FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-13-2003, 01:51 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
Default Doherty's Dubious Analysis of Hebrews 13:11-13

In another post, I demonstrated that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 was very dubious, and that said verses clearly indicated that Jesus had already made one earthly appearance, and that he would appear again in a second coming.

Here is a link to the previous post: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45180

In this post I explore another of Doherty's dubious interpretations of Hebrews. This time, verses 13:11-13. I've included his entire discussion of this passage, though I have responded point-by-point were appropriate. The thrust of Doherty's argument is that Hebrew's reference to Jesus' suffering "outside the gate" is not based on any historical tradition, but is entirely created from the author's imagining of Hebrew scripture. However, as the discussion below demonstrates, the author is not creating accounts from scripture, but attempting to make existing historical traditions fit, often in a rather forced way, existing Hebrew scripture.


Quote:
Outside the Compound

The first to consider is 13:11-13:

11Those animals whose blood is brought as a sin-offering by the High Priest into the sanctuary have their bodies burnt outside the camp, 12and therefore Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood. 13Let us then go to meet him outside the camp, bearing the stigma that he bore.

The first thing to note is that the name of Jerusalem is not used. Only the Gospel story would lead us to identify the author's thought about a gate with that city. Nor does the name of Calvary or Golgotha ever appear.
The idea that the lack of a references to "Jerusalem," "Calvary" and/or "Golgotha" has any relevance to the issue of whether the author of Hebrews is referring to earthly events or historical tradition is demonstrably false. Example after example of later Christian writings -- which even Doherty admits refer to an earthly Jesus -- discuss Jesus' death, crucifixion, or passion without ever mentioning "Jerusalem," Calvary" and/or "Golgotha." I will discuss some notable examples:

1. Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians (105-115 CE)

This letter mentions the cross twice, Jesus' death four times, and includes this explicit reference: "If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified!". Ch. 16. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

2. Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians (105-115 CE)

This letter refers to Jesus' passion twice, as well as his resurrection and crucifixion. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

3. Ignatius' Letter to the Trallians (105-115 CE)

This letter refers to Jesus' death and his passion. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

4. Ignatius' Letter to the Romans (105-115 CE)

This letter compares Ignatius' own upcoming martyrdom to that of Jesus. "Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God." Yet there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

5. Ignatius' Letter to the Philadelphians (105-115 CE)

This letters discusses Jesus' "cross, and death, and resurrection" and his "passion." Yet there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

6. Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans (105-115 CE)

This letter discusses Jesus' "passion" on several occasions. He is very explicit about Jesus' human death: "in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and
resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual." Yet there is no reference to Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

7. Polycarp's Letter to the Phillipians (110-140 CE)

This letter discusses the cross and Jesus' "suffering unto death." Yet there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

8. Martyrdom on Polycarp (150-160 CE)

This letter mentions Jesus' death by crucifixion without mentioning Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

9. The Octavius of Minucius Felix (160-250 CE)

This treatise discusses very specifically Jesus' death on a cross. Indeed, the author devotes a chapter to defending Jesus' innocence of the crime for which he was crucified. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

10. A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion (73-200 CE)

This letter mentions Jesus' death, but makes no reference to Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

11. The Epistle of Barnabas (80-120 CE)

Although Barnabas is obsessed with the cross -- referring to it and discussing it over and over again -- there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Obviously, therefore, the fact that the author of Hebrews mentions Jesus' crucifixion without specifically mentioning Jerusalem, Golgotha, and/or Calvary, proves absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Note, too, that the flanking verses above use the word "camp." Here we need to look at the Greek word "parembole." It means a fortified military camp, and it is used in Exodus and Leviticus to refer to the Israelite camp in the wilderness of Sinai. Hebrews, in its presentation of the cultic rituals of sacrifice, seems to have this ancient ‘historical' setting in mind rather than any contemporary Herodian Temple. The present passage, then, lies far from the site of Jerusalem in the writer's mind; and all of it has the mark of symbolic significance.
This last statement goes much too far. All that can be reasonably inferred, is that the author is focusing on the Temple Cult described in the Hebrew scriptures and not Temple Cult active in the Herodian temple in Jerusalem.

Quote:
Jesus suffering "outside the gate" is an element which is dependent, not on some historical record, but on the idea in the previous phrase. Jesus did this because bodies of sacrificed animals were burned outside the camp.

For this writer, everything to do with Christ and his sacrifice must be modeled on the sacrificial cultus of the Jewish religion, as described in scripture. Scripture determines the picture he creates of Christ and his activities in the spiritual world, and if animals were sacrificed outside the boundaries of the camp at Sinai, then Jesus had to undergo the same thing, in a higher world mythic parallel to the earthly copy. The idea of "outside the gate" also provides a symbolic parallel to the experiences of the believers, as we see by the succeeding verse which suggests that the author saw both Jesus and his own sect as rejected outsiders, living ‘beyond the pale' with no permanent home. This is suggestive of the paradigmatic relationship between earthly and heavenly counterparts, as outlined in Article No. 8. Thus we can discount any
necessary reference in this passage to Jerusalem or an historical event.
Doherty's claim that Jesus undergoes the "same thing" and is merely a "copy" of what happens to animal sacrifices in the Temple Cult as stated by Hebrew scripture is obviously false. The differences are obvious and significant.

First, there author changes his terminology. In Leviticus, after the sacrifice, the carcass of the animal is "taken outside the camp." Lev. 16:27. Once there, the carcass is burned. Lev. 16:28. The author of Hebrews faithfully reproduces the text in Hebrews v. 11, noting that the animal is burned "outside the camp." When speaking of Jesus, however, the author of Hebrews does not say that Jesus suffered "outside the camp." The author conspicuously avoids using the same terminology found in Hebrew scripture and instead uses different phrases. Rather than being "burned," Jesus "suffers." And, even more significantly, rather than suffering "outside the camp," Jesus suffers "outside the gate."

Doherty offers no explanation for the shift in terminology. It is clearly incompatible with his claim that Jesus is merely the "same thing" or a "copy" that is based on Hebrew scripture. So, if Doherty's interpretation fails to explain the change in terms, what does? The explanation is obvious. The author of Hebrews is not creating myth from Hebrew scripture, he is adapting scripture to fit into historical tradition. And, frankly, his attempt is somewhat forced because of the differences between the historical tradition he is working with and Hebrew scripture.

The historical tradition that is being "forced" to fit into the sacrificial system of Leviticus 16 is that Jesus was executed outside the city. That is why the author refers to "gate" instead of "camp." In fact, according to Thayer's Lexicon, the Greek term that the author of Hebrews uses for "gate" -- pule -- generally means "a gate of a larger sort", such as to a city, town, or large structure. The same term is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to a gate to a city or town (Acts 3:10; 9:24: 12:10; Luke 7:12).

But is there any indication that such a historical tradition even existed about the location of Jesus' death? Actually yes, that Jesus would have been executed outside a gate of Jerusalem seems very likely.

Three of the four gospels confirm that Jesus died outside the city.

Matthew 27:32-33: "As they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross. And when they came to a place called Golgotha, which means Place of a Skull...."

Mark 15:20: "After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him."

John 19:20: "Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek."

Jerusalem, as a walled city, was exited by use of one of the many gates to the city. Accordingly, the best explanation for the shift from "camp" to "gate" is that the author of Hebrews was attempting to fit an existing historical tradition into an analogy with the sacrificial system described in Leviticus.

Second, there are other substantial differences between the animal sacrifices in Leviticus and the sacrifice of Jesus. The location and sequence of events is different. Very different. In the Temple Cult, the animal was taken into the camp, and killed therein. (Lev. 16). The blood was then used to make the appropriate sacrifices. Only after the sacrifice was complete was the animal's body removed from the Temple and taken outside the camp to be burned. Not so with Jesus. Jesus' suffering, a reference to his crucifixion, occurred outside of the gate. Only after he died on the cross (Heb. 6:6; 12:2), did Jesus enter the temple. The sequence and location of events is actually the opposite of the Levitical system. If Jesus was simply a model of the Hebrew scripture's system of sacrifice, he would have died/suffered inside the camp (as the animal does), not outside the gate (as the Gospels indicate). Obviously, the author is struggling to fit an existing tradition into existing scripture. And, frankly, it is something of a stretch given the differences highlighted.

Here is how some commentators have described the similarities and differences between Jesus and the animal sacrifices in Leviticus.

Quote:
The fact that the bodies of the animals sacrificed on the Day of Atonement were burned outside the camp suggests a parallel to the fact that Jesus was crucified outside one of the city gates of Jerusalem [cf. John 19:2]. The parallel may seem inexact, since the animals of the sin offering were actually slaughtered within the camp.
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, at 380.

Quote:
The analogy was not meant to be pressed, and that may be why the author used the word suffered (epathen) rather than 'died." The Old Testament sin offering was actually slain within the tabernacle precincts, and only after its blood was sprinkled on the altar was the carcass carried outside the camp for burning. In the case of Jesus, of course, His death occurred outside the city. The main point in view is the disagree involved.
Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews, 285.

Clearly, therefore, the most reasonable understanding of the differences between what the author of Hebrews says about Jesus' death on a cross outside the gate before the offering and the Levitical system's sacrifice within the camp and burning outside of it, is that the author of Hebrews is trying to fit what he knows about the historical facts of Jesus' death into Hebrew scripture. It's not a perfect fit by any means, but he uses it to make his point. He obviously did not create the accounts of Jesus to be the "same thing" or a "copy" of the scriptures.

Quote:
In any case, we have strong indication from an earlier passage (7:1-3) that the writer of Hebrews possesses no concept of Jesus ever having been in or near Jerusalem. Jesus in his role as heavenly High Priest finds his archetype, his scriptural precedent, in Melchizedek. This figure was "king of Salem and priest of God Most High," who is mentioned briefly in Genesis 14:18-20. (There is an even briefer reference to him in Psalm 110:4.) In comparing Melchizedek to Jesus, the writer is anxious to milk everything he can from this shadowy character; one who serves the role of prototype for Jesus the new High Priest. And yet he fails to make the obvious point that Melchizedek had officiated in the same city where Jesus later performed his own act as High Priest, the sacrifice of himself. This is only one of many unthinkable omissions in this epistle.
First, the reference to Melchizedek, along with other features about Hebrews, actually points away from a heavy reliance on Platonic thought here. The figure of Melch. is obviously considered to be historical, and hints at Qumran influence--and their belief in an earthly Messiah.

Quote:
The symbolism of Hebrews is complex, deriving from a variety of traditions. The search for a perfect correspondence between one tradition and this writing is futile, for Hebrews reshapes the available symbols around the figure of a crucified and exalted Messiah. A discussion of the symbolic framework is valuable only insofar as it helps us understand that new shaping. It has recently been argued, for example, that Hebrews most resembles the thought world of the Qumran sectarians. Both there and here, we find a New Covenant community, separation from cult with appropriation of its symbols, the expectation of a priestly as well as kingly messiah, even an interest in the figure of Melchizedek.
Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 420.

Second, there is there no "unthinkable omission" here. Jesus did not "officiate" as high priest in Jerusalem. Rather, Christ officiates as high priest from heaven. Jesus simply suffered and died near Jerusalem, he presented himself as a high priest and the offering in heaven. The author, if anything, wants to de-emphasize any connection between Jesus' movement and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem.

In sum, Doherty's analysis is flawed. It defies the majority of modern scholarship, without providing any adequate justification. The author of Hebrews is not creating accounts about Jesus from the Hebrew scriptures, he is trying to "force" a fit between existing historical tradition and the scriptures available to him. Accordingly, Hebrews 13:11-13 most likely refers to a historical tradition recounting how Jesus was cruficied outside the city--as recorded in three of the Gospels.
Layman is offline  
Old 03-13-2003, 06:38 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

You might link to the page that you are discussing.

A SACRIFICE IN HEAVEN: The Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews

I think that Doherty is in fact trying to "def[y] the majority of modern scholarship," which, he claims, reads the Gospels back into earlier Christian literature. I do not find your interpretation more compelling than his. If the author of Hebrews could force a "fit" between your alleged historical events and the scriptures, he could equally well be trying to force a fit between the myth of the dying and rising savior and the scriptures.

Do you have a theory as to why Ignatius does not mention Jerusalem? Doherty describes Ignatius as the first step in turning the mythological Christ of the first century into the Gospel Jesus, so he evidently assumes that the detail of the location of the crucifixion had not been invented or widely disseminated by the time Ignatius wrote.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 10:36 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
I think that Doherty is in fact trying to "def[y] the majority of modern scholarship," which, he claims, reads the Gospels back into earlier Christian literature.
Wow. Incredible insight there Toto.

Quote:
I do not find your interpretation more compelling than his. If the author of Hebrews could force a "fit" between your alleged historical events and the scriptures, he could equally well be trying to force a fit between the myth of the dying and rising savior and the scriptures.
But Doherty claims that the author of Hebrews was basing that "dying and rising savior" on OT scripture. In fact, that is the core of his argument about Hebrews (and much else).

Quote:
Do you have a theory as to why Ignatius does not mention Jerusalem? Doherty describes Ignatius as the first step in turning the mythological Christ of the first century into the Gospel Jesus, so he evidently assumes that the detail of the location of the crucifixion had not been invented or widely disseminated by the time Ignatius wrote.
I don't think we need a theory as to why Ignatius does not mention Jerusalem. Or why Polycarp did not. Or the account of his martrydom did not. Or Barnabas did not. Or why so many other such writings do not. It's just a fact. Belief in a historical Jesus does not necessitate mentioning every possible detail about whatever aspect of his life you are writing about. Using such "silences" as evidence of a lack of a historical Jesus is unfounded.
Layman is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 11:33 AM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

You need to have some sort of a theory of why the Gospels place Jesus' death in Jerusalem. This piece of information is missing from all of the earliest Christian writings until after the fall of Jerusalem, and then it suddenly pops up. How did Mark know that detail? You can wave your hands and talk about "oral traditions", but it seems more likely to have been invented for theological reasons, like the rest of Mark's gospel.

Here's the real problem, Layman. Doherty bases his theory on an accumulation of evidence, no one point of which is decisive, but which overall indicate that a "mythical Christ Jesus historicized" is a better explanation for the development of early Christianity than a human Jesus who was deified. It's not just that Ignatius does not mention Jerusalem. No early Christian knows much about the historical Jesus, but they do speak of him in highly mystical terms.

So one month ago you challenged Doherty's translation of one phrase in Hebrews (I disagree with your assertion that you "demonstrated" much of anything). Now you are challenging his interpretation of two verses in Hebrews. At this rate, it might take you 3 years to work through what Doherty has written on Hebrews alone, before you tackle the rest of his web site, which could take you another 30 years.

If you are really going to challenge Doherty's thesis, you need an alternative explanation of the literary evidence of early Christianity, not just picking at a few details here and there.

But in the meantime, there are new theories coming up that make Doherty look like a choir boy. After all, Doherty goes along with most of liberal NT scholarship. He doesn't assume, as the Dutch Radicals do, that Paul's letters were 2nd century fabrications, or that Tertullian edited the entire New Testament.

You could also check out my brief review of The Fabrication of the Christ Myth.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 11:46 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
You need to have some sort of a theory of why the Gospels place Jesus' death in Jerusalem.
I do. Because that's where Jesus' death happened.

Quote:
This piece of information is missing from all of the earliest Christian writings until after the fall of Jerusalem, and then it suddenly pops up. How did Mark know that detail? You can wave your hands and talk about "oral traditions", but it seems more likely to have been invented for theological reasons, like the rest of Mark's gospel.
Since Mark was the first person to write a biography of Jesus that we know of, it's not strange that he was the first person we know of to specifically mention the place of Jesus' death.

And Mark was written before the fall of Jerusalem.

Quote:
Here's the real problem, Layman. Dougherty bases his theory on an accumulation of evidence, no one point of which is decisive, but which overall indicate that a "mythical Christ Jesus historicized" is a better explanation for the development of early Christianity than a human Jesus who was deified. It's not just that Ignatius does not mention Jerusalem. No early Christian knows much about the historical Jesus, but they do speak of him in highly mystical terms.
I appreciate the summary of Doherty's theory Toto, but it's really not necessary. Or relevant all that relevant to Doherty's discussion of Hebrews.

Quote:
So one month ago you challenged Dougherty's translation of one phrase in Hebrews (I disagree with your assertion that you "demonstrated" much of anything).
Of course you do. You can't explain why. But I know you do.

Quote:
Now you are challenging his interpretation of two verses in Hebrews. At this rate, it might take you 3 years to work through what Doherty has written on Hebrews alone, before you tackle the rest of his web site, which could take you another 30 years.
Cute Toto.

One reason I chose Hebrews was because Doherty claimed it was a mini-but-complete model of his views on early Christianity:

More than any other New Testament document, the Epistle to the Hebrews contains all the elements needed to understand the general nature of early cultic Christianity

I have shown and will continue to show how deficient his approach to Hebrews is. And by showing how flawed his methods and assumptions are in this mini-example, I'm showing how flawed his methods and assumptions are in general. Such as his assumption that Hebrew's failure to mention Jerusalem has some significance. It obviously does not. Many other Chritian writings that he concedes affirm a historical Jesus fail to mention Jerusalem when specifically discussing Jesus' death. The "failure" is simply irrelevant.

I'm responding quite directly to Doherty's article on Hebrews. It is obvious that you cannot defend his approach. And neither you nor anyone else could defend his approach to 9:23-24. The methods he employs are clearly erroneous and I'm showing that from his own writings. So iInstead of whining about exaggerated guestimates of how long it will take me to respond to Doherty, why not try and defend his article? No one else has been able to do so.

Quote:
If you are really going to challenge Doherty's thesis, you need an alternative explanation of the literary evidence of early Christianity, not just picking at a few details here and there.
If you really want to defend Doherty's thesis, you need to do so. Rather than cop-out of the discussion.

Quote:
But in the meantime, there are new theories coming up that make Doherty look like a choir boy. After all, Doherty goes along with most of liberal NT scholarship. He doesn't assume, as the Dutch Radicals do, that Paul's letters were 2nd century fabrications, or that Tertullian edited the entire New Testament.
So?

Quote:
You could also check out my brief review of The Fabrication of the Christ Myth.
Why?
Layman is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 12:43 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Layman
. . .And Mark was written before the fall of Jerusalem.
Prove it.

I mean, doesn't that go against that "scholarly consensus" that you drag in whenever it suits you?

Quote:


. . .
I have shown and will continue to show how deficient his approach to Hebrews is. And by showing how flawed his methods and assumptions are in this mini-example, I'm showing how flawed his methods and assumptions are in general. Such as his assumption that Hebrew's failure to mention Jerusalem has some significance. It obviously does not. Many other Chritian writings that he concedes affirm a historical Jesus fail to mention Jerusalem when specifically discussing Jesus' death. The "failure" is simply irrelevant.
What bombast. You have only shown that you are clueless and tone deaf at literary criticsm, and that you're willing to argue for 4 pages about a phrase in a language you do not read or speak.

Doherty does not "concede" that Ignatius "affirms" a historical Jesus. Since Ignatius is not an eyewitness, he is in no position to affirm anything about the historicity of Jesus. He begins the process of historicizing the Christ Myth, that's all.

Quote:
I'm responding quite directly to Doherty's article on Hebrews. It is obvious that you cannot defend his approach. And neither you nor anyone else could defend his approach to 9:23-24. The methods he employs are clearly erroneous and I'm showing that from his own writings. So Instead of whining about exaggerated guestimates of how long it will take me to respond to Doherty, why not try and defend his article? No one else has been able to do so.
I think that Doherty is his own best defender (that's why I supplied the link that you omitted), followed by Richard Carrier in Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity. Carrier agrees with Doherty's translation of ek deutero

But let me go back to your original post on this thread. You quote Doherty as saying

Quote:
For this writer, everything to do with Christ and his sacrifice must be modeled on the sacrificial cultus of the Jewish religion, as described in scripture. Scripture determines the picture he creates of Christ and his activities in the spiritual world, and if animals were sacrificed outside the boundaries of the camp at Sinai, then Jesus had to undergo the same thing, in a higher world mythic parallel to the earthly copy.
And then you claim it wasn't exactly the same. Well D'uh! The parallel in the high world is the pure form, of which the early event is a corrupted copy, according to the Platonists.

Do you understand metaphor? analogy? poetic licence? If you are going to argue against Doherty, you have to understand what he is talking about first.

Doherty explains how he uses the argument from silence. You have never addressed his overall argument.

Quote:
Why? {read Leider}
Well, you might learn something about Hellenistic Judaism. Or someone else who is reading this thread might follow the link and learn something.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 01:22 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
Prove it.

I mean, doesn't that go against that "scholarly consensus" that you drag in whenever it suits you?
No, the majority of scholars date Mark prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

And why am I the only one who has to prove things around here, Toto?

Quote:
What bombast. You have only shown that you are clueless and tone deaf at literary criticsm, and that you're willing to argue for 4 pages about a phrase in a language you do not read or speak.
And you have shown that you still have no counter-arguments.

Quote:
Doherty does not "concede" that Ignatius "affirms" a historical Jesus. Since Ignatius is not an eyewitness, he is in no position to affirm anything about the historicity of Jesus. He begins the process of historicizing the Christ Myth, that's all.
Are you and IM related? Sheesh.

We agree that Doherty believes that Ignatius believed in a historical Jesus. Right?

Quote:
I think that Doherty is his own best defender (that's why I supplied the link that you omitted), followed by Richard Carrier in Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity. Carrier agrees with Doherty's translation of ek deutero
So what? Carrier is just as wrong as Doherty.

Quote:
And then you claim it wasn't exactly the same. Well D'uh! The parallel in the high world is the pure form, of which the early event is a corrupted copy, according to the Platonists.
I said nothing about it being "exactly" the same. It was substantially different. And the best explanation for the differences, is that there was a preexisting tradition that the author of Hebrews had to try and fit into Hebrew scripture.

Quote:
Do you understand metaphor?
Yes.

Quote:
analogy?
Yes.

Quote:
poetic licence?
Yes.

Quote:
If you are going to argue against Doherty, you have to understand what he is talking about first.
I surely do.

Quote:
Doherty explains how he uses the argument from silence. You have never addressed his overall argument.
So you say.

You say a lot. You actually discuss very little.

Quote:
Well, you might learn something about Hellenistic Judaism. Or someone else who is reading this thread might follow the link and learn something.
I had already read your review Toto. I'm not sure that anyone would learn anything useful from it.

You are perfecting the art-form of "copping out," Toto. If you are going to defend Doherty's theory, do so. If not, then please stop whining.
Layman is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 02:22 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Layman
No, the majority of scholars date Mark prior to the fall of Jerusalem.
Perhaps you could inform Peter Kirby so he can update his web site. The Gospel of Mark page doesn't list any of them.

Or were you referring to scholars in the middle ages?

Quote:
We agree that Doherty believes that Ignatius believed in a historical Jesus. Right?
Why don't you ask Doherty what he believes? We don't know what Ignatius believed, only what he wrote, and he might have had other motives for claiming that Jesus was born of Mary etc. (And there is always the possibility that his letters were tampered with, a common phenomenon in early Christian documents.)

What Doherty actually says is:
Quote:
Beginning in Ignatius and coming to full flower in Justin and just about everyone beyond, discussion of Jesus and his life is put in unmistakably human, historical terms, based on the Gospels.
So Doherty is assuming that Ignatius adopted the Gospel story as truth, not that he had any other reason to believe that Jesus was historical.

You are using lawyerly methods to suggest facts not in evidence. You want to create the illusion that there is a vast consensus that there was a historical Jesus, when there is no such understanding.

Quote:
So what? Carrier is just as wrong as Doherty.


Along with every one else who disagrees with you, of course. What a brilliant argument.

Quote:
I said nothing about it being "exactly" the same. It was substantially different. And the best explanation for the differences, is that there was a preexisting tradition that the author of Hebrews had to try and fit into Hebrew scripture.

. . .
What evidence do you have of this preexisting tradition? Isn't that in fact what you are trying to prove?
Toto is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 02:35 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
Perhaps you could inform Peter Kirby so he can update his web site. The Gospel of Mark page doesn't list any of them.
While I respect Kirby, I do not recognize his opinion as always representing the majority.

Quote:
Or were you referring to scholars in the middle ages?
Nope.

Quote:
Why don't you ask Doherty what he believes?
If he can't make it clear from all those articles he's posted, what good would that do? I'm not the one who thinks there is any ambiguity here.

Quote:
We don't know what Ignatius believed, only what he wrote, and he might have had other motives for claiming that Jesus was born of Mary etc. (And there is always the possibility that his letters were tampered with, a common phenomenon in early Christian documents.

What Doherty actually says is:

So Doherty is assuming that Ignatius adopted the Gospel story as truth, not that he had any other reason to believe that Jesus was historical.
Sheesh. You and IM must be related. I never claimed Ignatius was an independent witness to the life of Christ. I was very clear. Ignatius writes as one who believes in a historical Jesus, but never mentions Jerusalem.

Quote:
You are using lawyerly methods to suggest facts not in evidence. You want to create the illusion that there is a vast consensus that there was a historical Jesus, when there is no such understanding.
Now you are way off point. And way wrong too. The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that there was a historical Jesus. But I never mentioned that or relied on it anywhere in this thread.

Quote:
Along with every one else who disagrees with you, of course. What a brilliant argument.
You coughed up Carrier's arguments and I responded to them in the other thread. Surely you do not dispute just how much in the minority those two are on that issue? I can prove it to you again if you like.

Quote:
What evidence do you have of this preexisting tradition? Isn't that in fact what you are trying to prove?
I explained my reasons very clearly. So far you've ignored them and complained about the pace of my responses to Doherty.

I'm not in a hurry. It's not like his theories are going anywhere.

Layman is offline  
Old 03-14-2003, 03:59 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
Perhaps you could inform Peter Kirby so he can update his web site. The Gospel of Mark page doesn't list any of them.

Or were you referring to scholars in the middle ages?
I do not have much in the way of resources here at work, but I do have a book I recently checked out:

By E.P. Sanders and Maragaret Davies? Perhaps you've heard of them.

Regarding the dating of Mark:

Quote:
Cumulatively, however, the absence of decisive references in mark to events which were post-70 add up, and they make it likely that Mark was written near the end of the first generation of Jesus' followers: approximately 65-70.
E.P. Sanders & Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptics, at 21.

The authors then proceed to note that, regarding their dating of Mark, "The reader will learn that we do not share many of the conensensus judgments about the synoptics. This one, however, seems correct...." Id.
Layman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.