EarlDoherty

Ah, Jeffrey, you just don't get it, do you? You haven't addressed a thing. Simply stating the "opinion" that I am "wrong" contributes nothing. As usual, you do nothing more than call into question something I say and demand more from me. If you think I have unacceptably short-changed the process, then you provide us with your contrary view of that process and demonstrate the "far greater range of options for the conceptual background of Hebrews than I allow" which would prove your claim. (The "burden of the challenge"--remember?) Then I might have something concrete to respond to. What do you expect me to do? Quote the complete texts of all the scholars you list to try to demonstrate that I haven't? Or me dig out all these optional background concepts that you are clearly so familiar with and ‘disprove’ them? You expect me to do all your work for you, while you sit in--what was it?--your dirt-free "Olympian Majesty"?

Also, then you have to demonstrate that my focusing on the two most prominent "conceptual backgrounds" I highlighted was misleading as far as the case I was making was concerned, and that how taking into account those other scholarly suggestions would have affected, if not foiled, the essential case I was making, that they were not simply irrelevant or tangential, or related only to secondary elements of the epistle. I encountered quite a few of those various what you call 'background concepts' which I regarded as having nothing to do with the case I was making. The essential case to be made does relate to the primary dichotomy of Platonic earth-heaven verticality versus Jewish historical linearity, and that's what my argument centers around. If you disagree (which would require you examining and understanding my case), then you prove me wrong.

To do that, of course, you would have to do a bit of work in presenting that range of conceptual backgrounds you refer to. You would have to detail them and show that you understood what purpose they served in the context of Hebrews, and how they related to what I was saying. You might even have to bring in some ideas of your own. I know that may be asking a lot, but I don't see any obligation to give you a free ride here.

(Edit: I guess I'd better add that simply pasting in long texts from other writers without demonstrating what within them are the relevant ideas Jeffrey is referring to, and specifically demonstrating how such things do to my arguments what Jeffrey seems to be claiming they do, just doesn't cut it. That's a bit like a fundamentalist answering the challenge to prove that Jesus is the Son of God by handing him a bible and saying, here, read this.)

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

For very much the same reason that I don't have to say "back in the era when I was in my prime" when I say "in my day".

BTW, you are confusing how a Greek phrase reads with what it "says", i.e., would have been taken to mean by those who originally heard it.

Do you have any evidence from Greek texts in which a phrase similar to the one you are commenting upon (i.e, one that "reads" ἐν ταῖς ἡμ�*ραις τῆς X αὐτοῦ (or some other personal pronoun) was ever intended by the one who used it or was ever taken by those who heard it as reference to a non historical non mundane event?

And how do you counter, and specifically with evidence from the rules of Greek, not English, syntax and grammar, or instances of Greek, not English usage, the argument -- of which you seem to be unaware - mooted by Lane and others that the expression ἐν ταῖς ἡμ�*ραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ does not mean “in the days of his flesh,” but “his flesh days” since, reflecting, as it was noted as early as Theodoret it does (see too SyrC), via the LXX, a Hebrew construct state combination which tolerates the pronominal suffix only at the end (i.e., not with the governing noun, but with the governed noun) and thus relates the pronoun to the compound phrase, not to σαρx?

And I would suggest that before you go any farther, you do what you have not but should have done vis a vis your claim about the meaning ἐν ταῖς ἡμ�*ραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ has in Hebrews -- i.e., adduce evidence from the rules of Greek grammar and/or from instances of Greek usage of similar constructions that the expression "says" what you say it does.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm ... what did I demand from you?

Does the data in Lane that I provided show that 29th century Hebrews scholars have opted for background alternatives other than Plato on the one hand and "Jewish" (whatever that means) on the other or not?

Are you saying Lane is a liar?

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey, we dont care how many authors Earl is acquainted with - because that is not at issue here. It is quite clear that neither you, nor anyone else has read all the works of the authors you list. Being acquainted with an author means squat. I am acquainted with Burton Mack's works and have read several pages in them but have never read any of his books from start to finnish. Does that mean I should go around boasting that I am acquanited with Mack?
And we all know you or anyone else cannot read all books published on a subject in one lifetime. What we care about is whether he is making correct arguments.

Earl is asking that you do the following:
a) State what Earl claims to be scholarship's "orientation" on Hebrews scholarship.
b) State what scholarship orientation is on the same, with the supportinf evidence.

Do you think you can do this, rather than post entire acres of tangential text? If this discussion was important to you and if you were committed to actually contributing a point, I think you would.

On A4, Earl's work comes to 138 pages. I have only read 20 pages and will reserve my comments for later when I am through.

GakuseiDon

I think you've misunderstood my point (though I perhaps expressed it badly), which was on the "anomalies" that you found. Let's go over this, step by step. According to Hebrews, Christ is crucified "in the sphere of corruption" as a blemish-free sacrifice, and carries the blood into heaven to purify the objects there. I think we agree here. What I am questioning is your comment: "It was a blood that in Christ’s human incarnation was the blood of matter. In that respect it was not spiritual, and the writer would merely be comparing a material thing with another material thing. Nor does he address how Christ’s earthly blood, shed on Calvary, was transformed into spiritual blood before being brought to heaven... The author of Hebrews does nothing to address these anomalies."

Why does the author need to address how Christ's earthly blood was transformed into spiritual blood, any more than he would need to explain why Christ's blood from "the lowest celestial sphere, below the moon, where ‘corruptibility’ began" was transformed into spiritual blood? Why is the latter not an anomaly, but the former is?

So, how does it matter whether the crucifixion occured on earth or in your "fleshly sublunar realm"? Again, I honestly don't see what you are driving at, I'm afraid.

It would be better to have some neutral party look at your article and Price's response, for their evaluation.

I was commenting on your assumptions. This is what you wrote (assumptions highlighted below):

"Opening the door to literal heavenly cities and sanctuaries, literal priesthoods and blood of sacrifice, also opens the door to heavenly crucifixions and the suffering and death of a god, to being “of David’s seed” or “of the tribe of Judah” in a spiritual context. The vividness of the heavenly scene in Hebrews thus becomes self-sufficient. We don’t need a scene on earth, especially when the writer never gives us one. If Christ can carry his own blood into a heavenly sanctuary and smear it on an altar for the atonement of sin, “in a literal and concrete fashion,” he can shed that blood on a heavenly cross."

There are two huge assumptions being made there. I responded to the second one (my emphasis):

"I think it was Zeichman who stated that one of the problems with Earl's claims is that he gives himself the benefit of doubt far too often. This is one of those situations. Does the idea that Christ can carry his blood into a heavenly sancutary mean that it is reasonable to assume that he can shed blood on a heavenly cross? I don't see anything beyond the bare assertion to support the idea. The simplest reading of the text supports that a blemish-free sacrifice on earth purifies objects in heaven. Earl's suggestion -- that the blood was shed on "a heavenly cross" and then taken to heaven -- is not supported anywhere AFAICS. There is simply no reason to bring in this unsupported idea."

I agree that Christ carried the blood to heaven, but I can't see the connection from that idea, to the idea that the blood was therefore shed on "a heavenly cross". There is no logical connection, other than perhaps "Christians believe lots of weird things, why not assume one more?" How do you support this connection?

Then, can I ask someone who is sympathetic to your views to summarize the evidence that you've brought up to support the idea of a "sublunar fleshly realm"? That may be the best solution, rather than me continually asking you for it. From what I can tell, though, the mythicists on this board don't believe that your idea of a "sublunar fleshly realm" is supportable.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ah but it is. And it is something you should care about since you've previously publicly hitched your wagon to Earl having a mastery over the material that has been written on the subjects that Earl makes claims about, to wit:

Quote:

Earl's familiarity with the subject affords him the confidence to make the assertions he makes.

If one is making a definitive claim about what 20th century scholarship has said about the background of Hebrews, as Earl has done (indeed, he starts his article with this claim, and then makes it foundational for the rest of what he writes), then one is also claiming that one is familiar with that scholarship. Without such familiarity one cannot clam, as Earl has done. that one's statements about it are definitive and should be taken as true.

Umm ... I already did.

But I have done this. And the "text" I posted is not tangential. It is the supporting evidence you say I didn't give.

Are you saying, Ted/Jacob, that the "text" does not outline -- and does not document -- the range of positions that have been adopted and argued for by 20th century scholars on the background of Hebrews? Are you saying that nothing in it shows that Earl's claim about the range of positions adopted and argued ("Plato"/Jewish) is, if not wrong, at least an oversimplification?

Did you actually read my message?

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

That's the "analogy that dare not speak its name". But I think creationists are more interested in attacking evolution than questioning their own position. Jeffrey's post showing the evolution of the position on Hebrews was very informative. We can see how the consensus position changed over the years as scholars evaluated and sifted the evidence. Previous positions were questioned as new data and new interpretations arose.

In the same spirit, can I ask the mythicists on this board for their evaluation of Earl's Hebrews article? I've only seen the one from Malachi. I know there are more mythicists than that, and I know that they have said that they have disagreed with parts of Earl's theories. So what about Earl's article on Hebrews? Do you agree? Disagree? If so, where? Does Earl provide evidence to support his conclusions? Is it a step forward because it makes the mythicist case stronger, or is it a step forward simply because it questions historicism?

One of often stated complaints about the HJ position is that those who hold the position don't question it. When Earl posts, I see the same thing happen on the mythicist side. To build the best case possible, shouldn't his ideas be given the same rigorous testing that mythicists propose for the HJ position?

neilgodfrey

Earl's particular mythicist case is debated among mythicists.

It looks to me that Don, Jeffrey, et al actually get in the way of such "rigorous testing" at least in this particular thread for reasons already stated but which they seem incapable of grasping.

The same critics can open up Earl's arguments -- and I am sure to the satisfaction of mythicists too -- to "rigorous testing" by taking up Earl's challenges without seeming to wilfully misconstrue or sidestep them.

So instead of Jeffrey writing something like

he actually demonstrates that Earl's reading of the Platonic background in Hebrews is without foundation then we would all be much more appreciative, mythicists included I am sure.

Neil Godfrey

GakuseiDon

I didn't know that. Which areas are there generally consensus on, and which areas are still controversial? There isn't much point historicists debating Earl at the moment, since we are always being slammed for lack of imagination, stuck in certain paradigms, or as you say below "wilfully misconstrue or sidestep" his arguments. I would appreciate any links to debates between mythicists on the current state of Earl's case.

Let's start with support for the idea that "If Christ can carry his own blood into a heavenly sanctuary and smear it on an altar for the atonement of sin, “in a literal and concrete fashion,” he can shed that blood on a heavenly cross."

As I've asked Earl, does that make any more sense than "If Christ can carry his own blood into a heavenly sanctuary and smear it on an altar for the atonement of sin, “in a literal and concrete fashion,” he can shed that blood on an earthly cross."?

Or how about that heavenly cross on which Christ was crucified being in "the lowest celestial sphere (below the moon, where ‘corruptibility’ began)". Has the evidence for the concept of a "heavenly cross" being consistent with the beliefs of the First Century been examined, IYO?

Or how about Earl's comment: "It was a blood that in Christ’s human incarnation was the blood of matter. In that respect it was not spiritual, and the writer would merely be comparing a material thing with another material thing. Nor does he address how Christ’s earthly blood, shed on Calvary, was transformed into spiritual blood before being brought to heaven... The author of Hebrews does nothing to address these anomalies."

Why does the author need to address how Christ's earthly blood was transformed into spiritual blood, any more than he would need to explain why Christ's blood from "the lowest celestial sphere, below the moon, where ‘corruptibility’ began" was transformed into spiritual blood? Why is the latter not an anomaly, but the former is?

neilgodfrey

There is open source software available for anyone to convert a word or html document into a pdf file.

Download the open office suite at http://www.openoffice.org/

Just to be sure again I tested it: A simple copy and paste from Earl's html site into an open office "writer" document, another click to justify the text to make it look nicer, then a click on the pdf file icon, and hey presto there is is in nice pdf format for free with open source software.

It also converts text or word documents to html, etc.

Open Office word documents won't do everything the latest-due-for-obsolescence-and-purchase-to-upgrade propriety software will do, but it does do everything anyone needs to do for normal document creation.

It's not shonky fly-by-night stuff either -- it's used by major institutions and programs that seek to be independent of propriety software, while considering sustainability, preservation and interoperability issues for their documents.

Neil Godfrey