stephan huller

It is interesting however that 1 Clement consistently echoes Pauline material without actually citing much of the text. Goodspeed made the case that the vocabulary of the Epistle to the Ephesians had a literary relationship with the First Epistle of Clement, but Ephesians is problematic because the Marcionites used it under a different name and IMO in a slightly different form. Note this statement in Origen:

Clearly Clement of Alexandria is responsible for the second argument. Who is responsible for the first?

stephan huller

Perhaps the question is - does the Hebrews preserve something which is proto-Pauline (i.e. before the Catholic corruption of the Apostolikon) or something which was pushed to the side by Irenaeus (the likely corruptor of the Apostolikon) and revived by his student Hippolytus? Why is there so much uncertainty about the author? My opinion is that both identifications of 'Clement' and 'Luke' point to the same underlying assumption - i.e. Roman meddling. The further question is - why didn't Irenaeus corrupt Hebrews?

andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

Your interesting analysis deserves a careful response.
I'll try and provide one but it may not be for a few days.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Dear Earl,

This is the response I was expecting when first broaching the subject with you on JM. It is forceful, but civil without reliance on insult. Thank you.

I agree with you on the following points:

• Greek grammer per se does not indicate that Jesus was never on earth.
• Greek grammer per se may well allow for that possibility.
• There is, most likely, no external attestation for Hebrews before the later 2nd century.
• Heb 8:4 did not influence any development in broader Christianity.

With those areas of agreement, I can leave you to your exegesis.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

Doherty simply does not understand the NT Canon.

In the Canon the Pauline writer claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee--Philippians 3.5

Philippians 3:5 KJVDoherty argues that Jesus in the Pauline letters and Hebrews was Celestial and never on earth even though it is claimed, Jesus the Son of God was made of a woman, that he spoke to the Hebrews, and that he was crucified, died for our sins and was buried and resurrected on the third day.

See Galatians 4.4 and 1 Cor.15 and Hebrews 1.

Now, if Jesus was believed to be Entirely Spiritual and Paul was a Pharisee and the Epistle is addressed to the Hebrews then then Doherty's claim that a Celestial Jesus was crucified and died in heaven would NOT be understood by Hebrews.

The Pharisees believed the Soul or Spirit is IMMORTAL.

[u]Wars of the Jews 2.8.14.Antiquities of the Jews 18 Once the Pauline and Hebrews Jesus was a Spirit then it could NOT have been crucified and died.

In the 1st century the Pharisee believed that the Body of men were Corruptible and did die but that the Spirit was IMMORTAL.

The Pauline and Hebrews Jesus MUST have FLESH to crucify and then to DIE.

Doherty's argument has thoroughly debunked by Josephus.

But, not only Josephus debunks Doherty but Tertullian will do the same.

In antiquity, Christian writers of the Jesus cult claimed Jesus MUST have FLESH, must be born.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ Paul, the Pharisee and Hebrew of Hebrews did NOT Deny that Jesus the Son of God was made of a woman and in Hebrews it is claimed Jesus came in the Flesh.

An IMMORTAL Spirit could NOT have died on earth or in heaven based on the Belief of Pharisees--Only Flesh is corruptible.

Doherty has been thoroughly debunked by Paul the Pharisee and Hebrew of Hebrews.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

jakejonesiv

Dear Earl,

As you might guess, I will not rule out the possibility of mid second century redaction of Hebrews, or any Christian document, including the Pauline epistles. Indeed, I find it likely considering that the doctrinal wars were waged in the scriptures. Welcome to the club.

Jake

aa5874

It is already known that virtually anything is possible.

I will not rule out the possibility that Hebrews was NOT redacted but was a late writing.

When an argument is made for a certain position then the other possibilities are left for others to argue.

An attorney who argues that his client did NOT commit a crime has no obligation at all to argue that it is possible he did do it.

Now, if Hebrews was redacted to appear late how is it that Doherty still argues that it was early without ever presenting Epistle Hebrews that was NOT redacted.

When Greek NT Testaments were analysed for Textual variants it was found that the Textual variations of Hebrews match those of Late NT writings.

In effect, the Epistle Hebrews shows very little sign of Redaction.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

RParvus

Stephan,

To me Hebrews and 1 Clement look very similar. Both quote Scripture extensively. The Greek of both is recognized as quite good. They share a number of ideas and expressions. They even betray the same laziness at times about looking up the source of quotations: “But someone has testified somewhere … “ (Heb. 2:6); “For he has spoken somewhere about …” (Heb 4:4). Compare with 1 Clement’s “For it says somewhere…” (in chapters 15, 21, 26, 28), and “For the Scripture somewhere says…” (42).

Neither writing gives its author’s name. And both are apparently trying to pass themselves off as being letters to particular communities of the sub-apostolic period but, in reality, are theological treatises whose intended readership is Christians of their author’s own day (130 – 140 CE).

I agree with Joseph Turmel that 1 Clement was written by a proto-orthodox Christian around 140 CE to undercut Marcionism. Its meandering is only apparent. It tackles one after another the doctrines that Marcion denied but, in order to do so without even acknowledging him, it has to meander from one doctrine to another. To spell out the unifying principle—opposition to Marcionism—would have ruined the fictitious picture its author was drawing of a first-century proto-orthodox church in Corinth.

I see Hebrews as coming from the same proto-orthodox circle but a bit earlier—perhaps (as per Couchoud) around 130 CE. The target of Hebrews was Simonianism. The epistle aimed to provide a proto-orthodox substitute for Simon of Samaria’s doctrine. To that end it emphasizes the Son’s possession of a real human body and also his very real suffering in that body. In view was Simon’s claim that the Son only appeared to be human and only apparently suffered. And Hebrews emphasizes that the visible world is good, its maker being the Father of Jesus. And that the Law, though merely a shadow of the future covenant, was still basically good and put in place by God. And that what the Son of God came to free mankind from was its sins. Jesus as divine high priest came to make propitiation for them.

So what we have in Hebrews is an early proto-orthodox substitute for Simon’s blasphemous system that had the Son of God coming to free mankind from the bondage of the flesh and the sin-inciting Law, both of which were imposed by the inferior angels who made the world. The author of Hebrews was apparently so happy with the method he employed that he later tried the same thing on Marcionism (1 Clement). But ultimately the proto-orthodox came up with an even better idea: Sanitize a collection of Simon’s letters! The result, of course, did not read as smoothly as the compositions they had made from scratch. But despite the many rough spots caused by their intervention, their doctored letters proved to be remarkably effective. Even Marcion’s crying “Foul!” and his attempt to restore them proved fruitless in the end.

EarlDoherty

Well, this leaves unaddressed the main contentions of the matter. Does my Appendix sufficiently demonstrate that Hebrews was written before the Jewish War? Does it sufficiently demonstrate that the postscript is not authentic? Both of these matters are crucial to Jake's stance and were the reason why I posted the Appendix. He does not weigh in on them, so I guess my posting was pointless. Either he agrees with me on those questions, or he does not. And if he does not, he needs to rebut my arguments.

And I guess he has abandoned attempting any rebuttal to my "hair-splitting" response to Ted on Hebrew 8:4 (beyond the grammatical consideration, which has already been settled in the direction of ambiguity, thanks to Bernard's acknowledgment of Ellingworth's statement).

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

Why is only one of them canonised?