maryhelena

Check out this quote from post #61:

Note the word "ambiguous".

That's the state of play here. The text of Hebrews 8.4 is ambiguous. No, Bernard has not resolved the ambiguity - and neither has Doherty. No winners here - no victory party on the cards. No celebratory champagne - it's back to the drawing board for both parties. :devil1:

Roo Bookaroo

Bernard:

Maryhelena is right. You haven't solved the ambiguity. But the ambiguity rises only when we leave the Greek text for a translation. The ambiguity does not exist in some sky, it is the translator who is faced with the ambiguity, if he's willing, able and ready to spot it.

And my question was about the history of reading. Before Paul Ellingworth, before the thousands of words from endless elucubrations about the verse's hidden meaning, how did previous readers read the text? How did they translate it? They wouldn't spend more than a few seconds, or perhaps a minute or two. Nobody went through a song-and-dance about the simple task of reading this short line.
I had a quick look at how Jerome handled it, in the Vulgate. Pretty simple, pretty straightforward: "si ergo esset super terram nec esset sacerdos".
So the present tense must have seemed to be a natural reading to most readers in the past, for "hundreds and thousands of years" (to mimic Dorothy Murdock's favorite incantation) before modern expert translators came on the scene.

Note that Paul Ellingworth has an interesting article online Reading through Hebrews 1-7, Epworth Review 12.1 (Jan. 1985): 80-88.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pd...llingworth.pdf
It underlines the thorny problems of rendering the text into English, very specific to Hebrews. Worth reading.

Note that Ellingworth uses no artificial analogies to explain the text: No mention of a trip to Paris in 1888, no mention of Ronald Reagan's presidency, no reference to the story of "Bob and Jim".
Ellingworth is not a "raconteur", he does not think with analogies, but prefers to dig deep into the text, and when he needs comparisons, it is with other parts of the text itself.

Ellingworth focuses only on the text of Hebrews and its specific obscurities and the challenge of its Greek, letting Hebrews "speak in its own terms".
He emphasizes that "it is good to recognize that Hebrews is also a work of art" with thorny difficulties:
Perhaps you can find his big book in the library: The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text
http://books.google.fr/books/about/T...cC&redir_esc=y
The publisher comments:
And another article online, "Theory and Practice in Bible Translation by Paul Ellingworth", full of interesting remarks on the pitfalls and challenges of translating the dead Greek language of the Bible. No example from Hebrews, though
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1983-3_159.pdf

jakejonesiv

Sure, if you will consider that the Pauline epistles arose about the same time, but in a different geographical area.
But the epistle to the Hebrews is not Pauline. So there is at least one unwarrented assumption.



Of course. Hebrews 4:8 is not a smoking gun. That has been my position from the beginning. Earl is the one strutting around claiming absolute knowledge and failing miserably. There is nothing conclusive or irrefutable about ambiguous grammar and nine convoluted pages of angel dancing "logic".

I certainly agree that the epistle to Hebrews was written after the gospels were wide spread.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Hi maryhelena,

I understand what you are saying, but a determination of ambiguity is an utter defeat now for Earl Doherty. He has doubled down, he has gone all in, and it is a bluff. Don't believe me? Try to get him to admit even the slightest doubt about his interpretation.

Jake

Grog

Are they Christian, pre-Christian, or proto-Christian elements? And how could one sort that out?

jakejonesiv

There is no evidence that anyone in antiquity read Hebrews 8:4 as meaning that Jesus had never been on earth. How then can there be a smoking gun if no one ever noticed?

Jake

maryhelena

I believe you Jake.......

All I want to get across is that a defeat for Doherty, i.e. no smoking gun, no timebomb, in Hebrews 8.4, for the historicist JC position, is not a 'win' by default for that side of the debate. The ambiguity requires more than taking either side - past or present. That approach is not resolving the ambiguity it is sidestepping it. Actually, resolving the ambiguity maybe the wrong word here - accommodate the ambiguity might be a better approach.

maryhelena

Yes and no........

My thinking is that the gospel story, a story about a crucified messiah figure, is a very old story. It's a story that developed over many years, updated as time moves along. gLuke, the final version, being around the end of the first century. At which time I would also put the Pauline epistles. Hebrews is very early.

Yep, Hebrews much earlier than 'Paul'.

Perhaps this current issue with Doherty and Hebrews 8.4 should be a wake up call for some ahistoricist/mythicists. Unfortunately, it seems it won't be for Doherty himself. But the situation should be good for those wanting to move forward in the historicist/ahistoricist debate. If a roadblock can't be removed - then ways need to be found to move around it....

aa5874

Hebrews 8.4 is not a roadblock, except to Doherty. It is an ambiguous passage in a Canon which clearly states Jesus the Son of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin, was baptized by John in the River Jordan, was in the presence of the Sanhedrin when Caiaphas was High Priest, was on trial under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and buried by Joseph of Arithmathea.

Doherty has NO corroborative source for his never on earth Jesus.

In addition, up to 115 CE, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have destroyed all claims that there was a character called Jesus the Son of God and Messianic ruler who was crucified as a Sacrificial Lamb in heaven or earth for Universal Remmission of Sins.

The Pauline writings and Hebrews were unknown by Apologetic writers up to the mid 2nd century and it is claimed by Justin that the doctrines of the Jesus cult were derived from the Words of the Prophets and the Memoirs of the Apostles.
Justin's First Apology
Justin argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and NEVER ONCE referred to the Pauline letters or Hebrews.

The Pauline writings and Hebrews were NOT even needed for the Churches in the time of Justin--just Hebrew Scripture and the story of Jesus.

maryhelena

aa - Yes, Hebrews 8.4 for Doherty is a roadblock - he cannot see past his own interpretation of this verse.

It's Doherty's position on this verse that is a roadblock......because Doherty's position is hindering some ahistoricists/mythicists from thinking outside of this position....:wave:

Yes, aa, it's the story of Jesus; a story about a messiah figure crucified by Pilate, that is the fundamental story. It is that story that was, and is, the driving force behind the christian movement.