EarlDoherty

. . .

I have spent the last three months crafting a lengthy study of the Epistle to the Hebrews (building on many years of study of the epistolary record of early Christianity), in which I not only put forward a thorough case for that document’s entirely “cosmic Christ” but address in detail major works on academia’s study of Hebrews (Harold Attridge, for example) to demonstrate its traditional erroneous methodology and reasoning in reading an HJ into it. It would be nice if academia would reciprocate in kind. Will any here who regularly dismiss me and the mythicist case take the trouble to investigate it? I don't hold out much hope, though I'll provide the link below.

“The Cosmic Christ of the Epistle to the Hebrews”:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp14One.htm

Earl Doherty

mod note - split from another thread

Jeffrey Gibson

May I suggest that if you really are serious about your wish to receive feed back from "academia" (and especially from those members of academia whose work you claim you've shown is misguided), you send it not only to one of the journals which "academia" reads (JBL) but also also directly to the very academics (like Atrridge and all the other recent Hebrews scholars) whose works you say you address? After all, that's most likely the only way they will see it. And it certainly is the best way for you to get what you say you want.

Jeffrey

Malachi151

I generally agree with it, although I don't see the need to make such an emphasis on a non-earthly concept of Jesus.

I think that Hebrews is powerful testimony against a historical Jesus regardless of whether or not the concept of Jesus within it is earthly or purely heavenly.

This goes back to the main criticism that I have with your works, which is that they seem to convey the idea that non-existence has to be equated with non-earthly.

It should be easy to see that this is not true, since many gods, legendary, and fictional figures are presented in earthly settings.

The biggest issue with Hebrews is that the Jesus that is presented is purely scriptural, regardless of whether those scritpures describe a "human" or a purely heavenly being, in neither case do they give support for a historical being.

A being derived from scripture is a being derives from scripture, regardless of whether the scritpures describe a heavenly or an earthly being.

I often feel like you've set the bar too high with your emphasis on a purely heavenly concept of Jesus.

P.S. The description of Jesus as a Yom Kippur sacrifice is also, I think, powerful evidence against historicity. The best argument against this, however, is that Hebrews was written as a Yom Kippur sermon, thus explaining its relevance.

aa5874

But, "Paul" only "knew" and presented a heavenly Jesus. I think that it cannot be over-emphasized that "Paul" became acquainted with Jesus in the "third heaven".

gurugeorge

Totally agree with this Malachi151. I think the earliest concept of the Joshua Messiah clearly had a "spiritual" or "archetypal" or perhaps "astral" aspect (as indeed would an HJ have done, in most Christian eyes), but he also clearly had an earthly one - he was thought of as having had a human being aspect. It's just that there's nothing in the early Christian writings to show that the earthly aspect was thought of as someone who'd been known personally to any of the early Christians. That's the nub of it.

And in that context it's totally mischaracterising the Mythicist (or Ahistoricist) position to call it an "argument from silence": the fact is that HJ-ers cannot show this essential connection between any of the early Christians and some guy called Joshua (who they personally knew and thought was the Messiah) in the earliest texts, so there's no positive reason to prefer an HJ. There is simply an absence of support in the earliest stuff for the positive existential claim of an HJ, so MJ (of a more or less scriptural or mystical or visionary variety) fits better, given the evidence that exists.

Looking forward to reading Earl's essay though, as always.

EarlDoherty

Thanks for the encouragement, Jeffrey. No doubt you would put in a good word for me at JBL...

I have actually considered printing (cheaply) a 'mini-book' of the Hebrews study which would be handy for doing exactly what you suggest. It will depend on the cost, and whether I decide sending a paper copy would be preferable to a hyperlink.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

But that is how I read the evidence. You know what a scientist does, don't you? He or she follows the evidence, not one's own preference for what would be more acceptable or politically correct. I departed from G. A. Wells' interpretation, for example, from the beginning because I saw no evidence in the epistles for Paul regarding Jesus as someone who had lived obscurely on earth at some unknown time in the past, but a lot of indicators that he saw him as a purely heavenly being.

I fully realize that the concept of a "non-earthly" Jesus is hard for moderns to get their minds around. That doesn't make it erroneous if that's what the record reveals. If you've read my material, you will realize that this is exactly what it does.

Yes, and this is precisely a support for a heavenly Christ. The "human being aspect" is in regard to the parallelism between the divine and the human, between entities in heaven and people on earth who are joined to them, which enables a divinity operating in the spiritual world to "save" humanity. I've called it the "paradigmatic parallel" and after I first was twigged to it early on by John J. Collins' book The Apocalyptic Imagination (or via: amazon.co.uk), everything fell into place and I could see it expressed all through the early Christian record, canonical and elsewhere. (Basically, that's the principle of the mystery cult system as well.) It worked very well for Paul & Co. until the Gospels came along, and people like Ignatius decided that a divine savior who had actually taken on human flesh and suffered in it on earth was preferable and more effective.

But an earthly-historical being derived from scripture is going to be presented as an earthly-historical being, with some reference to his life and identity on earth. And given the mania for seeing scripture fulfilled in history, complete silence on this is a telling pointer to the fact that no historical being or fulfillment is in view. Nothing in the Epistle to the Hebrews points to scripture being fulfilled in history or an historical figure, unless one reads that into it based on the Gospels, which is exactly what scholars have been doing for centuries and are still doing in spades. That is one of the things I have been concerned with demonstrating in my latest article.

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

It doesn't work that way. Only the persons to whom the journal's editor sends article for review can do that. But if you'd like me to give you the addresses of the submissions editor for JBL (or NTS or JSNT, etc. I'd be happy to do so.l

Why would a sending a hyper link (with a "cover letter") to Attridge and to Ellengworth (the only scholars who you quote who [I think] are still alive) be a bad thing? And if not a hyperlink, why not a PDF of your paper? I can tell you from experience that scholars prefer receiving a PDF of something they are asked to reveiw over receiving a printed copy of it.

So really, the cost of printing is not an issue. And there is no obstacle to your sending out your paper now.

In any case, I note that until you do send it out to where scholars live, you have no right to make any remarks about how academia has not responded to what you write on this matter.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

No one would object to a PDF file; it is professional, clean, quick, and presentable. Earl, if you wish, I could convert your article to PDF and send the file to you.

Ben.

Steven Carr

I know that Hugh Montefiore is dead.

I'm rather surprised to learn that he was an eminent NT scholar. You learn something every day. To me , he was just a name in 'The Blind Watchmaker' and the author of some not very good magazine articles.

I'm not familar with the names of Attridge and Ellengworth. Who they?

No disrespect to anybody. I just have no idea who they are.