Layman

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.


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.

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.

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.

F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, at 380.

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.

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.

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.

Toto

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.

Layman

Wow. Incredible insight there Toto.

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).

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.

Toto

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.

Layman

I do. Because that's where Jesus' death happened.

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.

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.

Of course you do. You can't explain why. But I know you do.

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.

If you really want to defend Doherty's thesis, you need to do so. Rather than cop-out of the discussion.

So?

Why?

Toto

Prove it.

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

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

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.

Layman

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?

And you have shown that you still have no counter-arguments.

Are you and IM related? Sheesh.

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

So what? Carrier is just as wrong as Doherty.

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.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I surely do.

So you say.

You say a lot. You actually discuss very little.

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.

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?

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: 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?

Layman

While I respect Kirby, I do not recognize his opinion as always representing the majority.

Nope.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.