Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 02-10-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Either translation shows the obvious problem for Doherty--it refers to a second coming of Christ. That this coming will be earthly and visible to all is

confirmed by Doherty himself ("It is certainly the coming in glory at the End-time that he has in mind" (emphasis added)).

To avoid this fatal blow...

How can it be a fatal blow, or even a blow at all YET this (the translation) is the very subject he sets out to disprove?
Get the cart behind the horse Layman.

Quote:

First, any reference to a second coming would be intrusive because of the unspecified purpose of keeping 27 and 28 parallel.

Let me help you there. The unspecified purpose is coherence in meaning.

Quote:

Second, one authority suggests this should be translated "next."
These arguments are complete failures.

Appeal to numbers. Doherty deals with the Greek text directly. You cant use appeal to numbers here Layman. Or anywhere for that matter. The argument must be

examined on its own merit.

Quote:

There is a reason Doherty has to reach back to the 1800s to find any support for his argument. Every modern translation or commentary I have been able to

find rejects his interpretation. And, the overwhelming usage of the term in contemporary literature and in Hebrews itself is that the term is to be translated as

"second."

Again, this is what Doherty says its wrong Layman.

Quote:

In contrast, every translation I could find interprets this passage as either "second" (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NEB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, AMP, ASV, WE, YLT,

WYC, DARBY) or, less seldom, "again" (CEV, NLT, LNT).

Doherty says they are wrong. Do you say Doherty is wrong because they dont agree with him?

Quote:

The term is used throughout the New Testament to mean "second" (Matth. 21:30; 22:26, 39; 26:42; Mark 12:21, 31; 14:72, Luke 12:38, 19:18, 20:30; John

3:4, 4:54, 21:16; Acts 7:13; 10:15, 12:10, 13:33; 1 Cor. 15:47; 2 Cor. 1:15; 13:2; Ti. 3:10; 2 Peter 3:1; Rev. 2:11; 4:7; 6:3; 8:8; 11:14; 16:3: John 3:4; John 9:20,

11:9; 19:3).

Arbitrary selection of quotes without regard to context or style is hardly compelling.

Quote:

First, he argues v. 28 is best translated "Christ was offered once, and after that (next) he will appear to bring salvation." According to him, it must be

translated this way because it must parallel v. 27, "first men die, and after that (or 'next') they are judged."

This translation fails because the author of Hebrews specifically chose a different term to indicate a different meaning. The term used in v. 27 to mean "after" is the

Greek term "meta." If, as Doherty insists, the author meant to indicate the same sequence for Jesus in v. 28 as he did for mean in v. 27, why did he intentionally avoid

using the same word, meta? I have been unable to find any reason other than the obvious one--the author did not intend to recreate the same sequence and used a

different term because he meant to say something different: second, instead of next. Rather than use "meta" the author uses a word he has elsewhere used four times

to clearly mean "second."

And what happens to the parallel? You find it congruent?

See, Layman, you cant wave this away by leaning on one side and ignoring the other.
At best, your argument would be choosing to consider one side of the argument and turning a blind eye to the other.

Please Reread the following:

Quote:

The idea of appearing "a second time" would be intrusive here. Since the writer is clearly presenting his readers with some kind of parallel between verses 27

and 28 (note also the "once" in both parts), it seems unlikely he would introduce an element which doesn't fit the parallel, especially one he doesn't need

Quote:

Note the real focus of the author here. Jesus died once as an offering for sin. So to do men die once. V. 26 explicitly states that Jesus "appeared" before to

died for humanity. V. 28 clearly refers to him "appearing" a second time to those he saved. The sequence is obvious, v. 26 is the first coming and v. 28 is the second

coming. Clearly, the parallel is between both Jesus and man having to die once.

This is simple. "he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"
Appeared "first" instead of once would have made your argument worthy of consideration.
"having been offered once to bear the sins of many" should be "having been offered first to bear the sins of many"
"once" is followed by "twice" NOT "second" as in the passages you offered.

Quote:

...The sequence is obvious, v. 26 is the first coming and v. 28 is the second coming. Clearly, the parallel is between both Jesus and man having to die once.

No, No Layman, v. 26 is the "once" coming and v. 28 is the "second" coming.

Quote:

Third, Doherty completely and inexplicably ignores the obvious symbolism here. Throughout Hebrews its author refers to the temple cult system of sacrifice

and contrasts Jesus' sacrifice and authority as High Priest with the temple cult. That is why the author focuses so much on Jesus having only died once. Whereas the

temple cult had to make sacrifices every year, Jesus' is superior because he only had to die once.

Tangential.

Quote:

In v. 27-28, the author is continuing this comparison and symbolism. The High Priest of the temple cult would appear before the people in front of the Holy of

Holies -- where no one else was allowed to enter. He would then enter the Holy of Holies with his sacrifice on behalf of the nation. Once inside, he would make his

sacrifice. The people would wait expectantly outside for the reappearance of the High Priest. Why? Because the mere fact that he survived to leave the Holy of

Holies meant that God had accepted the sacrifice.

See, unfortunately, he doesnt talk about the high priests, but talks about humanity - men. So, why the contrivance?

Quote:

This is being played out with Jesus. Just as the High Priest appeared before the people, so to did Jesus

There is no reason for us to think this is what is being portrayed - mind explaining?

Layman · 02-10-2003, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Layman: Richard Carrier has an open invitation to email him questions or disagreements about anything he has written, so I suggest that you email your analysis to him for comments. But you might want to edit out the references to "contrived," "completely unsupported," and "farce" and other emotional language, since it seems that Doherty's translation is within the realm of possibility at the least.

Why is it "within the realm of possibility? Because Carrier said so?

And is that the strongest endorsement you can give it?

Vinnie · 02-10-2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Doherty says they are wrong. Do you say Doherty is wrong because they dont agree with him?

Arguments from authority do have a degree of authenticity to them. They are not infallible by any means and can be false but for those of us lacking extensive knowledge of Greek, if every major and bonafide interpreter (I don't mean just Bible translations!) of the passage interprets it differently than an amatuer like Doherty (am I correct that Doherty is not an expert in this field? is Carrier for that matter?) then whose transation are we to prefer? Has Doherty ever interacted with any contemporary scholars on the issue who are considered an authority in the area? If so, where? What did they say?

His reinterpretations remind me of Hugh Ross' reinterpretation of the creation accounts in The Genesis Question in order to make them fit with the facts of moder science (sans evolution).

Most of us should know that any monkey with a few bananas, an agenda and a lexicon can make scrambled eggs out of these ancient texts and do so in what appears to be a scholarly fashion to amatuers. Any and every proposition has been argued in NT scholarship. A high degree of skepticism is warranted by fringe theories like these that receive little or no recognition by bonafide scholars.

So no, we cannot say Doherty is necessarily wrong because the majority of non-amatuers disagree with him. However, we can say that the experts probably disagree with Doherty precisely because he is wrong.

Vinnie

Toto · 02-10-2003, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Why is it "within the realm of possibility? Because Carrier said so?

And is that the strongest endorsement you can give it?

Since neither you nor I read Koine Greek, I have a hard time thinking of a less productive use of my time than arguing with you about such a fine point of grammar or parallel construction.

I'm working on a reply to your Luke-Acts thread, unless you have lost interest.

Toto · 02-10-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
. . .(am I correct that Doherty is not an expert in this field? is Carrier for that matter?) . . .

Doherty has a degree in classics. Richard Carrier is in a PhD program in ancient history, and does interact with scholars routinely. Neither one is an "amateur" in that sense.

Layman · 02-10-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Since neither you nor I read Koine Greek, I have a hard time thinking of a less productive use of my time than arguing with you about such a fine point of grammar or parallel construction.

Oh. So why did you butt in?

Quote:

I'm working on a reply to your Luke-Acts thread, unless you have lost interest.

Which Luke/Acts thread?

Toto · 02-10-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Oh. So why did you butt in?

Because you said: "(Of course, if anyone has found some modern translations or commentaries that reject the translation to "second" or "again" I would be most interested)."

At the time I posted it, there was nothing to butt in on. Now you can respond to Iron Monkey's questions, and I will bow out. Or perhaps CX or Peter will have some more thoughts.

Quote:

Which Luke/Acts thread?

Your 54 points of similarity, after which I might get back to the "we" passages.

Bobzammel · 02-10-2003, 02:29 PM

If you can, please check out my post which debunks HEBREWS. It might be relevant to the discussion.

Toto · 02-10-2003, 02:33 PM

Bobz. - which post? Where?

Bobzammel · 02-10-2003, 02:37 PM

Here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=34369

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2003, 02:29 PM	#18
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	If you can, please check out my post which debunks HEBREWS. It might be relevant to the discussion.

02-10-2003, 02:33 PM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bobz. - which post? Where?

02-10-2003, 02:37 PM	#20
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	Here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=34369

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.