Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 12-12-2007, 12:38 PM

Hi James Madison,

You suggest that the plain text meaning of certain passages ares clear and therefore do not need contextual explication. Let us look at them as someone without knowledge of Plato or the gospels:

1) [I]"In the days of his flesh), (S)He offered up both prayers and supplications with (T)loud crying and tears to the One (U)able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His (V)piety.

The plain meaning of this is that "He" is dead. He cried and wept like a baby before he died, Some "one" heard him, because he was a good person (strange -- would he not have heard him if he was bad?), but was unable to save him.

The plain text does not tell us who he was or where he was. The only plain meaning is that someone cried and begged for someone to help him before he died, but that other person failed to help him. The plain text does not tell us if this happened on earth or in heaven, if it was real or imaginary. Basically, this just tells us that someone died who did not wish to die.

2)2:14 14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for[f]the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (NIV)

The plain reading is that since children die (have flesh and blood), "he" too died in order that he could destroy the devil who has the power of death. He did not do this to help angels, but to help Jews. He had to be like his brothers, good high priests to God to atone for the sins of the Jews. Because he was tempted to sin like the Jews, he knows what it is to sin. Clearly, the only plain reading here is that we are dealing with an angel-like cosmic being, who helped the Jews by straying from God as the Jews did.

Chapter 8: 3For every (G)high priest is appointed (H)to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who (I)offer the gifts according to the Law;

The plain reading is that all high priests offer gifts and sacrifices. This high priest does it to. This high priest is not on Earth. The gifts and sacrifices of this high priest, who is not on Earth, is different from the gifts and sacrifices of those high priests on Earth. This simply says that our cosmic high priest does not offer the same gifts and sacrifices as the high priests on Earth

It is apparent that the plain readings of these passages do not say whether the death of "He" took place in heaven or Earth, but only that he is presently a cosmic high priest different from Earthly high priests.

A plain reading (one free from Platonic and gospel ideas) of these three passages supports Doherty's idea that the writer is talking about a cosmic being in heaven rather than a recently dead Earthly man, but neither confirms nor denies Doherty's contention that his death took place in heaven.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Well, its a start. And a pretty good one at that. In my view, if Doherty can succeed in showing that there is room for an alternative explanation to the orthodox one, he is mightily successful. This is not a simple issue so to be able to bring his case to level with the orthodox one is very impressive in my view because it makes his case worthy of attention.

He does not argue that they are a resolution to those assumptions. Since you have done a not too shabby analysis of Doherty's arguments, assuming that you are familiar with the Argument to the Best Explanation(ABE), how do you rate Doherty's case with the historicist case?
Richard Carrier, a historian, writes that:
[Emphasis mine]

Well, thanks for the compliment. One of my job responsibilities is to examine texts and determine their meaning, specifically legal texts, whether it is a statute, U.S. Constitution, or state constitution. So I have been exposed to a wide range of methods for ascertaining the meaning of a text. Doherty's argument is really quite simple and no different of an argument than those espoused by lawyers when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, statutes, or state constitutions. While Doherty's argument is different in terms of "substance," he actually employs a method of interpretation many other lawyers have espoused when construing a legal text or constitutional provision.

Like with all texts, the central issue is what is being said? One of the best ways of determining what is being said in the text is to determine and focus upon the text itself. The rules of construction in the legal realm are equally applicable and useful in the academic world and when analyzing non-legal texts. If the text is ambiguous, then it becomes necessary, in seeking to understand what the text is saying, to focus upon extraneous evidence, such as how the author construed, interpreted, or understood his own text, specifically what he understood it to say or mean. The author had a particular point in mind and set out to articulate this point in his/her writings. The author of the book of Hebrews is no different. The task, then, is to ascertain what the author of the book of Hebrews was saying and Doherty sets out to accomplish this task, albeit with some rather flimsy evidence (I will develop this point later in this post).

So, Doherty sets out to argue the author of Hebrews was talking about a Cosmic Christ, a Christ who existed entirely in heaven, as opposed to on earth. Yet his analysis suffers from a fatal flaw. As I said previously, the first step in any textual analysis is to begin with the text itself. If the text itself does not contain any ambiguity, then there is no need to go any further in the analysis. There is no need to go beyond the text if the text itself is clear and unambiguous. Doherty, however, assumes for the sake of making his point, one cannot merely rely upon a plain text reading of some of the verses in Hebrews because the plain text reading is contrary to the actual point the author is making. In other words, Doherty does not at all make an argument why the plain text reading of some verses needs or should not be relied upon. Doherty merely assumes, out of thin air, the author of Hebrews cannot possibly be talking about what the plain text of those verses suggests but MUST BE in fact talking about something else, specifically the location of what the verse are talking about is in heaven or a sublunar realm.

Why is this important? Because someone reading Hebrews for the first time, without any exposure or understanding to the Gospels or Platonic philosophy, can reasonably arrive to an interpretation I will provide below. Now, Doherty can certainly insist this is an erroneous understanding of Hebrews and argue the proper way to read and understand Hebrews is not from a plain text reading but rather from reading into ALL of Hebrews the Platonic philosophy. Hence, he needs to make a compelling argument as to why a plain text reading of some of the verses is wrong.

What verses am I talking about? "In the days of his flesh), (S)He offered up both prayers and supplications with (T)loud crying and tears to the One (U)able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His (V)piety.

Hebrews 2:14 14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for[f]the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (NIV)

NASB reads: 14Therefore, since the children share in (AK)flesh and blood, (AL)He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that (AM)through death He might render powerless (AN)him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and might free those who through (AO)fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17Therefore, He had (AP)to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might (AQ)become a merciful and faithful (AR)high priest in (AS)things pertaining to God, to (AT)make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Chapter 8: 3For every (G)high priest is appointed (H)to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who (I)offer the gifts according to the Law;

Doherty asserts the location for Christ's existence in the flesh, death in the flesh, and sacrifice on the cross was in heaven or a sublunar realm, as opposed to having transpired on earth. Yet, the plain text of these verses does not support such a proposition. There is no reason at this point to abandon the common sense notion that human beings are born on earth, die on earth, and not any place else. The author, in these verses, has not provided us with anything to believe this transpired some place else other than earth. If this were a passage out of Shakespeare or some other text describing flesh, blood, human form, and dying in human form, we would immediately understand this to transpire on earth, since it is on earth where human beings exist and die after all, and not some other realm unless clearly indicated by the text. Consequently, this Jesus, being born in human form, being flesh and blood, was born on earth and died on earth.

Rather, Doherty is ignoring the plain text and imposing upon it a view not found anywhere in these verses. His justification for it is the fact subsequent chapters refer to Jesus as a High Priest in Heaven. Yet, once again, this ignores a plain text reading of Hebrews. One can read the entire book of Hebrews, and relying on the plain text of it, arrive to the interpretation Christ existed on earth in the flesh, died on earth in the flesh, somehow makes it to heaven after his death, and performs sacrifices as a High Priest.

Look at the verses I have submitted up above. He had (AP)to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might (AQ)become a merciful and faithful (AR)high priest in (AS)things pertaining to God, to (AT)make propitiation for the sins of the people......4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who (I)offer the gifts according to the Law

A plain text reading of these verses leads to the interpretation that he was first a man, in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh on earth so that he might BECOME a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God. He is a man first, in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh so he can BECOME a High Priest, and he so becomes this High Priest after first suffering and dying in the flesh on earth. This is supported by the verse that if he were on earth, he would not be a high priest at all. Ergo, a plain text reading of Hebrews would be Jesus existed on earth, not as a high priest, but as a human being, who suffered and died in the flesh, and this consequently, allowed him to BECOME a High Priest when he made it to heaven subsequent to his death in the flesh. The fact he is now in heaven after his death in the flesh, and suffering in the flesh, on earth, allows him now to be a High Priest in Heaven.

This is a plain text reading of the book of Hebrews and one does not have to be exposed to the Gospels to arrive at this interpretation because it is supported by the plain text itself. What Doherty proposes is we abandon our common sense and reasonable assumption regarding human form, existing in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh, as all transpiring on earth because we do not know humans to experience these things anywhere else, in favor of another assumption, i.e. this took place not on earth but at a different location.

Why is this important? Because someone reading Hebrews for the first time, without any exposure or understanding to the Gospels of Platonic philosophy, can reasonably arrive to the interpretation I just provided because it is supported by the text itself. Now, Doherty can certainly insist this is an erroneous understanding of Hebrews and argue the proper way to read and understand Hebrews is not from a plain text reading but rather from reading into ALL of Hebrews the Platonic philosophy. Hence, he needs to make a compelling argument as to why a plain text reading is wrong.

The reasons or evidence Doherty provides in advocating for abandoning a plain text reading and imposing upon all of Hebrews a Platonic interpretation is rather flimsy. Rather than beginning with the submission of evidence the author of Hebrews was intimately familiar with the Platonic philosophy (He says specifically, "No other New Testament document so clearly illustrates the higher and lower world thinking of Platonic philosophy as the Epistle to the Hebrews.," he begins building his case the author is using and relying upon Platonic philosophy with the use of weak circumstantial evidence, the argument from a lack of evidence, and speculation.

The weak circumstantial evidence comes in the fact he finds similarities between the author's use of a heavenly item existing and an earthly inferior one. To be sure there are some similarities between Plato's notion of the "forms," where a perfect and universal form exists out in the heavens but on earth there is an inferior and incomplete representation of it. Yet, this is merely a correlation and a correlation cannot be confused with causation. It could be a coincidence, accident, or intentional the author composed his text in this fashion but such parallels does not translate into the fact the author is actually relying upon or understanding his text to be making a mythicist or Platonic point at all BECAUSE OF his exposure to the Platonic tradition. Some evidence the author was exposed to this Greek/Platonic idea, as opposed to merely assuming so and then assuming it inspired his work, is necessary.

A parallel legal example would be in regards to the words "due process." It has been contested by some in the legal field the words "due process" had a particular meaning when those words were used in the 5th and 14th amendments. Specifically, they assert the meaning of those words and understanding of them was identical to, similar, or inspired by Sir Edward Coke, who just so happen to expound upon the meaning of those two words in the 1600's. Sure enough, there is a plethora of evidence indicating the Framers of the 14th and 5th amendment had read Coke's institutes regarding the words "due process" and consequently, construed those majestic terms as Coke did. Absent this fact, all we would have is a correlation and it is not logical to assume causation from a correlation.

Yet, even if we are to assume the author of Hebrews was exposed to Platonic ideas, and this proved to be the cause for his writing style in Hebrews, do we necessarily need to assume ALL of Hebrews comes within it? In other words, is it not possible the author of Hebrews merely wanted, desired, and understood his text to be limited to the Platonic description in regards to the comparison between the High Priest in Christ, the priests on earth, and no further? Why assume, as Doherty does, the Platonic account of a Heavenly High Priest, in contrasts to an earthly priest, extends to the authors account of Jesus existing in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh? Essentially Doherty's argument amounts to nothing more than, "Well the author of Hebrews used the Platonic idea here, in regards to the heavenly priest in contrast with the earthly ones. Ergo, since he used it here, then he is also using it elsewhere in Hebrews, such as the discussion about Jesus' flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh. This is not a very convincing argument.

Perhaps it is possible the author did not desire, want, or understand his Platonic characterization to be extended to those verses discussing Jesus time, suffering, and death in his flesh, and the mere fact he used it elsewhere in Hebrews does not mean nor should it be assumed he wanted other parts of Hebrews construed in a like or similar manner. After all, those verses discussing Jesus' existence in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death are very devoid of those Platonic elements we find later on regarding the High Priest as compared to the inferior earthly priests. The author of Hebrews goes into much greater detail contrasting the earthly and heavenly priests, along with their places of sacrifice, than he does regarding Jesus' time in the flesh.

It is Doherty's job to provide evidence the author of Hebrews understood, wanted, or desired for the Platonic characterization which appears in later chapters in Hebrews to be extended towards those earlier chapters in Hebrews discussing his days in the flesh, his suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh. He has not done so and merely asserting and assuming the author does so in some part of Hebrews does not mean he has done so for ALL parts of Hebrews. The fact some parts of Hebrews has this Platonic element to it cannot be relied upon to assume ALL of Hebrews, or those other verses I reference should likewise be understood and read with this Platonic element such that we can READ into those verses Jesus existence in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh, transpired in a heavenly realm.

Eventually, Doherty does decide to focus upon the wording in the "text." Unfortunately, he does not do so for the purpose of articulating a plain text reading of the text but to assert the author was getting at much more than the text says.

Doherty then decides to focus upon the peculiarity of the author's choice of words. So peculiar they cannot possibly be talking about any time on earth, presumably because the author could have chosen better wording. Doherty says, The writer has chosen to style this by the phrase “the days of his flesh.” (This would certainly be a peculiar way to put it if he only meant “when he was on earth,” or “during his life among us.”)

The flaw here is this just begs the question because the issue here is what exactly is the author saying, or more precisely what does he mean? Once again, why abandon a plain text reading, a reading free from any influence of the Platonic/Gospel tradition, where human beings are the only ones with "flesh" and exist and die on earth in exchange for the notion the phrase "in his flesh" is best understood as not referring to a human being on earth but a human being in a sublunar realm? (The argument because the rest of Hebrews relies upon a Platonic characterization is addressed above and such an argument needs to demonstrate why ALL of Hebrews should be construed this way). Aside from this, the only evidence he provides is peculiarity, pretty flimsy, which probably explains why does not spend much time expounding upon it.

Yet, Doherty assumes if these events did happen on earth, then they could not have spiritual consequences in heaven. (This is a point I raised in my last post). Previously I said, "First you assume the author is not talking about two different sets of events. The author of Hebrews is focusing upon Jesus, in the flesh, on earth, dying as a sacrifice on the cross, and then subsequently operating as a High Priest in Heaven. Jesus is still a "sacrifice" entering the Most Holy place in heaven, despite the fact he may not have been personally sacrificed in heaven. You assume the author of Hebrews is not talking about events in heaven which transpired after the death of Jesus on earth. You assume this is not the case.

Next, your entire argument assumes Jesus' death on earth, as a sacrifice and shedding of blood on earth, does not equate into or have the effect of operating in the manner as described in those verses you cite to support your proposition (for example, the verse in Hebrews chapter 9 which says Jesus took his own blood into the Most Holy Place). If the author of Hebrews is assuming Jesus' existence in the flesh, shedding of blood in the flesh, and death in the flesh transpired here on earth, and in doing so, accomplished the goals you focus upon as described transpiring in heaven, then there is absolutely no need to assume all of these events transpired in heaven.

If Jesus' death on earth operates as a sacrifice in heaven, i.e. has the same effect has described in those latter verses, then this erodes and undermines his contention of reading a Platonic interpretation into those verses where Jesus existence in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh has to transpire in heaven. He does not provide any evidence or reasons to demonstrate the author believed this was not so in exchange for his Platonic analysis he imposes in its place.

In the end, we are not left with much by way of compelling logic or evidence to read all of Hebrews, i.e. those verses where Jesus is referenced as existing in the flesh, suffering in the flesh, and dying in the flesh, from a Platonic perspective. Doherty does not makea very convincing argument other than to assert, "Well the author did it here, so he must also being doing it here." This is not a very good argument.

In addition, someone reading the book of Hebrews, without any exposure to the Platonic/Gospel tradition, and merely relying upon the plain text and their common sense, and reach the reasonable interpretation those early verses are talking about a man who lived and died on earth and subsequently went to heaven. After his death on earth, he earned the right to become a High Priest in Heaven, where he is then contrasted with priests on earth. Doherty does not provide any compelling logic or evidence as to why this plain text reading of Hebrews, untainted by the Gospel/Platonic tradition, should be abandoned and his Platonic interpretation substituted in its place; other than to rely upon some similarities, mere correlations, between those verses in Hebrews and Platonic philosophy.

I am familiar with the concept of "explanatory power," or as you refer to it the Argument to the Best Explanation. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to really answer your question in regards to this point but I will do so tomorrow.

gstafleu · 12-12-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

1) [I]"In the days of his flesh), (S)He offered up both prayers and supplications with (T)loud crying and tears to the One (U)able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His (V)piety.

The plain meaning of this is that "He" is dead. He cried and wept like a baby before he died, Some "one" heard him, because he was a good person (strange -- would he not have heard him if he was bad?), but was unable to save him.

Uhh.... Jay, "he" actually was able to save Jesus, that "U" is not "un," it is a footnote in the NASB. This doesn't affect your argument, mind you.

Now:

Quote:

2)2:14 14Since the children have flesh and blood, ...

The plain reading is that since children die (have flesh and blood), ...

Just to show how dangerous "plain reading" can be, I'd say that the plain reading is that since people have flesh and blood. So again, plain reading is something to stay away from. Except perhaps in the case of Dr. Zeus stories. But nah, they aren't all that plain either

.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13 · 12-12-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

First, the kind of direct 1-1 correspondence that you are looking for exists in Jesus' taking on human aspects so that he could suffer:

No, we don't. That doesn't offer an above-below correspondence at all. It offers a below-below equivalence between all humans and the form taken by Christ. There is no sense that something happening on earth is being interpreted as a reflection of the sacrifice of Christ in some heavenly realm.

The traditional animal sacrifices are certainly not depicted as reflecting Christ's sacrifice. Instead, the latter is clearly described as replacing the former and only because Christ took on the fleshy form.

Earl's thesis, applied to Hebrews, entirely destroys the argument the author is clearly trying to make.

Quote:

So in order for Jesus to be a good salvationer, it was necessary for him to suffer as his human charges do.

Yes and, to do so, he had to be as his human charges were (ie human). That which was above had to come below to obtain the necessary equivalence for an effective sacrifice.

Quote:

2:11 as good as calls this "as above, so below."

No, it certainly does not. It is quite explicit in asserting that both are the same (ie both are below).

Quote:

As you point out, this corresponds 1-1 to the animal sacrifices below.

No, I pointed out that Christ's sacrifice replaces the animal sacrifices. That is not an example of something on earth reflecting heavenly events. That is an example of something replacing an earthly event and the author is clear that this was only possible if Christ took on the form of those to be saved.

Quote:

But how does that diminish the correspondence?

It goes beyond correspondence.

Quote:

2:14-15 then goes on to describe the "as above so below" idea:

You are simply renaming the clear replacement theology being expressed without regard to the meaning of the phrase. It means that things that happened in heaven are reflected here on Earth and vice versa. That simply is not what Hebrews describes. It describes the need for something "above" to become like that which was "below" in order to replace the atoning sacrifices of tradition with something infinitely more meaningful and effective.

How much have you read about the "above-below" concept beyond what Earl offers? Do you find anyone anywhere else using the concept in this way?

Quote:

So Jesus needed to take an a below-type aspect, flesh an blood...

Yes, this is explicitly stated.

Quote:

..., in the above-world,...

This concept, however, appears to be imported into the text. That which was above has become like that which is below. That is simply not the same concept as the "above-below" correspondence.

PhilosopherJay · 12-12-2007, 01:58 PM

Hi Gstafleu,

Thanks for the correction on un/able to save him.

As far as "flesh and blood" is concerned, I think "Children have flesh and blood" would be the literal meaning, Taking it literally, it would be factually incorrect as children are also bone, brain, muscle, water, etc., but I think the "plain meaning" would reflect more how it is commonly used. Cambridge dictionary has "be (only) flesh and blood: to have normal human limits, needs, etc"

Here are the Lyrics from the song "Flesh and Blood" by Wilson Philips

How can we be like enemies when we're only flesh and blood?
What does it take to make your heart bleed, Daddy aren't we enough?
You can get through there's nothing stopping you from getting to us
No one can take a way the fact that we're only...flesh and blood

Here "flesh and blood" means we're only human, which means that we're subject to error and death.

In Hebrews we get "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil"

Since "he" becomes like the children in order to die, it suggests strongly the
meaning of "flesh and blood" is more like "subject to death or dying."

That's the way I read it, but I'm only flesh and blood.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

1) [I]"In the days of his flesh), (S)He offered up both prayers and supplications with (T)loud crying and tears to the One (U)able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His (V)piety.

The plain meaning of this is that "He" is dead. He cried and wept like a baby before he died, Some "one" heard him, because he was a good person (strange -- would he not have heard him if he was bad?), but was unable to save him.

Uhh.... Jay, "he" actually was able to save Jesus, that "U" is not "un," it is a footnote in the NASB. This doesn't affect your argument, mind you.

Now:

Quote:

2)2:14 14Since the children have flesh and blood, ...

The plain reading is that since children die (have flesh and blood), ...

Just to show how dangerous "plain reading" can be, I'd say that the plain reading is that since people have flesh and blood. So again, plain reading is something to stay away from. Except perhaps in the case of Dr. Zeus stories. But nah, they aren't all that plain either

.

Gerard Stafleu

James Madison · 12-12-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

James,

Let's take one of the verses you mention:

Quote:

In the days of his flesh, He offered up both prayers...

It seems way to easy to read one's current religious convictions (or the convictions of the surrounding culture) into these texts. Here is an instance where you do this:

Quote:

Yet, the plain text of these verses does not support such a proposition. There is no reason at this point to abandon the common sense notion that human beings are born on earth, die on earth, and not any place else.

No, you are right, there is no reason to do that.

Gerard Stafleu

Quote:

the problem with a "plain reading" of the text is that, to paraphrase Einstein, common sense is just the set of currently popular prejudices. That means that a "plain reading" is likely to come out at the point where one was standing when one began the reading, a rather circular exercise.

Well let's consider your proposition in greater detail because I do not think it really has any logical strength to it. Let's use an example phrase first.

1. "Please stop before you hit the car." Now, if we adhered to your proposition, then we should not first interpret this by its plain text meaning. Why? Well I am not entirely sure, which is part of the problem with your argument. You really do not provide any good reason why a plain text reading should not first be followed and abandoned only if and when ambiguity exists. Your assumption a plain text reading does not abate popular prejudices is erroneous. A plain text reading is a plain text reading precisely because it does not permit or allow popular prejudices to affect its meaning or understanding. I am most curious to know how popular prejudices preclude a plain text reading of, "Please stop before you hit the car," to mean anything other than precisely what it says.

With this said, I think you greatly over exaggerate the effect popular prejudices have on a plain text reading/meaning of a text. A plain text reading/meaning abates the dilemma you rely upon to undermine it.

Quote:

We hit a problem straight away: "In the days of his flesh" (or "In his flesh days") simply does not have a plain reading.

Well, this is a better criticism. Here you assert the phrase is not amendable to a "plain text reading" and this is a fair point. Your points about the flaws of a "plain text reading" are just absolutely misplaced. I will now address your much better criticism above.

Is the phrase "In the days of his flesh" amendable to a plain text reading or common sense approach? I think so. Let's first address why your criticisms ultimately fail.

Quote:

Now, from the POV of one who assumes an HJ, a "plain reading" can easily be arrived at, to wit "when he was alive in human form." One can then add another bit of common sense, another cultural prejudice (since the Enlightenment): entities alive in human form occur only on earth. From this one then derives the final "plain reading," and one translates the phrase as "while he was on earth." Getting to this plain reading took a few steps, though. But much as a fish doesn't notice the water, these steps are so fast and automatic they are easy to miss.

Well, the flaw here is you are ignoring one pivotal fact, a fact I previously mentioned. One does not even need to labor under the assumption of a HJ Jesus to arrive at the plain meaning I attribute to it. In fact, one can completely deny the existence of HJ and still arrive at the plain text meaning I have espoused here. The flaw underlying Doherty's argument is he assumes nobody can read those verses discussing Jesus' days in his flesh and come away with the impression those verses are talking about a man on earth UNLESS they are relying upon the Gospel account. This is a completely erroneous assumption. Why? Because being completely ignorant of the Gospels and Platonic philosophy, and relying upon the plain text and common sense, a reader is going to immediately rely upon their common knowledge when construing a text, just as they do when they read the phrase, "Please stop before you hit te car." Allow me to further expound upon this with the following remarks below.

Someone reading the book of Hebrews, for the first time, from start to finish, without any preconceived notions of Platonic philosophy or the Gospels, is going to first encounter the verses about Jesus' days in the flesh, his suffering in the flesh, and death in the flesh. There is NOTHING in those first few chapters and verses to require the reader to believe the author of Hebrews, or the text itself to this point, places Jesus time spent in the flesh in a realm other than earth. Hence, to this point a first time reader, completely ignorant of Platonic philosophy/Gospels, and not assuming the existence of a HJ, is going to read those first few chapters of the book of Hebrews, specifically those verses about Jesus in the flesh, and will not have encountered ANYTHING in those first few chapters/verses to make them believe the location was in a realm other than earth, because there is nothing in those first few chapters and verses to suggest, hint, imply, or infer a location other than earth. Since this is the case, then it makes sense and is completely reasonable for the reader to take a plain text reading along with common sense, such as only human beings exist flesh, and only human beings exist on earth, therefore, this passage is talking about someone on earth. To this point, there is nothing for the reader to rely upon to assume or infer otherwise. Why? Because the reader is ignorant of the Gospel, ignorant of the Platonic philosophy, and consequently, is not relying upon EITHER influence when reading these early chapters/verses. Without the benefit of EITHER of these influences, there is NOTHING in those early chapters/verses to make them believe they are at play. Consequently, a plain reading with some common sense leads to the very reasonable interpretation the author is talking about someone who existed on earth.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the later chapters of Hebrews which suggests, indicates, or directs the reader to go back and re-read those earlier provisions that Jesus days in his flesh were not on earth but in heaven. Once again a plain text reading would be that after this Jesus died he somehow makes it into heaven as a High Priest. Notice I did not say anything about RESURRECTION of Jesus as a way of getting into heaven because RESURRECTION is not mentioned in the plain text. Hebrews does not bother to explain HOW Jesus makes it into Heaven after his death. Rather Hebrews just leaps to Jesus being in heaven after his death and is now a High Priest.

Now, in the text itself there is nothing to immediately call to the reader's attention a Platonic philosophy underlies the prose or the author is relying upon it. Much less this Platonic philosophy should be read into those verses discussing Jesus days in his flesh. You and Doherty are asserting the Platonic philosophy is present in the book of Hebrews AND then assert it is to be applied to those verses discussing Jesus' days in his flesh. In other words, both of you are asserting the Platonic philosophy should be read into the book of Hebrews and Hebrews construed from this perspective. This then allows the both of you to draw the conclusion those verses discussing Jesus' days in his flesh as existing in a sublunar realm and not on earth. Hence, what both you and Doherty do is introduce the Platonic philosophy into and onto the text and ASSUME, on the basis of correlations, what the author should have said, and did not say, that this is HOW the text is to be properly understood and what the author meant. This is rather weak and flimsy evidence in proving the claim the text of Hebrews is referring to a Cosmic Christ, i.e. the author was writing about a cosmic Christ.

Again, pay careful attention to what I just said. Both you and Doherty first, 1. Assert the platonic philosophy should be read into the book of Hebrews, 2. Cite some weak evidence for this proposition and 3. Then conclude since the Platonic philosophy should be properly read in the book of Hebrews, it should extend to those provisions regarding Jesus' days in his flesh. Well, what a grandiose way to argue! As I said previously, the evidence submitted for the existence of Platonic philosophy in Hebrews is very weak, and even more weak in terms of asserting it extends to those verses discussing Jesus' days in the flesh. In other words, Doherty needs to make a much better argument for his proposition the author of Hebrews and the text of Hebrews is relying upon, incorporating, or drawing inspiration from the Platonic philosophy AND the author of Hebrews was extending this philosophy to those verses discussing Jesus' days in his flesh, as opposed to merely limiting them to the latter chapters where the High Priest in heaven is contrasted with a priest on earth.

Or we could allow the opposing side to get away with the same weak evidentiary standard as Doherty wants. Let's allow the opposing side to assert the Gospel philosophy, as opposed to the Platonic philosophy, should properly be read into the book of Hebrews, including those provisions regarding Jesus' days in his flesh. This is not necessary. Why? Because Doherty ASSUMES the only way one can read those verses as referring to Jesus on earth is if they assume as true the Gospel account or rely upon it. Doherty assumes there is NO OTHER WAY and he is wrong. I have provided the alternate way of reading those verses in such a way as to interpret them as referencing a Jesus on earth without any knowledge of the Gospel and the Platonic philosophy.

Once again, one can arrive at my plain text meaning those Hebrew verses are referencing a man on earth without any exposure or knowledge of the Gospels by using the method above.

Quote:

The fact remains, if the author had wanted to say something as plain as "while he was on earth," he should have done so and should not have used the paraphrase he did.

Yeah? You know this how? Unless you personally spoke to the author, or he left you a memo, or visited you in your sleep, you are merely guessing here. This is nothing more than pure speculation on your behalf and speculation does not count for anything.

Quote:

In general I have to wonder if there is such a thing as a plain reading of ancient texts, and certainly of religious ancient texts.

Yes, you can. I suppose, according to your thought expressed above, we cannot apply a plain text analysis to the verse "And Jesus wept," merely because it is an ancient text, or a religious ancient text? If what you say is true, then we better begin rethinking our analysis of ancient works by Plato, Aristotle, and others. Yet, anyone who has read these ancient texts, including the religious ones, quickly realizes these texts are amendable to a plain text reading. In fact, a large quantity of these texts, ALL of them, are amendable to a plain text reading. The fact they are old or religious does not mean ALL parts of the ancient/ancient religious text are not amendable to a plain text reading. Whether or not a plain text reading is applicable is contingent upon other considerations as opposed to the date of the text or its content as "religious" or non-religious.

Quote:

But the whole point at issue is whether Jesus was such a human being!

The issue is whether or not Hebrews has any evidence pointing to the existence of a historical Jesus, by referencing to him as a human being.

Quote:

Actually, the text of Hebrews makes it pretty clear that he most definitely was not. He had to take on human aspects, be "put a little lower than the angels" before he could become (an approximation of) one and do his salvation thing. So we cannot just plain-read his humanity into the text, especially when the text itself says he wasn't!

No, actually the text does not tell us he was never on earth. There is NO VERSE which states Jesus did not exist on earth. So, the phrase "the text itself tell us he wasn't," is completely false. Next, YOU, along with Doherty, are reading into these verses what you see as a Platonic philosophy without any justification for doing so! Neither one of you provide any evidence indicating this is how the author wanted, desired, intended, or understood those verses to be so construed. Until such evidence is presented, YOU are reading a non-earthly component into the text.

Quote:

So it is probably best not to come up with plain-reading arguments. These may work within the context of current culture, where the set of common prejudices and the ideas held by the author have at least a chance of coinciding. But the larger the distance between the culture of the plain-reader and that of the text, the riskier the exercise becomes.

Everything you just said above makes absolutely no sense. According to your logic the following phrases are not amendable to a plain text reading and, following your advice, let's not rely upon a plain text reading at all.

1. "And Jesus wept."
2. "A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers."
3. "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."

Sorry Plato, Aristotle, and the bible, but you are just too ancient for us to apply a plain text reading to those lines above, or so says you. However, there absolutely does exist some passages in ancient texts, and ancient religious texts, which permit us to take a plain text reading. In fact, MOST ancient texts are amendable to a plain text reading and there is no reason to assume, as you do, they are not. The mere fact they are ancient or ancient religious texts does not mean those texts are no longer amendable to a plain text reading. This is not sufficient evidence to abandon a plain text reading at all.

James Madison · 12-12-2007, 02:41 PM

Philosopher Jay:

Good position and reply, unfortunately time does not permit me to reply but I will do so tomorrow. Did not want you to think I was ignoring you.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-12-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Gstafleu,

Thanks for the correction on un/able to save him.

As far as "flesh and blood" is concerned, I think "Children have flesh and blood" would be the literal meaning, Taking it literally, it would be factually incorrect as children are also bone, brain, muscle, water, etc., but I think the "plain meaning" would reflect more how it is commonly used. Cambridge dictionary has "be (only) flesh and blood: to have normal human limits, needs, etc"

Here are the Lyrics from the song "Flesh and Blood" by Wilson Philips

Wow. How silly of me not to have known that the way one determines the meaning that an ancient Greek expression had for ancient Greeks was to look up an the meaning of an English expression in an modern English dictionary or to take my cue for understanding what an ancient Greek writer meant from what we find in modern song lyrics!

Jeffrey

gurugeorge · 12-13-2007, 08:12 AM

I must say that as an amateur onlooker, over the years I've come around from initially being excited by and agreeing with the whole of Earl's idea, to now being excited and agreeing only with the negative side (his pointing out that there's no positive evidence for an HJ of the required type - an entity recently known as a human being by the very first Christians). I'm now dubious about certain aspects of the "non-fleshly/sublunar" myth. I think some non-orthodox Christians probably did have ideas somewhat like this, as Christianity mixed with the broader Graeco-Roman intellectual and spiritual world. That "later early Christianity" I think declines as the proto-orthodoxy rises, like two intersecting curves, but I think that probably neither of them has much in common with what Christianity probably was in its very earliest conception.

What's become clearer to me (as I adumbrated in a post above, and as I've put forward in many posts in my own fumbling way) is that Joshua Messiah could still have had historical fleshly aspects posited of him, yet still be purely mythical. It's not necessary, for Joshua Messiah to have been purely mythical, for there to have been no descriptions referring to a fleshly entity living and dying on Earth (albeit with a more important spiritual component, aspect, double, "astral" body, Platonic essence, or whatever - any of which are variously feasible, in my over-arching understanding of how religion works as a psychological, spiritual and sociological phenomenon worldwide).

To my mind the whole question is misconceived until it's understood that mention of fleshly aspects, genealogy, etc., aren't enough to pin down the existence of Joshua Messiah as a human being. What's needed for that is some link between the very earliest Christians we know of - specifically Cephas, James, the "twelve", the "500" - and some human being recently known to them as a human being, as an entity we rationalists could take to have physically existed.

The trouble is, Joshua Messiah could have been a pure myth and have been "born of Mary, of the line of David, crucified, buried, resurrected" - or he could have been a man mythologised, who was born of Mary, of the line of David, crucified, buried (and not resurrected).

To remove the quotation marks, a kind of evidence seems to me to be necessary that's missing.

Again, to think of this as proof of mythicism by "argument from silence" is to misconceive the problem. It's really simple lack of proof of the required kind of historicity for Joshua Messiah.

It's lack of something that would remove the ambiguity between quotation marks "earthly" (referring to an entity that never existed, and could never exist, in the modern rationalist view) and just plain earthly.

Having said all that, the sheer boldness and comprehensiveness of Earl's ideas has really sparked something big and important, and for that balls-to-the-wall boldness he deserves great kudos, and as I say, I think the negative aspect of his critique will be of great, lasting value, and the positive aspect will still be valuable in exploring "later early Christianity".

It's just that I think the evidence does seem to point to a Jewish (albeit somewhat cosmopolitan Jewish, and Jewish in a context that wasn't as monolithic as post-70 Judaism, and probably a kind of Jewish "proto-Gnostic", derived from dissappointed apocalypticism, as Ehrman suggests) beginning, using mainly Jewish tropes and concepts and hopes and dreams. There's still a general sort of turn from public to private religion (probably part of a turn that took many forms even in Judaism at the time) of a kind that was "in the air" at the time throughout the Graeco-Roman world (and had been for a few hundred years, ever since Pythagoreanism and Orphism), but the symbolism and the ground the Jewish version grew from was initially more Jewish in its origins and symbols than it was anything else (even though glimmerings of other influences can no doubt be seen even in the earliest materials, they aren't strong enough to be definitive yet).

gstafleu · 12-13-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

First, the kind of direct 1-1 correspondence that you are looking for exists in Jesus' taking on human aspects so that he could suffer:

No, we don't. That doesn't offer an above-below correspondence at all. It offers a below-below equivalence between all humans and the form taken by Christ.

Only if you start with the notion that Christ took on his form on earth, and even then it is arguable. The question here is: given the hypothesis that Christ performed his sacrifice above, do we then have an above-below relationship between Christ's flesh and humanity's flesh? The answer in that case is Yes. In that way Christ's taking on flesh is evidence for the Heavenly Jesus hypothesis via the above-below principle. Don't forget, by itself the idea of Christ taking on flesh is not evidence of anything, it is just a piece of data. It only becomes evidence when examined in the light of one or more hypotheses.

Quote:

There is no sense that something happening on earth is being interpreted as a reflection of the sacrifice of Christ in some heavenly realm.

Again, taking the hypothesis that Christ performed his sacrifice above, the correspondence is that as Christ overcame death above, so can we do that below.

Quote:

The traditional animal sacrifices are certainly not depicted as reflecting Christ's sacrifice. Instead, the latter is clearly described as replacing the former and only because Christ took on the fleshy form.

First of all let me clearly agree with you that Christ's sacrifice replaces the animal sacrifices, no doubt about that. And as Christ's sacrifice was supposed to be the final sacrifice, thus the animal sacrifices on earth were also supposed to end. If Christ performed his sacrifice above (and again, remember we are examining these ideas against this hypothesis in order to see how well they fit using the "as above thus below" concept) then we again have a clear above-below correspondence.

Quote:

Yes and, to do so, he had to be as his human charges were (ie human). That which was above had to come below to obtain the necessary equivalence for an effective sacrifice.

He had to be like humans for it to work. The question now is: how much attributes did he need to share with humans so that he was sufficiently "like" them that his sacrifice could work. The HJ literalist hypothesis says: as close to 100% as you can possibly get. The version of the MJ hypothesis we are discussing says that a more limited similarity was enough, e.g. Jesus had to take on flesh and blood, but he didn't have to touch down on terra firma. How do we decide which is right?

First we look at the text, e.g. 2:14 "Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things." We note that this verse only mentions flesh and blood, not terra firma. The same with 5:7 "in his flesh days," where we again see only flesh mentioned, no terra firma.

Next we throw in some reasoning. First we notice that what this is all about is a blood sacrifice:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heb 9, NRSV

11 But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), 12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!

And so on, lots more blood can be found in the epistle. So, clearly Jesus needed to take on the blood aspect, and as flesh and blood are closely related he also took on flesh. Hence we find an abundance of flesh and blood in the epistle. But it is not necessary to be on terra firma in order to have blood (unless you postulate this as a preconceived notion, of course). If you manage to put on flesh and blood in heaven that will work just fine. Hence we see no terra firma mentioned in the epistle. This obviously confused some translators who, in desperation to get in some terra firma, "translated" the phrase "in his flesh days" with "while he was on earth." Nice try, but a bit transparent.

Now for additional confirmation that this blood was shed above and not on terra firma, just look at 9:11-12 quoted above. What does Christ enter "with his own blood"? He enters "the Holy Place" and he does that "through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)." And this "greater and perfect tent" is what, Golgotha? It sounds an awful lot like a heavenly construct to me, one that stands in an above-below relation to the earthly tent (tabernacle) in which the earthly priests performed their earthly animal sacrifices.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith · 12-13-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I must say that as an amateur onlooker, over the years I've come around from initially being excited by and agreeing with the whole of Earl's idea, to now being excited and agreeing only with the negative side (his pointing out that there's no positive evidence for an HJ of the required type - an entity recently known as a human being by the very first Christians).

You may be interested in G. A. Wells, then.

Quote:

I'm now dubious about certain aspects of the "non-fleshly/sublunar" myth. I think some non-orthodox Christians probably did have ideas somewhat like this, as Christianity mixed with the broader Graeco-Roman intellectual and spiritual world.

The problem, of course, is that one could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such ideas were current, and you still have to show that phrases such as according to the flesh and days of his flesh are an accepted way of referring to those ideas.

Quote:

What's become clearer to me (as I adumbrated in a post above, and as I've put forward in many posts in my own fumbling way) is that Joshua Messiah could still have had historical fleshly aspects posited of him, yet still be purely mythical.

This is absolutely true. And, again, you may want to read Wells.

Quote:

To my mind the whole question is misconceived until it's understood that mention of fleshly aspects, genealogy, etc., aren't enough to pin down the existence of Joshua Messiah as a human being. What's needed for that is some link between the very earliest Christians we know of - specifically Cephas, James, the "twelve", the "500" - and some human being recently known to them as a human being, as an entity we rationalists could take to have physically existed.

Yes, those kinds of links are what one would be looking for. (I would not say that they are the only things to look for; but they are definitely one viable avenue.)

Quote:

Again, to think of this as proof of mythicism by "argument from silence" is to misconceive the problem. It's really simple lack of proof of the required kind of historicity for Joshua Messiah.

I think your reasoning here is sound. It is all about replacing zero evidence with positive evidence; there is precious little negative evidence.

Quote:

Having said all that, the sheer boldness and comprehensiveness of Earl's ideas has really sparked something big and important, and for that balls-to-the-wall boldness he deserves great kudos, and as I say, I think the negative aspect of his critique will be of great, lasting value, and the positive aspect will still be valuable in exploring "later early Christianity".

If you do happen to read Wells, I would be interested to know which parts of the negative aspect you think Earl has contributed over and above what Wells has offered.

At any rate, what a refreshing post, Guru. I think that this kind of mythicist thesis should receive a good going over and all due consideration; I say this even as I disagree with it.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2007, 02:41 PM	#146
James Madison Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 5 hours south of Notre Dame. Golden Domer Posts: 3,259	Philosopher Jay: Good position and reply, unfortunately time does not permit me to reply but I will do so tomorrow. Did not want you to think I was ignoring you.

12-13-2007, 08:12 AM	#148
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	I must say that as an amateur onlooker, over the years I've come around from initially being excited by and agreeing with the whole of Earl's idea, to now being excited and agreeing only with the negative side (his pointing out that there's no positive evidence for an HJ of the required type - an entity recently known as a human being by the very first Christians). I'm now dubious about certain aspects of the "non-fleshly/sublunar" myth. I think some non-orthodox Christians probably did have ideas somewhat like this, as Christianity mixed with the broader Graeco-Roman intellectual and spiritual world. That "later early Christianity" I think declines as the proto-orthodoxy rises, like two intersecting curves, but I think that probably neither of them has much in common with what Christianity probably was in its very earliest conception. What's become clearer to me (as I adumbrated in a post above, and as I've put forward in many posts in my own fumbling way) is that Joshua Messiah could still have had historical fleshly aspects posited of him, yet still be purely mythical. It's not necessary, for Joshua Messiah to have been purely mythical, for there to have been no descriptions referring to a fleshly entity living and dying on Earth (albeit with a more important spiritual component, aspect, double, "astral" body, Platonic essence, or whatever - any of which are variously feasible, in my over-arching understanding of how religion works as a psychological, spiritual and sociological phenomenon worldwide). To my mind the whole question is misconceived until it's understood that mention of fleshly aspects, genealogy, etc., aren't enough to pin down the existence of Joshua Messiah as a human being. What's needed for that is some link between the very earliest Christians we know of - specifically Cephas, James, the "twelve", the "500" - and some human being recently known to them as a human being, as an entity we rationalists could take to have physically existed. The trouble is, Joshua Messiah could have been a pure myth and have been "born of Mary, of the line of David, crucified, buried, resurrected" - or he could have been a man mythologised, who was born of Mary, of the line of David, crucified, buried (and not resurrected). To remove the quotation marks, a kind of evidence seems to me to be necessary that's missing. Again, to think of this as proof of mythicism by "argument from silence" is to misconceive the problem. It's really simple lack of proof of the required kind of historicity for Joshua Messiah. It's lack of something that would remove the ambiguity between quotation marks "earthly" (referring to an entity that never existed, and could never exist, in the modern rationalist view) and just plain earthly. Having said all that, the sheer boldness and comprehensiveness of Earl's ideas has really sparked something big and important, and for that balls-to-the-wall boldness he deserves great kudos, and as I say, I think the negative aspect of his critique will be of great, lasting value, and the positive aspect will still be valuable in exploring "later early Christianity". It's just that I think the evidence does seem to point to a Jewish (albeit somewhat cosmopolitan Jewish, and Jewish in a context that wasn't as monolithic as post-70 Judaism, and probably a kind of Jewish "proto-Gnostic", derived from dissappointed apocalypticism, as Ehrman suggests) beginning, using mainly Jewish tropes and concepts and hopes and dreams. There's still a general sort of turn from public to private religion (probably part of a turn that took many forms even in Judaism at the time) of a kind that was "in the air" at the time throughout the Graeco-Roman world (and had been for a few hundred years, ever since Pythagoreanism and Orphism), but the symbolism and the ground the Jewish version grew from was initially more Jewish in its origins and symbols than it was anything else (even though glimmerings of other influences can no doubt be seen even in the earliest materials, they aren't strong enough to be definitive yet).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.