Duvduv

What are the surviving texts of these Valentinians that are the sources of all this information?

aa5874

Again, Earl, your claim that there is a mountain of evidence is completely erroneous and mis-leading.

The author of Hebrews is unknown up to today and his writings had ZERO influence on ALL the authors of the Canon.

Hebrews had virtually ZERO impact on all 2nd century Apologetic and Non-Apologetic writers and NONE at all on Marcion based on "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

Neither Irenaeus or Tertullian acknowledged the Epistle of Hebrews even though it was attributed to Paul in antiquity and even when they argued that Marcion corrupted the Pauline letters.

Epistle Hebrews is missing in "Against Heresies" suppopsedly composed c 180 CE.

The following books are identified by name In "Against Heresies": Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, the Epistles of Timothy and the Apocalypse of John.

The Epistle Hebrews is missing in "Against Marcion" supposedly composed c 208 CE.

The following books are identified or referenced In "Against Marcion":
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, the Epistles of Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the Apocalypse of John.


The mountain of evidence is that Epistle Hebrews was most likely a very late writing and had virtually no impact at all on Marcion and the Jesus cult up to at least the end of the 2nd century.

Even if Hebrews is about an heavenly sacrifice, which it is not, there is no evidence at all that such a concept was developed before the late 2nd century.

sotto voce

The purpose of the letter to Hebrews is that faith is crucial because Jesus' sacrifice has supernal significance because it was witnessed on earth, and after a perfect life, despite temptation. Without temptation, witnessed temptation, it would not only be meaningless, there would be no way of knowing that it even existed.

Faith is demanding, of course. It demands everything. It makes mankind apparently insane.

Tenorikuma

Interesting that Philo has Melchizedek offering wine in place of water, whereas canonical Gospel of John presents Jesus' first divine act as turning water into wine.

On the matter of Psalm 82 and Dt 32, it is of course Bingo who I believe is correct.

sotto voce

Also sprach Tenorikuma.

The rest of us are wasting our time with sodding scholarship.

EarlDoherty

I'm not really following this. Why would I associate Hebrews with the Valentinians when my dating of the former places it almost a century before the latter? And why do we have to know who the author of Hebrews is in order to identify his thought by his writing?

The connection you suggest between Hebrews and Valentinianism isn't apparent to me. I pointed out that the content of the early Gospel of Truth (if it is indeed Valentinian, which most scholars think) is not quite the same as that of mature Valentinianism perhaps 2 or 3 decades later. I wish you would spell out your ideas more fully when you respond like this so I can see exactly what you are maintaining in relation to my own. How can the Valentinians have thought that the Hebrews writer was correct in saying that Jesus was never on earth, but that they wouldn't agree with my overall conclusion, that Jesus was never on earth? Both elements are the same. You don't make sense there.

If you are referring to the idea that the "Jesus" who was never on earth was the Logos, and the "Jesus" who supposedly did come to earth was a different figure, a representative of the Logos, I have already made the point that I see no sign of this belief or system in the epistle to the Hebrews. You would have to point out where you think you see it.

Consequently, I see no reason why Valentinian ideas should be used to indicate the dating of Hebrews.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

Well let's stary with the earliest people associated with Hebrews are Valentinians. When you lose something the first thing they tell you to do is ask - where was the last place you remember having it? Chances are that's where it is. With Irenaeus's hostility in play I can't think of an earlier historical witness (aside from Alexandrian stories about fictitious people like Luke and Clement). The Muratorian silence is probably reflective of an original Valentinian provenance or at least "proto-Valentinian" like the Odes of Solomon

stephan huller

I can't find a good reference to De Conick's article on the subject but here's something at least http://www.gnosis.org/library/valent...ans_Temple.htm

stephan huller

You better give me some credit for helping change your mind when you come around to this stronger argument

EarlDoherty

Again, I am not following this. If the Valentinians thought Paul was the Paraclete, why did he have to write "the gospel". Which Gospel--John? And why do you and Trobisch find it reasonable that identifying Paul with the Paraclete must be associated with Gospel writing? Where did the figure of the Paraclete originate--or at least the Christian use of the term, which is a deviation from the original meaning? Are you saying it had to be in the community of John, because it is found nowhere else? If this is a way of suggesting that "Paul" was a second century figure who actually wrote the Gospel of John, I can't see that at all. What is there in common between the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles that one would be led to suggest a common author?

If the Valentinians thought Paul was the Paraclete, the simplest way to interpret this is that they regarded Jesus (as 'recorded' in the Gospel of John) as forecasting the coming of one who would make things clearer, and that this 'parakletos' was to be Paul, the author of the Pauline letters. I don't see any need for this to suggest that Paul was the author of the gospel. Surely you are not suggesting that Paul wrote "John" and imbedded in it a forecast of himself?

Earl Doherty