians or Xtianity in his discussions of messianic pretenders. OTOH, you might ask why he didn't list Jesus with the other failed "Jewish" messiahs. The answer to that is: HJ, being non-violent (depending on a miracle from God to make the Romans go away) didn't get a few thousand Jews killed with him, thus didn't make a big enough splash to ever be "front page news" so to speak. Oh, and it might be prudent to note that James was "handed over" just when another Jewish Messiah (Benjamin the Egyptian) was leading his doomed effort. Perhaps this was coincidental, or perhaps the High Priest thought James and TJC supported Benjamin, or perhaps he just thought that this was good cover for dealing a blow to TJC.

I am not disputing your argument; I am only pointing out that there is more than one potential reason for Josephus' silence (since all those he DID mention DID get a lot of people killed.).

Gregg

Great post, Vork.

I have yet to see any new or novel argument against the mythicist case, and it gets tiresome being told that mythicists are only mythicists because they have an anti-Christian "agenda." There is nothing inherently anti-Christian about the MJ thesis. Everyone here acknowledges that even if Jesus DID exist historically, he couldn't have been much like he's portrayed in the gospels ... in other words, his being real wouldn't make Christianity any more true.

One wonders, if one of the other mystery cults had won out, if we would now be arguing if, say, Attis or Mithras had been real people? When people in this enlightened scientific age can still believe all the strange things they do without a shred of evidence, why is it so difficult to accept that the early Christians, like many other people of their time, firmly believed in a non-historical savior deity? When people today make "The Bible Code" a bestseller, why is it so hard to see first century Jewish mystics believing God was revealing the mystery of the Christ to them via messages previously "hidden" in the holy scriptures?

I've heard people argue that because Jesus was said to have been crucified, he must have been real. But 1) some NT writers only say that Jesus was "hung on a tree" (see Hebrews) and 2) what in the world is STOPPING some Christians, perhaps Paul being the first, from believing that Jesus was crucified? Since earthly kings sat on thrones, people believed their gods sat on thrones. Since the Vikings loved fighting and feasting, their gods fought and feasted. And since the earthly authorities, the Romans, crucified their enemies, why shouldn't the demonic powers and authorities in the lower heavens crucify theirs?

The fact is, the evidence for an HJ is skimpy and inconclusive. I can see no compelling reason to believe that such a person must have existed, when the MJ thesis explains things much better.

Gregg

I disagree that Josephus would not have considered Jesus important enough to mention. Practically all HJers agree that Jesus had a sizable number of loyal followers and that the Temple incident was what brought him to the attention of the authorities and got him crucified by the Romans. Most people would agree that the Romans (and certainly not Pilate) would not have caved in to Jewish pressure and crucifed Jesus for blasphemy (why didn't the Sanhedrin simply have him stoned to death?)-- therefore, Jesus would have had to do something that made the Romans consider him an insurrectionist.

Given these two things--his apparent popularity and his crucifixion by the Romans--it's hard to see Josephus giving him a break because of his supposed non-violent stance.

Vorkosigan

After reading this, I think we should all take counsel with Ecclesiastes "And besides, my son, be warned by them: of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Anyway, on to Hebrews...

• 3.4.1. Heb2:3 NASB "how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord ["which first (= originally) received/taken (as) spoken through (= by) the Lord"], it was confirmed to us by those who heard," Note: the translation in brackets seems the most accurate, if not elegant. BDM: On Chapter 13, page 129, Doherty comments "Jesus would hardly have taught the unique christology contained in this epistle." But since when the mention of 'a salvation' means the whole christology of 'Hebrews'? Let's note Earl quotes ""For this salvation was first announced through the Lord" [based on the NEB]", but "this salvation" (which, for Earl, seems of the same "scenario" as the one in the letter) is not in the Greek! So Jesus may have spoken of "a salvation", period. Later, the author of 'Hebrews' "explained" how and why it got "enabled" (through the crucifixion and the "sacrifice", the later "demonstrated" from scriptures taken out of context! As explained in HJ-3b). Then Doherty remarks "in fact, the voice of Jesus teaching on earth is never heard in 'Hebrews'; everything the Son "says" comes from the scriptures." I agree with Doherty, but that does not take away Jesus spoke about salvation (generally), even if the author did not care about the specifics. And Jesus speaking "in the days of his flesh" is mentioned in:
  Heb5:7 Darby "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety" By that time (more so after reading my first page), I think my readers will agree that "in the days of his flesh" relates to a Jesus on earth (and not in Doherty's heaven!). And here, Jesus speaks and is heard (this time allegedly to/by God). Note: I am not saying the passage is authentic (here God hears, not human witnesses!), just that the author pictured Jesus on earth.

Bernard hopes that the readers will believe that "in the days of his flesh" relates to Earth. As we have seen, already, in Gal 4.4 at least, it refers metaphorically to a position on the Law. However, that was the letters of Paul. This is Hebrews.....

Bernard remarks: "I agree with Doherty, but that does not take away Jesus spoke about salvation (generally), even if the author did not care about the specifics." In other words, Bernard does not deny that Hebrews is silent on Jesus' teachings. He is also quite correct to note that it does not mean that Jesus did not teach on salvation. Similarly, it does not mean that Jesus did not discourse on Zen meditation, Indian cooking, or future stock market trends. It doesn't mean anything -- which is Doherty's whole point. There is no evidence from Hebrews that Jesus ever discoursed on anything. End of discussion.

Bernard says that "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety" This is rather an odd sentence if you start to think about it. Let's look at the whole passage:

• Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself to be made a high priest; but he who had said to him, *Thou* art my Son, *I* have to-day begotten thee.6 Even as also in another [place] he says, *Thou* [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec.7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety 8 though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered;
  9 and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, author of eternal salvation;
  10 addressed by God [as] high priest according to the order of Melchisedec.;

First, the pronoun here is ambiguous. To whom does "who" refer, to Jesus or Melchizadek? It is by no means clear. You can get a reference to Jesus only by back-reading the gospels into Hebrews -- Melchizadek also ascended to heaven and was enthroned there. Second, we come to the by-now familiar problem. Why is the reference so vague? Why did it not mention where Jesus suffered these indignities? This is even more puzzling because traditionally Melchizadek is the "king of salem" and thus is linked to Jerusalem. The author of Hebrews could have made the link even stronger by working on the Jerusalem connection. Just another one of those silences (how many does it take?).

A further issue for this passage (Heb 5) is that it is strongly adoptionist. The author of Heb is arguing that Jesus was "called by god" to be high priest and specifically denies that this is an honor one could take for oneself, and adduces the famous "Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee" to prove that. Bernard could have pointed to the adoptionism of the passage as a stronger argument for the historicist case.

Unfortunately, however, it is bracketed by the usual OT-derived texts. The "my begotten son" is not a historical quote, but another bit of midrash, taken from one of the Psalms (2). In other words, Hebrews again here reaches for the OT when historicists think it is being "historical." The reference to the High Priest is also from the Psalms (110). In short, there is every reason to think that we are looking at something from the OT, rather than a reference to something that happened in real history. Why should the quote about tears in the middle be different? To demonstrate that this is a Jesus reference, Bernard needs to show that it applies to Jesus, and not to Melchizadek (who, it says, is "without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but assimilated to the Son of God, abides a priest continually.")

• is something that Earl does not address in his book, about a very human Jesus:
  Heb2:14-18 Darby "Since therefore the children ["brethren": 2:12] partake [Greek perfect tense: should read "partook"] of blood and flesh, he [Jesus] also, in like manner, took part in the same, ... Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like to [his] brethren, ... , to make propitiation for the sins of the people; for, in that himself has suffered [Greek second perfect: the suffering is over with!], being tempted, he is able to help those that are being tempted [on earth!]." Note: in 4:15 Darby "For we have not a high priest not able to sympathize with our infirmities, but tempted [Greek perfect tense] in all things in like manner ...", Jesus has already been tempted. And where would this "testing" (the same as the one affecting earthlies!) have been? In the demonic fleshy mid-world (between heaven and earth) or the highest heaven? Or on earth, known for its "flesh and blood" "brethrens", subjected to temptations (similar of the ones faced by a human Christ in the past)?

Again, the problem remains despie rhetorical questions. Where did the temptation take place? On earth? Then why is there no example or context for this "temptation"? The author of Hebrews is not averse to giving examples -- in the next chapter he talks about Moses, discusses "hardening of hearts" and then gives a historical example -- it happened in the wilderness! Similarly, in 8:5 Moses again appears, and again the time and context of the event are given. Hebrews 11 is one long list of concrete events in the Old Testament. "By faith....." he keeps repeating. This, of course, is yet another silence, for Hebrews does not refer to even a single event in the NT where faith is prominent -- for example, the woman with the menstrual problem who heals herself just by touching Jesus, the centurion of Matthew 8:10 -- an really potent case, for Jesus avers that this gentile beats all the jews in faith, the paralytic of Matthew 9, the next healing of the daughter in Matthew 11, the blind man in Mark 10...the list is long, and all are ignored by Hebrews. Why? The pattern is clear. Hebrews does not know this story.

• Finally, let's wonder where Jesus would have been an apostle, more so when all other "apostle(s)" in the NT lived on earth. Heb3:1 Darby "... consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus" And where would he have preached? Note: Ro15:8 Darby "For I [Paul] say that Jesus Christ became a minister ['diakonos'] of [the] circumcision [Jews] for [the] truth of God, ..." ("became" (root 'ginomai') can be translated as "came to pass" or "happened" (according to Strongs). The verb is in the Greek perfect tense; therefore the action has been completed in the past)

Hello? Where does the passage in Hebrews say Jesus preached? Nowhere. Bernard has once again back-read the gospels into hebrews. Calling Jesus an "apostle" does not mean that he actually preached. Further, 'Paul' -- or some early Christian -- tells us what an apostle is:

• 2 Corinthians 12:12The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.

In other words, Jesus is an apostle because he provided us with signs, wonders, and miracles, not because he preached. Bernard's thrust has once more gone astray.

• 3.4.2. Heb7:14 Darby "For it is clear that our Lord has sprung out of Juda [as David], as to which tribe Moses spake nothing as to priests."Doherty comments on that through note 44, on page 340. Earl starts by saying the statement is drawn from scriptures and therefore is not historical. But does someone claimed to be (truly or through scriptures) "sprung" from an Israelite tribe (or David, or Abraham) preclude the past existence of that person? Of course not. As a matter of fact, here, the author has Jesus ("our Lord") as an earthly human being, as for every descendant from any Israelite tribe. Doherty argues on "the word "prodelon" means "clear, manifest"", does not say "a matter of historical record". For evidence, 1Ti5:24-25 is cited (only here the aforementioned word occurs in the NT outside Heb7:14). Let's look at it: 1Ti5:24-25 NASB "The sins of some men are quite evident [Greek root 'prodelos'], going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident ['prodelos'], and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed." The translation as "evident" (or "clear", or "manifest") is justified by the context. But here Doherty notices the word relates only "to the senses or to judgment". It may happen this way in these two verses, but did Earl check outside the NT for occurrences of 'prodelos', in order to confirm this word is only used in that particular context? No mention! And '1Timothy' was not even written by the author of 'Hebrews'!

Once again we have the negative rhetorical back-reading of the gospels into Hebrews. "...But does someone claimed to be (truly or through scriptures) "sprung" from an Israelite tribe (or David, or Abraham) preclude the past existence of that person? Of course not." Bernard is right. It does not preclude past existence. However, it does not establish it, which is what Bernard claims Hebrews is doing. Doherty's point is that Jesus' descent is indicated clearly in the scriptures relied upon by the early Christians. Therefore, Jesus' descent is derived from the OT. Ipso facto, Hebrews cannot be used here as evidence of Jesus' real existence. Bernard's subsequent discussion of "prodelos" is simply idle chit-chat unrelated to the topic at hand. He has failed to adduce any positive evidence that Hebrews knows the descent of Jesus out of some historical understanding rather than OT midrash. He has simply adduced his historicist bias, and appealed to our unconcious sharing of historicist assumptions.

Moving on...

• Doherty writes: "there is no appeal to historical facts, or apostolic traditions concerning Jesus of Nazareth, no reference to Joseph and Mary, no mention of his lineage ..."
  This is typical of Earl, who presupposes every reference to a human-like Jesus should come with many details attached. But why would the author digress on that here? His purpose is to demonstrate Jesus was not from the tribe normally assigned the priesthood, the Levites, as Doherty points out: "The point is, Christ must be of a new line in order to create a new order of priesthood." And why should more details be supplied when 'Jesus from the tribe of Judah' is already "manifest"? More so if Jesus, a descendant of David (and father Jesse), was already believed by Christians (see Ro1:3 & Ro15:12)! Let's note here in the epistle the author "explained" many things, such as Jesus was pre-existent, the Son of God and, above all, performed the ultimate Sacrifice for sins (all of that new for his audience, according to Heb6:1-3). But the "manifest" descendance from the tribe of Judah comes out of the blue and is never "demonstrated": it is very likely the writer knew that was already accepted by his audience.

Bernard at last makes an argument in the last sentence of this passage: "...it is very likely the writer knew that was already accepted by his audience." This is simple speculation. Bernard also writes dismissively: "This is typical of Earl, who presupposes every reference to a human-like Jesus should come with many details attached." But why not? We see that whenever Hebrews refers to other humans -- Moses -- it frequently supplies details and examples. Of Jesus we get nothing. Moreover, adding Paul in support of Hebrews cannot help Bernard, for if Jesus' ancestry is midrash in Hebrews, it is midrash in Paul as well -- Doherty's entire point! Piling on quotes doth not an argument make. Bernard needs to show that some other route than OT proof-texting is the origin of this idea.

Finally, Bernard notes that Hebrews explained many things. But the examples given are all things that happened in Doherty's lower heaven. Not one is a thing said to have happened on earth -- despite the fact that Hebrews has no trouble giving details of life on earth for Joseph of Moses of the OT. Those were real people to him. Clearly, Jesus was not. Despite the lack of detail, Bernard considers these passages "damaging." The reality is that Doherty in Bernard's hands looks like the gorgeous assistant of a knife thrower in a circus, with knives everywhere around her but none in her flesh.

3.4.3. Heb9:26 Darby "But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested [Greek perfect tense] for [the] putting away of sin by his sacrifice."

• In chapter 3, page 37, Doherty comments on the verse: "the author of Hebrews also uses phaneroo ("manifest") in speaking to what has happened in the present time." He goes on "... a whole range of Christians writers would consistently use this sort of language to speak of Christ's coming in the present time ..." But "has been manifested" is in the Greek perfect tense and consequently this action happened and was completed in the past! And not too long ago because of "now"! Other actions about Jesus depicted in 'Hebrews' with verbs in the (Greek) perfect tense include: sufferance (2:18), temptation (4:15), separation from sinners (7:26), opposition from sinners (12:3) and perfection (unto others) though the "sacrifice", "For by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified" (10:14 Darby).

Once again we detour into a discussion of what the Greek means. Bernard manages to write a whole paragraph on verb tenses without ever once considering what the verb "manifesting" means! How is it that Jesus is "manifest?" Why not "walked on earth" or better yet "born to Mary?" Why is such a vague verb used? Bernard's discussion simply goes right by that point. Whether it happened in the past or not is irrelevant -- the issue is where Jesus was manifest, and on that issue Hebrews is silent indeed.

Finally, another long discussion of grammar follows. Perhaps Doherty's reading of the greek grammer is wrong. Perhaps it is not. But Doherty being wrong in his reading of "if he had been on earth" does nothing to make Bernard's case that Hebrew's references are to a real person who had been on earth. Bernard writes: "In the syntax "if X were ... , then ...", the imperfect tense is used twice in a present context. And "were" does not mean "had been". That should put to rest Doherty's speculations on the matter."

Of course, it does not. Whether the passage says "were" or "had been" it is equally strange. Why use the subjunctive "were" when he actually had been on earth? According to the gospel fables, he had been on earth and he wasn't a priest! Therefore, Hebrews need only point to the actual facts. Instead, if uses an IF-THEN construction as if there were no actual facts to point to. The fact that Doherty may have overreached himself in search of the smoking gun does not mean he is wrong in his general point. Even without the smoking gun the passage offers more support to Doherty than to the historicist reading of Hebrews.

Finally, we must note that Bernard's closing remarks:

How is coming from a mythical Jesus "illegitimate?" Only if you have a clear historicist agenda....

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Nogo,
That

ISSUE:
GakuseiDon:
NOGO:

post was excelent!

capnkirk

Vork,

Within the context of this thread, neither the HJ nor the MJ alternative represents a "legitimate" historical origin in the eyes of Christians, his apparent target demographic.

Nonetheless, the statement does attempt to assign agendas to those who accept Doherty's postulation and thus impugn their objectivity. Apparently, Bernard is writing this for consumption by the theist public at large. When I first read his review, I took that statement as fair warning that the review would frame its arguments against the unspoken alternative of an origin "legitimate" in the Xtian view...and at that instant, long-range sensors first detected a possible "polemic" approaching. I immediately sounded 'red alert'. Later, I identified the tone as only "tendentious", and lowered ship's status to 'yellow alert'.

Amaleq13

It does, however, agree with the description Paul gives of Jesus being "emptied" and/or having "no reputation". If I understand capnkirk and Maccoby correctly, their depiction of the earthly ministry of Jesus is more consistent with Paul than the Gospel depiction. Paul's description of the pre-sacrifice Jesus, if he is assumed historical, can only be a reference to a failed effort assuming any effort was made.

Gregg

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Bravo again, Vork.

capnkirk

All essentially true for many HJers, at least insofar as the point you are attempting to make is concerned.
P.S. Maccoby doesn't hold that the Temple incident is what brought Jesus to the attention of the High Priests...more like that was the last straw, since what he was saying threatened to put the priests out of power. (We can discuss this at more length separately if you wish.).But...thirty years later, when Josephus was in Jerusalem, all that had pretty much died down, and only the the most faithful still believed HJ was still coming. All Josephus would have seen would have been a Jewish group that believed that their long-ago executed leader was coming back. Compared to the here and now of "the Egyptian's" insurrection, the significance of HJ was strictly old news. The subject of the passage was the 'removal' of the High Priest, not James. That James is mentioned at all probably rests on Josephus' desire to flesh out that historical tidbit. Remember, Josephus was an apologist for both Roman imperialism and Jewish aristocracy, so both his selection of which events constituted "history" and the editorial content of his comments must be factored into anything Josephus writes. And, for the record, Josephus was not a Pharisee, as is sometimes claimed by those who draw no distinction between Pharisees and priests. Josephus was born into the priestly (Aaronic) aristocracy in 37 CE, making his Pharisee label extremely unlikely. Rather, his cultural background would tend to point more toward the outlook of the High Priests.