Ben C Smith

There are several good words, in fact, including the one used in Hebrews 1.6.

Ben.

gnosis92

Since I don't know Greek, I do not know enough to argue over translation, but even the translation "In the days of his flesh" presumably imply a historical person, not a purely spiritual figure. Only historic persons can have flesh.

In response to your other objection, the author was attempting to do a midrash, by connecting what Jesus did, "in the days of his flesh", with the sacred past, as contained in the Old Testament. "In the days of his flesh" I accept as a translation, still damages the mythic case as implying a flesh and blood Christ, a historical Jesus.

Hebrews 8
1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

What the author is saying is not a denial that Jesus was not on earth but that the human Jesus had no need to be a priest, to sacrifice animals as proscribed by the Torah as priestly responsibilities, and as the historical Jesus did not sacrifice animals to God (attested in the Gospels) as he himself was the sacrifice.

As I stated in my OP I believe your "theory" is useful to help us understand to what desperate extent the early Xtians were willing to think, the level of abstraction they did, to reconcile Jesus with the manifest failure of his ministry. Your theory offers no convincing explanation as to how Jesus became a figure of spirit to a figure of history, one that many believed but could have disbelieved if it was otherwise, in the first and second century.

???

Doug Shaver

We know that now. Did educated people during the first century know it?

Ben C Smith

Quick note on a verse in Hebrews....

I was looking at what Earl has to say about this epistle, and came across this:

Finally, there is a startling statement made in chapter 8, one which most commentators manage to gloss over or ignore completely. The writer is speaking of Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and begins to compare him to the earthly high priest. At verse 4, he says:

Now, if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest . . .

But what a quirky translation of this conditional sentence. Here is the Greek and my own translation:

Ει μεν ουν ην επι γης, ουδ αν ην ιερευς....

If therefore he were [imperfect indicative] upon the earth, then he would not even be [imperfect indicative plus the untranslatable particle αν] a priest....

Why do I translate the verse this way? Because this is a textbook example of the present, I repeat, present contrary to fact condition, which consists of an imperfect indicative in the protasis (the if clause) and another imperfect indicative in the apodosis (the then clause) accompanied by the particle αν.

The past contrary to fact condition would have the aorist tense instead of the imperfect.

Earl continues:

No matter how one tries to detect a feasible qualification to this phrase, there is no denying that the writer seems to be saying that Jesus was never on earth.

There is no need to deny what is not even implied in the sentence. It is the same construction as Galatians 1.10: If I were still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ. Here the still emphasizes that Paul did, in fact, please men in the past, though he is not doing so at present. Remove that word, however, and you still have a textbook example of the present contrary to fact condition. It applies only to the present, not to the past.

Now there are, I think, rare examples of this construction applying to a continuous state in past time, so if Earl is merely arguing that his interpretation is possible, well, so be it, though it is not likely. But from the wording above, and from the title of the section in which this discussion is found on his website (A Pair of Smoking Guns), it appears he wants more than merely a slight possibility.

But the present contrary to fact condition is not going to do the trick, since all will surely agree that the author of this epistle thinks Jesus is presently not on the earth, but rather in heaven at the right hand of God.

I have no idea why the NEB went with this unlikely translation. The ASV, ESV, Geneva, KJV, NAB, NASB, NIB, NIV, NJB, NKJ, NRS, RSV, and YLT all translate the verse more or less how I translated it above.

To be fair, Earl does try to qualify his argument:

But the meaning within the context is probably present, or at least temporally ambiguous, much like the conditional sense in which most other translations render it: “Now if he were on earth (meaning at this time), he would not be a priest.”

It is not the context that leads to the initial conclusion of a present condition; it is the construction itself. In fact, the only way to determine whether one might be dealing with one of the exceptions would be to look at the context (one might look, for example, for a context in which the author wished to emphasize a continuous past process and thus wished to avoid the usual aorist for past conditions); without context, the construction is textbook present.

But the context for Hebrews 8.4 works in the opposite direction; the author is clearly treating the work of Jesus after he sat down at the right hand of the throne (8.1), not before.

By way of analogy, I used to live in California, yet I can still say: If I were living in California, I would spend my life by the pool. I am allowed to say this because I am not presently living in California. My statement has nothing to do with whether or not I have ever lived in California in the past.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

Ben points to Hebrews 1:6 as a good word for “earth”, by which I know he means “oikoumene”, which literally means “the inhabited earth”. But he fails to take into account the context (as usual), and the clear indication that writers do not always use words, or feel themselves limited in their usage of words, according to dictionary and lexiconal definitions. If he had considered the context he might have paused over his claim for the standard definition.

1:6 says: “And again, when (God) brings his firstborn into the world (eis ten oikoumenen), he says: ‘And let all God’s angels worship him.”

Unless we are to regard the angels as residents of the Roman empire, standing on the ground (or perhaps floating in the air) around the Bethlehem manger, this is obviously a scene in heaven. The quoted words of God are from scripture (Deut. 32:43), and have nothing to do with an earthly nativity scene. This verse is part of a series of scriptural passages appealed to so as to demonstrate the superiority of the Son to the angels. In the entire passage (the whole of chapter 1), as I continually point out and which is continually ignored, there is not a hint of any event or setting on earth, no attempt to demonstrate that the Son is superior to the angels by mentioning anything to do with an earthly career. This regularly has commentators scratching their heads, but at least they try to address it (unlike those here), always unsuccessfully and usually fallaciously. Ergo, we are entitled to assume that the writer is using “oikoumene” in a non-literal fashion, to refer to a “world” which includes the spiritual dimension, the world of heaven and scripture where Christ operates. The writer does the same thing later in the epistle, which I called attention to earlier:

10:5 - “Therefore, Christ, upon entering into the world [using kosmos], says [using the present tense]: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body thou didst prepare for me…etc.’,” which is a quote from Psalm 40.

Once again, any reference to earth is belied by the fact that nothing is mentioned which relates to earth or an earthly incarnation. Everything is scripture and heavenly. The “body” referred to in the Psalm is an example of what (in scripture) has led early Christians to give Christ a ‘body’ (spiritual) in which he will serve as a sacrifice to replace the old sacrifices, a sacrifice which takes place in heaven. Our unnamed (“???”) contributor (who seems to be afraid or ashamed to identify himself) says that “flesh” has to be human. I guess he’s not only missed all the discussions we have had on this very point, he has missed the lexiconal definitions (which even Jeffrey supplied) which state something quite different, that there are non-earthly bodies and flesh in the thinking of the time (including by Christian writers). I am not going to repeat all that here.

But you can see what happens, Ben, when you refuse to think outside the box.

As to Hebrews 8:4, all your analogies are pointless, because their contexts are simply not equivalent nor take into account the implications in the Hebrews passage. I’ll offer one of my own, but first I quote this excerpt from my Comment article on Richard Carrier’s review of The Jesus Puzzle (which expands on what I said in the Hebrews website article and in the book):

And just to show the sort of analogy Ben should have come up with, try this (which is entirely fictional, by the way):

“If Earl Doherty were an American citizen, he would not organize rallies in support of the war in Iraq…”

But suppose you knew that three years ago, I was an American citizen, and that I did support the war in Iraq and organized rallies in support of it. Then I went off to Canada and gave up my American citizenship, although I continued to do other things in support of the Iraq war. Today, you write that “If Earl Doherty were an American citizen, he would not be organizing rallies to support the war, because we already have people here who do that.” What kind of sense would that make in the light of my history? Even in the context of an entirely “present contrafactual” meaning? First of all, because you know that I was an American citizen recently, you would hardly fail to feel it necessary that this be taken into account, because the statement as you write it sounds like I was never an American citizen. To clarify, you would have to say something like, “If Earl Doherty were still an American citizen…”

(Just like Paul uses “still” in the example Ben gave: If I were still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ. This is precisely what Hebrews 8:4 needs to do, and it does not, so Ben has actually demonstrated my case.)

Further, what would be the point in making such a statement? It is beyond trivial. If 3 years ago I was an American citizen and I organized rallies in support of the war, of what earthly use or significance would it be to say that today, if I were a citizen, I would not do so, especially for the reason given: because we already have people here who do that? Even in the context of a Jesus who never came to earth, the thought is little more than trivial anyway, but it at least makes sense in the Platonic context: the separation of territories between the earthly high priests and the Heavenly High Priest, who each perform their functions in their respective dimensions, earth and heaven. If Jesus had been at one time on earth and performing his sacrifice on Calvary in the same venue as the priests who do the earthly sacrifices, the statement would become useless, nonsensical, and destructive to the heavenly/earthly comparison (Platonic) which the author has carefully set up all through chapters 8 and 9.

So once again, I have to point out to Ben and many others that one has to carefully consider contexts before insisting on reading any passage according to standard and orthodox applications of interpretation and definition. Locking yourself inside your box will only leave you in the dark, reading what you think surrounds you according to your preconceptions.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Yes, I agree with you that the angels are in heaven. Hebrews 1.6 does not tell us where the angels are, so I am willing to default to the position that the angels are in heaven.

The verse does, however, tell us where the firstborn is. He is in the inhabited earth.

No hint at all... except for the firstborn entering the inhabited earth in 1.6.

But you suggest that the inhabited earth here is...:

What ancient writers discuss this world of heaven and scripture and use terms like inhabited earth and blood and flesh and from Judah of it?

And there is nothing at all surprising about finding only a hint here and there of an earthly Jesus amidst numerous assertions of his heavenly nature. The heavenly Jesus was the unembarrassing Lord of all about which the author wanted to write. The earthly Jesus was the crucified Jew that had to be either explained or reinterpreted.

Just as the Priene calendar inscription speaks of Augustus in overwhelmingly mythical terms (he was sent as savior, he appeared, he ordered all things, there is a gospel message about him), but lets slip that he had a birthday, and thus was human, so too Hebrews speaks of Jesus in overwhelmingly mythical terms, but also lets slip that he was of the line of Judah, of blood and flesh, and dwelt in the inhabited earth.

The long quotation of yourself includes the following statement:

Which is pretty much what I was saying, right? The author has used a present contrafactual construction, one which can in some circumstances apply to the past, but which most commonly applies to the present. Your smoking gun requires this to be applied to the past. Which is unlikely given that the author is explicitly discussing what is happening after Christ took his seat in heaven (8.1), as I pointed out before.

The analogy is faulty. In your analogy, you are an American citizen (protasis) at the same time as you are organizing rallies (apodosis). In Hebrews, Jesus became high priest only by his suffering sacrifice (after which point he was no longer on earth); he did not have that priestly ministry (apodosis) during his earthly career (protasis), but only in heaven afterward.

This is what I perceive this epistle to be saying about the priesthood of Jesus;

1. Jesus, who was brought into the inhabited earth (1.6), or into the world (10.5), as a human being (2.14, 17; 5.7), was not qualified to be a Levitical priest, since he was of the line of Judah (7.14). The priests were of the line of Levi.
2. Therefore, if Jesus were presently on earth, he could not presently be a priest (8.4), since he was of the wrong line for the earthly priests.
3. However, he is presently a priest, since God has designated him as high priest in a different priestly order, that of Melchizedek (5.10).
4. When did Jesus become high priest? When God glorified him (5.5), when he suffered (5.7-8), when he became the source of eternal salvation (5.9). Hebrews 5.5 quotes Psalm 2.7 in the earlier manner (just like Acts 13.33), to refer to the death and resurrection, rather than in the later manner, to refer to the baptism (Mark 1.11 and parallels).

There is thus a conflict now between a heavenly priesthood and the earthly Levitical priests (and for our Christian author the heavenly priesthood wins out, cancelling the earthly). But there was no conflict then, during the earthly ministry of Christ, because he was not a priest until he made his first (and only) sacrifice. The sequence in Hebrews 5.5-10 is clear. During the days of his flesh Christ offered up prayers and tears, learning obedience from his suffering. His suffering thus perfected him, and he at that moment (not before) became the source of salvation, designated by God as high priest of a different order. Hebrews 9.11 says that when Christ came along as high priest he entered the heavenly tabernacle; that was, indeed, his first action as high priest, after he was already dead (by his own blood, 9.12).

Ben.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl. So, your opponent "fails to take into account the context (as usual)". He's limiting himself to "dictionary and lexiconal" definitions. How nostalgic! I think Ben adequately answers your points above, but let's see if we can find something similar to the Hebrews author's point within Paul's writing using "angels" (aggelos) and kosmos.

1 Cor 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world (kosmos), and to angels (aggelos), and to men.

Paul is a "spectacle" to angels and to men. This certainly implies that angels were able to view events on earth without having to take up Roman citizenship.

The thing is: you either know enough about the views of the "Middle Platonists" around Paul's time to know that your comment about Heb 1:6 isn't necessarily valid, or you don't. If you do know, then not mentioning that angels were thought to be aware of events on earth is disengenious. If you don't know, then it suggests you need to look into this a little more.

EarlDoherty

And this is a prime example of what is typically done in opposition to so many mythicist arguments. Throughout the whole of chapter 1 (not to mention many other places in this epistle) there is a glaring void on any direct mention of an earthly life or role for Jesus, even in places where it would be natural and even powerfully demanded (such as demonstrating the Son’s superiority to the angels). Ben admits “no hint at all”. So what does he confidently put up against all that contrary indication? One standard definition of a single word. Even though the context in which it is used is entirely heavenly and scriptural. In fact, Ben has ignored that there is a definition of oikoumene which encompasses heaven: Bauer’s Lexicon states:

Bauer also points out its usage in Hebrews 2:5 (“But it is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we speak.”), as a reference to a world encompassing much more than the present (let alone historical) inhabited earth:

So we once again see oikoumene used in reference to something beyond the simple inhabited surface of the material earth.

He ignores the present tense of the verb: “when he brings his firstborn into the world” which hardly sounds historical. In fact, this is paralleled by a later verse, 10:5 (which I called attention to):

When entering into the world, he [referring to the Son] says: ‘Sacrifice and offering thou [God] didst not wish…”

This is what I have to say on this in my Hebrews website article:

Thus, all elements of the context in which oikoumene is used in chapter 1 suggest a heavenly scene drawn from scripture. Thus, introducing a word which can also have a spiritual dimension makes the two elements fit perfectly. To force oikoumene to have an earthly meaning not only makes it out of place, it is entirely unnecessary and therefore unjustified (except by presupposition of what Ben and others want it to mean). I note, once again, that Ben has not tried to offer an explanation of why a demonstration of the Son being superior to the angels would not include the slightest aspect of his earthly incarnation, his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, and so on. Instead all we get are scriptural passages of a ‘messianic’ nature, pretty lame stuff in comparison to what he supposedly could have appealed to. The same goes for the exclusive appeal to scriptural passages in chapter 2 to demonstrate that the Son regards all men as his brothers. And when we add the “body” of 10:5 in the scriptural, present-tense “mythical present” (Ellingworth’s “timeless present referring to the permanent record of scripture”) we clearly have the picture of a thought-world which is entirely mystical, rooted in the sacred writings, and envisioned as taking place in the spiritual dimension, in keeping with Hebrews’ portrayal of Christ’s sacrifice as something that unfolds in heaven and the heavenly sanctuary.

Give it a try, Ben. Step outside the box.

There are a number of things wrong here. Let’s take each of your points:

1: 1:6 and 10:5, when not divorced from their contexts and things like the tenses of the verbs, suggests a spiritual setting, not an earthly one; 2.14, 17 are again set in scriptural contexts, and we have long seen around here that “flesh” and “blood” can be non-human, even by definition, and they are accompanied by the “likeness” motif which suggests they are not precisely human flesh and blood. 5:7, as I continually point out and get no explanation for, relates to scriptural actions which take place in the “days of his flesh”.

Now let’s take a closer look at 7:14, which has to be seen in its context of verses 14 to 17.

For it is very evident that our Lord is sprung from Judah, a tribe to which Moses made no reference in speaking of priests.

Now, what is meant by “it is evident”? From history? No appeal is made here to historical lineage, no genealogy, etc. (as there is no appeal anywhere in this epistle to any historical tradition of any kind). As we see all through this epistle, such information is drawn from scripture. Messianic passages in scripture which designated the expected one as being a descendant of David are being applied to the heavenly Christ, making him “sprung from Judah,” but there is no more need to see this as having any historical basis than Paul’s “of the seed of David” in Romans 1:3 being anything more than something derived from the prophets (which he states in verse 2). In fact, Buchanan, in his Anchor Bible Commentary (Hebrews, p.253) admits that “the author may not have received the information from local tradition at all…(but) from his use of scripture.” (It is so gratifying to find mainstream scholars supporting the mythicist position at so many turns, even when, I hasten to add, they don’t carry their observations to the logical conclusion—stuck as they are in the same box.)

The context of Heb. 7:14 is to give this heavenly Christ a lineage which is of a tribe which has never been associated with the Law; a new High Priest, a new tribe. Now comes something very curious, an outrageous silence even more startling than its parallel in chapter 1. Verse 15-16 reads:

The argument becomes still clearer, if the new priest who arises is one like Melchizedek, owing his priesthood not to a system of earth-bound rules but to the power of a life that cannot be destroyed.

The power of a life that cannot be destroyed. What should this possibly mean, what should this possibly awaken in the mind of the author, but the very resurrection of Jesus from his tomb three days after his crucifixion? But is this what the writer is referring to? Apparently not, for not only does he mention no such thing, he is in fact referring to another scriptural passage taken as applying to Christ: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek,” which is Psalm 110:4. Jesus has “a life that cannot be destroyed” because he is declared in scripture to be “a priest forever”! Once again, a complete void on earthly and human content, and an exclusive focus on the ‘reality’ of scripture and Christ’s nature and actions as entirely dependent on scripture.

Ben, do you know what makes for a rational and secure scenario/theory in any context? Consistency. When all elements and factors complement one another, when nothing stands out as jarring or incongruous, when nothing needs to be explained “ad hoc”. All the elements of Hebrews in the mythicist scenario form this kind of consistent unity, a unity in the absence of any forced insertion of an historical Jesus where none is to be found.

Ben, this makes no sense. Note the clash in your tenses. When saying, if Jesus were now on earth, one is talking about his present state. His present state is as High Priest, in heaven. So what does it mean to say “he was of the wrong line? At the present time, he is of the right line. I do not understand your statement. Besides, that’s not the reason the author gives for saying that he could not presently be a priest. Rather, it is because there are already priests on earth to perform the sacrifices. In addition, then, I can make no sense of what relation your following point bears to the previous one:

Yes, he is presently a priest, in heaven. What does that have to do with the statement in 8:4? Then comes your point 4:

You ask when did Jesus become high priest? I ask in turn, when did God “glorify him (5.5)”? He glorified him in scripture:

5:5-6 – So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” [Psalm 2:7]. And he says in another place, “You are a priest forever…” [Psalm 110:4].

So the “glorification” did not take place on earth, or in history, it took place in scripture—or the world which scripture represents or provides a window on. To use Ellingworth’s apt phrase: “a timeless present referring to the permanent record of scripture.” And even the following verse, which you point to again, the one concerning “the days of his flesh”, this too, as I continually point out, consists also of ‘events’ that take place in scripture. The “suffering that perfected him” took place in scripture; there is nothing to indicate that the writer places it on earth (except Gospel preconceptions that are brought to the matter.) It seems we cannot escape the confines of scripture in this epistle and never find ourselves standing on terra firma. You compare 5:5 with Acts 13:33, but at least Acts is in the context of an historical Jesus. 13:13 itself applies the Psalm quote to the historical figure. Paul is giving a speech in which he leaves no doubt of what he is talking about. He refers to Pilate, to taking Jesus down from the gibbet and laying him in a tomb. No epistle writer does that, certainly not the author of Hebrews. There’s a quantum difference here which you are not acknowledging. To simply equate the two examples when one of them lacks an essential component is simply to beg the question.

First of all, this does not relate to the context of the passage itself, what the author is saying. We need to take another look at it, 8:1-4 (and I’ll even use the NIV):

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.

This is what I mean by the thought being trivial (in either context). Jesus is High Priest in heaven. As High Priest, he needs to have something to do (offer gifts and sacrifices). He wouldn’t be able to perform that role on earth, because we already have priests here who do that. No job openings; no need for him. Still, there is no logical conflict, however trivial the thought. You are trying to find an “out” by claiming that the writer would not have regarded Jesus on earth as yet being a priest, because he had not yet performed his sacrifice. Now, the latter is true, in that the writer places and defines that sacrifice as something that has taken place in heaven. But he never precedes this by an event on earth. My contention has always been, that if the writer regarded Jesus as having lived on earth, as having died on Calvary, shed his blood there, it would not be possible for him to completely ignore that aspect of the matter and define the sacrifice as something exclusively performed in heaven. It would not be possible for him to say (which he never does, anyway) that he became a priest only after he had gone to heaven, since his concept of “priest” would also have to have been applied to the death on earth. (The passing mention of the “cross” in 12:2 does not locate it on earth, or anywhere for that matter.)

In chapter 9:15-22, the writer focuses on the role of blood, and the shedding of blood. Jesus has inaugurated a new covenant by his death and the shedding of his blood. This is compared with the former covenant under Moses, which “itself was not inaugurated without blood.” In verse 22, the writer makes that famous statement of principle: “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” And yet the sole thing which this writer has to say about the blood of Jesus is in a heavenly context, the presentation of his blood as a sacrifice offered to God in the heavenly sanctuary. Did Jesus not bleed on Calvary and in the scourging that preceded? (Did the writer not see Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ?) Did he not die on a hill on earth? In verse 16, he says that “where there is a testament it is necessary for the death of the testator to be established.” Does he speak of Jesus’ death having been attested to in history, in an historical time and place, before witnesses? We wait in vain for such a thing. Even though he never enlarges on the “death” element, he clearly says in a couple of spots (9:15, 2:14) that it is the “death” that brought deliverance from sin and the devil, and that this is one aspect of Jesus’ performance of his role as High Priest. It follows necessarily that if that death, and that shedding of blood, took place on earth, then Jesus was being a High Priest on earth, even if this writer’s imaginative use of scripture has him completing the act in heaven.

My point is, if the writer was fully cognizant of an earthly dimension to Christ, he simply would not have fashioned his soteriological picture the way he did, with an exclusive focus on the heavenly dimension, because he would have had to take into account the earthly experience, the death, the shedding of the blood on Calvary. That would have had to be seen as part of the sacrifice. And in doing that, he would have set up a conflict between the earthly High Priest Jesus and the earthly high priests of the Temple cult, whose “sacrifices” would have both taken place at the same time in the same venue. Not only would there have been a conflict then, my arguments about the conflict 8:4 sets up between the “now” and the “then” would come into play. An earthly death and sacrifice for Jesus doesn’t work, no matter how you cut it.

In view of the above, my analogy was perfectly apt. Jesus is an earthly citizen at the same time as he is performing his sacrifice, or at least an essential part of it, dying and shedding his blood, which features are what the author defines as having a role in creating the new testament and forgiving sins. Thus his priestly ministry had to have in part taken place on earth. The fact that the writer does not take this into account (which would have destroyed his Platonic comparison) can only be because he is aware of no such actions on an earthly Calvary. Your description above is an attempt to compartmentalize things according to Gospel preconceptions. But it is not how the writer organizes things, because he never mentions the elements that you use to make those distinctions. He never defines Jesus as High Priest only after “his earthly career”. To make such a point, he’d have to actually mention a term like “earthly” or a setting like “Calvary.”

And I’ll just take the opportunity to offer a little comment on GakuseiDon’s observation:

I never claimed angels couldn’t observe events on earth. That is irrelevant here. If we had any reason to think that “events on earth” are what is being spoken of, Don might have a point. But Ben admitted that there was “no hint” of any such thing in the text itself, and he relied entirely on interpreting oikoumene as having to refer to an earthly location, which I have shown is erroneous. So Don is simply begging the question to say that since angels have the ability to observe what happens on earth, this is what the passage means. Angels also have the ability to observe what is going on in heaven, and since everything in the context points to a heavenly/scriptural ‘location’, with earthly referents notably missing throughout the entire chapter and elsewhere, that’s the way we ought to take it, and there is nothing “disingenuous” about me not mentioning other angelic sight lines. Paul in Don’s example is speaking as a man on earth whom the angels can view, that is clear. The writer of Hebrews takes up no such stance that we can see in regard to Jesus. Good grief, he cannot even mention a human identity when he opens the epistle with a cosmic picture of the Son (thoroughly Platonic in its language), and when he speaks of this Son as “having spoken to us in these last days” cannot give us the slightest example of a word of Jesus on earth, but consistently throughout the epistle offers the Son as “speaking” in the words of scripture. What “Christian” converted to faith in Jesus of Nazareth could possibly have scripted an epistle outlining the process of salvation with such a deafening and mind-boggling silence?

The more I study the Epistle to the Hebrews, the more I am struck by three things. First, the absolutely alien thought-world of the minds which produced it, which could envision all of this ‘reality’ taking place in a dimension (one created through a mystical interpretation of scripture) which our modern minds have no concept of or rational basis for, thus making it difficult to grasp the kind of thinking that governed it. Second, (as so much of the commentary produced on Hebrews indicates, including that which goes on here), how scholarly analysis of this epistle is strained to bizarre lengths in order to force it into an orthodox mold. Third, that basing one’s life and a philosophy of ‘salvation’ in the 21st century on a document like Hebrews as representing some sane and intelligible version of reality, not to mention the manner in which a God would operate, is the most compelling indication that it all needs to be chucked into the dustbin of fossilized history. Surely there are better things we can do with our time, our energies, our intelligence, our modern scientific knowledge and potential.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

You will no doubt recall your original lines, the ones that sparked this interchange:

It turns out now that even if the writer does use one of those perfectly good words for earth, we still have an endless debate.

It would, I think, be possible to find even more mitigating instances of the other words for earth than this particular one.

Note that Bauer here calls this option an extraordinary use (singular). Were there no other such extraordinary uses than 1 Clement 60.1?

But let us look at 1 Clement 60.1:

You through your operations made manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. You, Lord, created the earth [συ, κυριε, την οικουμενην εκτισας]. You who are faithful throughout all generations, righteous in your judgments, marvelous in strength and excellence, you who are wise in creating and prudent in establishing that which you have made, who are good in the things which are seen and faithful with those who trust on you, pitiful and compassionate, forgive us our iniquities and our unrighteousnesses and our transgressions and shortcomings.

I do not have access to Bauer at present. Would you please explain to me why the word οικουμενη in 1 Clement 60.1 encompasses heaven (to use your phrase)?

Bauer may believe that; I do not know. But your quote does not show it. It simply shows an equivalence between two Greek phrases, an equivalence with which I basically agree.

As far as I am concerned, the Jewish age to come, world to come, or inhabited earth to come was, in fact, very often if not always an historical term in century I. It was imagined that in the age to come the historical land of Israel would be rid of the historical Romans and other historical foes and would enjoy the rest of eternal history on the earth (or inhabited earth) free of death and suffering and so forth. This is not exactly our view of (future) history, I daresay, but it was theirs.

The idea of going to heaven and staying there was, I think, not common amongst the Jews. The age to come means the final, glorious era on earth.

So yes, I take Hebrews 2.5 to refer to the earth. And this is not a deus ex machina; I have thought that for a long time without even thinking about its implications for an historical Jesus.

Never ignoring, of course, that your original statement was that using the very term of Christ would settle the argument.

He is about to use the present text of scripture quotation; what tense should he use here? When he brought him into the earth he says does not sound right.

That asked, however, I readily grant that the author wishes to make all these events seem timeless.

When the father brings the firstborn into the inhabited earth, by the way, whence, in your view, does he bring him? Where was the firstborn before that he is now someplace else? Just a question for clarification.

I do not understand the scriptural contexts argument. Hebrews 2.14, while (like virtually every other verse of the epistle) certainly in close standing with a scriptural passage or two, is not itself from scripture. The author is speaking his own words here.

Furthermore, again for clarification, please give me the parallel to the flesh-and-blood-but-certainly-not-human motif that will elucidate this text.

This is one of the things that baffles me about your argument. If this epistle called Jesus a priest without further ado, without discussing the fact that the purportedly historical Jesus was from a nonpriestly line, I have no doubt that would make your list of glaring silences (or even contradictions). So, when the author does take the time to explain how Jesus can be a priest though he is from the wrong line, that still somehow supports your thesis?

Call me dense, if you wish, and I am not trying to be stubborn or unfair, but what precedent do you find for stating the tribal affiliation of a person known to be a purely spiritual being who was never born?

Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that his lineage was deduced from scripture (he was of Judah and David because he was supposed to be). How does this impinge on Jesus being historical? In other words, even if I completely grant this recurring point of yours, that the information was derived from scripture, I do not see how it shows that Jesus was not historical. As if inventing ancestries never happened for historical figures. Do you think the person who invented the genealogy in Chronicles for Samuel, the one that made him a good little Levite instead of an Ephraimite, did so because he thought Samuel was mythical?

Hebrews 12.18-24 describes the epistolary readers in terms of scripture. Are we to imagine that the readers were mythical?

I think I could use your arguments from scripture to make a case that Francis of Assisi did not exist because a particular document written only a couple of years after his alleged death happens to describe his every facet almost exclusively in terms of scripture and alludes even less than Hebrews to an earthly existence.

I have been tempted to make this very argument before, that his ancestry was deduced from scripture. It does not take away from the fact that the author really thought he was of flesh and blood and from the tribe of Judah.

I think so. There is no doubt that the author thinks Jesus died. There is also no doubt that the author thinks Jesus is still alive. Call what comes between those two poles whatever you wish (exaltation, resurrection, ascension), but the author thinks Jesus came back from the dead (this would be true semantically even if you were correct about that death occurring in the heavens).

If dwelling on one of my verb tenses as if it were holy scripture is supposed to flatter me... it might work.

What I meant, of course, is that when Jesus was on earth he was of the wrong line for earthly priests; indeed he still is of the wrong line for earthly priests. Now that he is in heaven, however, where the Levitical line does not matter, he is of the order of Melchizedek.

In Hebrews 7.13-14 he explicitly says that Jesus is from the wrong line to be a Levitical priest. In Hebrews 8.4 he explicitly says that Jesus could not be a priest if on earth. These two reasons dovetail.

Yes, Levitical priests.

What does presently being a priest in heaven have to do with a verse that says he would not be a priest if he were on earth? The connection seems quite obvious to me; could you rephrase the question?

According to Hebrews 2.9, after and indeed because of his suffering and death. This simple fact nullifies your analogy. Since Jesus was not glorified until he died (2.9), and since he did not become priest until he was glorified (5.5), there never was, assuming an historical Jesus, a time when Jesus was a priest on earth. Therefore, you cannot use such a consideration against the idea of an historical Jesus. (Just to be crystal clear, this does not by itself prove that Hebrews has such an idea; it merely takes away your smoking gun.)

Yes, but I am failing to see your point. Even unquestionable historicists like the authors of the gospels, when they went to fill out details in their stories or even invent new ones, turned to scripture. That does not mean they thought Jesus was a myth.

Sure, of course. And it also took place recently relative to the author (9.26).

He would if he were of the Levitical line, right?

You are appealing to silence here when the whole point of my rebuttal was to disarm you of your smoking gun.

You write about me trying to find an out. There is no need to look for an out. It is plain in the epistle. It is, in fact, why I did not completely understand your argument at first. It makes no sense. How can the author be ignoring a priestly conflict on earth, during his lifetime, when the author has no conception of him being a priest until after his death?

Where was the sacrifice? According to the logic of the epistle, not in heaven.

1. The earthly priests did not enter the holy of holies in order to make the sacrifice; they made the sacrifice first, then entered the holy place, taking the blood behind the veil with them (Hebrews 9.7; refer to Leviticus 16.15, for example).
2. Jesus entered the real holy of holies by and after shedding his own blood (Hebrews 9.12).
3. What is the real holy of holies? Hebrews 9.24:

For Christ did not go into a holy place made with hands, an antitype of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God on our behalf.

Heaven is the real holy place. And Christ could not enter the real holy place without already having the blood in hand, ready to sprinkle on the implements. This certifies that the sacrifice could not have taken place in heaven. Where, in your view, did it take place?

(I bet 1.6 offers a clue.)

According to this epistle, Jesus cleansed the heavenly implements with his blood (9.23). But that blood had to be shed elsewhere, as the writer makes clear.

Sure, but the author thinks he became a priest only after dying, after the sacrifice itself. It was not a sacrifice until he was dead.

Jesus is glorified because of his death (2.9), but so as to become priest (5.5). This places his priesthood after his death.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

On the matter of oikoumene, I think we’re reduced to nit-picking, so I won’t pursue that any further. I’m going to jump into the middle of Ben’s posting and focus on the essence of this whole document:

Once again, this is a narrowly semantic argument, and inaccurate, if you are claiming that the heavenly venue in which Christ offers his blood is simply heaven itself, and not a heavenly sanctuary. Let’s look at the wider context.

8:5 – “They [the earthly high priests of verse 4] serve at an earthly sanctuary which is a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things…”

The earthly sanctuary in the Temple is hardly going to be spoken of as a copy and shadow of heaven itself, but of a heavenly sanctuary. This is spelled out using that term in the next chapter:

9:11 – “…[Christ entered] through the greater and more perfect tabernacle [sknvns] not made by hands, that is, not a part of this creation…”

Even in the verse you quote, the implication is of a place in heaven. Again, he speaks of a “man-made sanctuary [on earth] merely a copy of the true one” implying a heavenly sanctuary. Since Christ is performing the prototype action of the high priest on earth, this has to entail him entering a heavenly sanctuary and there offering his blood, as the earthly priests enter the Temple Holy of Holies and offer the blood of animals. For the writer to say he “entered heaven itself” is simply a broader way of saying the same thing. He is emphasizing that this was done in heaven rather than on earth.

Now, you ask where the “sacrifice” takes place, since Christ is bringing into the sanctuary the blood which has already been shed? This attempt at compartmentalizing gets you into trouble on whatever side you want to come down on. First of all, it is clear that the writer regards Christ’s entry into the heavenly tabernacle with the offering of his blood as at least part of the “sacrifice.” Indeed, it is the only part he ever applies that term to. Part of the problem is that you are confusing the other, day-to-day sacrifices in the Temple with this special occasion in which the priests enter the inner sanctuary and make a special offering there. In the former cases, the sacrifice takes place entirely outside, in the slaughter of the animal and the burning of it. In the latter case, the “sacrifice” is entirely (or at least completed by) the entry into the sanctuary and offering the blood there. That is the type of sacrifice that Christ’s in heaven is being compared to. 9:12 says: “…the blood of his sacrifice is his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves; and thus he has entered the holy place once and for all and secured an eternal deliverance.” The key act, and thus the “sacrifice” takes place not outside, but comprises the act of entry with the blood and its offering to God there. (Good grief, what a primitive concept, whether it takes place on Calvary or in heaven, and we are still defending this as the essence of eternal truth and salvation??!!...But I digress.)

Thus I have to object in this case that the concept of “sacrifice” is confined only to outside the sanctuary, on the alter of slaughter. Otherwise, the entry into the tabernacle would be redundant, an afterthought, whereas in the thinking of this writer it is the essence of the whole process, and where Christ in heaven is concerned the act which provides salvation. You are trying to find an “implication” that the sacrifice takes place previously, and further that it takes place on earth, but neither of those implications is present in the text, but only in the preconceptions that you bring to it. In fact it is conspicuous by its absence. As I have said ad nauseum, if “the sacrifice did not take place in heaven” how could the author so thoroughly ignore that dimension? How can he use the word and concept of “sacrifice” so many times and never mention the earthly dimension of it? (I am not saying that the writer could not have had the actual ‘death’ of Christ which produced the blood in mind in the background of his thought, but since it plays no role in his soteriological picture it can hardly square with the concept that it was something that took place in recent history in an identifiable place and to a man with an earthly identity, all things which show up nowhere throughout the epistle.)

And even if, for the sake of argument, we were to regard the “sacrifice” as taking place on earth, then you are still between a rock and a hard place, because then all those problems and contradictions we have been discussing surrounding 8:4 come back into play. If the sacrifice took place on earth, how is the dichotomy preserved between the heavenly High Priest and the earthly high priests, the functioning of their separate activities, since they would both be taking place on earth? This cannot be resolved in any fashion which preserves a crucifixion on Calvary.

But let’s go back to our heavenly scene in chapter 9. I have long pointed this out, but have never received a rebuttal. As I said, the “sacrifice” as portrayed by the writer is consistently the ENTRY into the heavenly tabernacle and the OFFERING of the blood. This is an action performed in heaven, in the spiritual dimension. (And by the way, it is in association with that entry that the writer uses the phrase (10:20), “the curtain of his flesh,” referring to the curtain of the sanctuary, namely the heavenly sanctuary. This places the term and concept of Christ’s “flesh” in a spiritual dimension, with an entirely mystical meaning.)

In view of that “entry” and “offering” as the act of “sacrifice”, let’s look at the key paragraph of 9:23-26, and I’ll bold the essential sentences so we can see the connections. (And note once again the linking of the idea of “sacrifices” with the heavenly sanctuary in verse 23):

23. If then, these sacrifices cleanse the copies of heavenly things, those heavenly things themselves require better sacrifices to cleanse them. 24. For Christ has entered, not that sanctuary made by men’s hands which is only a symbol of the reality, but heaven itself, to appear now before God on our behalf. 25. Nor is he there to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the sanctuary year by year with blood not his own. 26. If that were so, he would have had to suffer many times since the world was made. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at the climax of history to abolish sin by the sacrifice of himself. [NEB translation]

How does Christ “abolish sin”? By offering his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. The “appearing to abolish sin” of verse 26 is in the same category as the “appearing before God” in verse 24, and as the “offering himself” of verse 25. It is all focused on the same act in heaven. This is further strengthened by verse 28a: “so Christ was offered once to bear the burden of men’s sins…” Again, the “offering” takes place in the heavenly sanctuary, which is the act which is stated as removing sins. It is all of a piece. Nowhere is there a reference to an earthly event. Within this “piece”, verse 26b cannot simply be taken out of context and labeled a reference to Christ’s incarnation and life on earth. Again, that is what is known as consistency and makes for a secure interpretation along mythicist lines, including the suggested meaning of 8:4.

(If you want to raise the question of 28b, with its alleged reference to a “second” coming, I’ll simply point you to my discussion of that mistaken interpretation in the Epilogue to my website Article No. 7. And just prior to that, you’ll find a full discussion of why the writer speaks of Christ’s offering as “once” and “once for all”, and why he places it in the present time.)

And again, you are still missing the point. The author never defines or shows an understanding of Christ “being a priest” in relation to before or after his death. How can it be “plain in the epistle” when such a matter or definition is never raised? It is anything but “plain” since it is never discussed, and that in itself would be unusual in an orthodox scenario. It is “plain” to you only within the context of the preconceptions you are bringing to the epistle, which you are reading into it. Let me keep reiterating this until you can grasp it. If the writer had a concept of Jesus having been on earth and having performed his sacrifice on Calvary, then he would have had to clarify that he was not a “priest” until after his death; he would have to clarify the natural confusion that would be created by his exclusive focus of the “sacrifice” and the abolishing of sin as an act in heaven. He would have had to talk about Calvary somewhere along the line, since (as you yourself demonstrate) that would be natural and expected. He would never present his soteriological picture the way he has if that dramatic Gospel picture of the crucifixion on Calvary lay in the background of his awareness.

When you link this silence with the silence in chapter 1, which I have repeatedly referred to without eliciting any attempted explanation from you, with the silence in chapter 12 on the Mount of Calvary as an antitype to Mount Sinai (instead, the scene of the new covenant is Mt. Zion!!!), with the silence in chapter 11 on Jesus as a prime example of all those models of “faith” in the power of God, and so on. There is not a word about anything Christ said or did on earth.

Does all this not bother you, Ben? I forgot—even if there were a thousand such silences, you would not be troubled. You live in a different conceptual universe. Believe me, I am not taunting you. I am trying to demonstrate how this stance of yours is beyond reason, beyond common sense. You asked about 5:7, or said that you didn’t understand my point. I pointed out how mainstream commentators have identified the ‘material’ referred to in 5:7 as dependent on scripture, that it is derived from it, from two phrases in the Psalms. Why would the writer do this? Why pass up referring to something historical (just as he does in chapter 2 in quoting scripture instead of sayings of Jesus), even to make a specific point? Would there have been no tradition (even if he didn’t know any Gospels) that Jesus had ever prayed to God?

Look back to 5:4. The writer is making the point that every high priest, including Jesus, gets to be “called by God.” A prior example: “as indeed Aaron was.” Aaron was an historical man. He goes on to say: “So it is with Christ.” Wouldn’t the most natural thing be to provide a parallel historical example of Christ being called by God? Does he do that? No, the parallel in regard to Christ is in scripture! Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4. When he goes on in 5:7 to give an example of Christ praying to God (“in the days of his flesh”), it is again in scripture. This should tell us at least one thing. That the writer has no problem in placing historical prototypes with scriptural/mythological antitypes (in contradiction to what someone like Buchanan claims is going on in this epistle). Aaron living in history can be compared/equated to Christ living in scripture. This is the mindset and view of reality which throws everyone, which makes it so difficult for the literalists (like yourself) to understand what is going on here. In order to enter that mindset, you have to step outside your orthodox, Gospel-induced box. You have to enter the thoroughly mystical world-view of these writers, a world-view we find throughout the epistles, and in other documents like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Odes of Solomon (and much of the early Gnostic writings as well), all of which contain no historical view of Jesus. Until you make an effort to do that, you and I, historicists and mythicists will continually talk past each other.

While we’re in chapter 5, what do you make of verse 12: “you need someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God again…”? He is referring to the discussion he has just given about Christ and Melchizedek taken from scripture. Then he sums up in 6:1 that these are “the rudiments of the word about Christ”. He is saying that everything about Christ is known from scripture; nothing is presented throughout the epistle as known from historical tradition. And none of these “rudiments” come from the teachings of Christ himself, on earth. This is not mere “silence.” It falls into that category of what I have called “positive silence” (despite Kevin’s misgivings about this term). Hebrews is a picture complete, coherent, and consistent in itself. This community views Christ as an entity revealed by scripture, and perhaps visionary revelation. He has arisen out of Platonic-Logos and Jewish-Wisdom thinking, the fundamental philosophical concept of the age. They have interpreted his acts of salvation according to scripture. Every opportunity, and necessity, to mention anything to do with a supposed earthly career, is ignored. If this were any other area or discipline than Christianity, we would use what is said in the epistle itself to create a picture of its ancient faith and thought processes. As it is, you are engaged in a vast exercise to introduce into it what is clearly not there, and me to try to get you to see that it is entirely unjustified and unnecessary.

I have no doubt that I am going to fail. But perhaps I have been able along the way to get others who are not so locked into the same box to see what is going on here, and perhaps influence their view of things.

All the best,
Earl Doherty