Bingo the Clown-O

But that type of reasoning is a double-edged sword. Because one could also argue that if the author of Hebrews was familiar with, and inspired by the ideas found in The Vision of Isaiah, that he shouldn’t have passed up that document either.

Right?

- And that _is_ your thesis.

Isn't it?

Bingo the Clown-O

What I mean is that I don’t recall ever hearing AA say that we should date anything based SOLELY on when it is first attested to.

Did he really ever say that?

If so – then where?

You said that he said that; but he didn’t really ever say that.

Right?

Okay. Fine. Then lets get AA's response.

Remind us; Why do you date it before the Jewish War?

Bingo the Clown-O

Here’s my one cent:

Your thesis requires that we abandon Deuteronomy 21 (rebellious son, stoned and hanged on a tree motif) and Hosea 6:2 (rise on the third day motif) as midrashic inspiration for the Jesus story.

Doesn't it?

EarlDoherty

What is my thesis? That Hebrews was inspired by the Vision of Isaiah? And how can one even postulate that document A was inspired by document B if A actually contains nothing that shows a knowledge of B?

This is pointless. If you or anyone else cannot make your questions/objections/arguments clear, or have them make logical sense, I'm not going to waste time on you.

Earl Doherty

Bingo the Clown-O

Since I’m on a roll (yes – the pastry) here’s another cent:

Doesn’t the Baal Epic tell the story of a Son of God who descended to the underworld, and then rose on the third day in all His glory?

I know that’s a Canaanite/ Hebrew story (and not a Greek story), but given its influence on the OT I can’t help but wonder if there might be some type of subtle remote connection to the ideas present in The Vision of Isaiah.

Bingo the Clown-O

We all know that you are looking for a reason to get out of here.

EarlDoherty

Hardly. I'm not saying that the later writer has to directly identify his source, but he has to show signs of knowing it. The Gospel story shows signs of knowing and deriving elements from scripture. If Hebrews contains nothing of the Gospel story on its pages (and just specifying a cross as a manner of death hardly does that!), then how can someone claim that Hebrews even knows the Gospel storyline? And if the writer of Hebrews does not make use of certain elements of the Gospel storyline when we would have every right and reason to expect him to do so (the valid criterion for using the argument from silence), then how can one claim that he knows it, let alone base one's claim on a totally unsupported knowledge?

Earl Doherty

Bingo the Clown-O

What about the stuff in Hebrews 1:1-4?

Bingo the Clown-O

Gotta go now. They're disassembling my tent.

stephan huller

Another difficulty - Cassiodorus, Adumbrationes on 1 Peter 5.13 quoting Clement's Hypotyposeis:

Also Photius, Bibliotheca 232:

The point isn't that Luke is the actual author of the text but that what we have is likely a bad copy of something more original. But if Luke did copy this text he certainly can be assumed to have reshaped the text according to his vision of who Paul was. All our earliest sources make clear that 'Luke' is the source of our understanding of Paul and part of that understanding - a very important part - is that Luke's gospel was Paul's. If Luke disappears Paul wrote the original gospel.

Anyone building a house on Hebrews is building on quicksand.