Ted Hoffman

I posted the following in Kirbys strange silence of Samuel Rutherford thread here :
On what basis did you date Matthews as you did Layman?

Layman

How so? There is nothing bizarre about dating Hebrews from 65-75 CE.

When do you believe it was written?

Layman

I follow the strong majority opinion that Matthew was probably written between 75-85 CE.

But do you really think, as Nogo appears to, that Matthew equated Jesus' death with the end of the world? Especially since you date it to the second century, some 70 years or so later?

Layman

While I agree with you, a number of scholars do not.

If that is what he meant then why didn't he say that?

You do know that Paul did not write the Espitle to the Hebrews don't you?

I'm talking about one statement in Hebrews. You obviously are not.

No. Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient because of the nature of the sacrifice, not its timing. This is a remarkably unreasonable argument you are making. However you want to phrase it, you admit that Jesus' sin covered the actions of people AFTER his death. So it's obvious that his sacrifice is sufficient for some reason other than it being the last even to happen. By your statement, the end of the world would have had to come right after Jesus' death and offering!

I already have.

Layman

Cool.

You are mistaken. These verses do not say that Jesus will enter into the sanctuary a second time. It says that he will appear a second time.

You have the events of the temple cult's practices wrong. Or perhaps you misunderstood what I mean by appear a second time. I am not equating Jesus' "second coming" with the priests need to keep performing sacrifices. Obviously that is not the case because the important distinction is that Jesus only had to die "once." Rather, Jesus' second coming is a parrallel to the High Priest' reamergence from the Holy of Holies.

A. The Temple Cult

The Priest appears before the people. He then proceeds into the Holy of Holies to make the offering. He then reappears to the people who are waiting expectantly after completing the sacrifice. His reappearance is a sign that God accepted the sacrifice and granted forgiveness of sins for that year.

The High Priest does not enter the Holy of Holies a second time. He appears before the people a second time.

B. Jesus' Second Coming

Jesus appeared on earth before the people to die. Upon his death he became an offering and entered into the Holy of Holies to present himself as a sacrifice. (This is verse 9:11-12). He will appear on earth a second time to those who await him.

Jseus' second coming is not into the Holy of Holies, it is an earthly appearance to those who await his return as a sign of the success of his offering. Much like that of the High Priest. Hence the analogy.

Ted Hoffman

The post in my link shows I find it logical to date it before the Jewish War. I beleive Hebrews is consistent with the idea of Christ Logos.

Layman, you argue Doherty is wrong because (many)others say so.
Majority opinion is irrelevant and if you expect to be taken seriously, I think its time you stopped making empty appeals to numbers. Make clear arguments. Most of us arent impressed by herds or herd-mentality. Whether the herds are led by PhD's or not. Especially knowing the "collective maddness" that ocassionally grips scholars.

Just explain your basis for dating Matthew as you are doing.

I havent given much thought to the argument. I think Vinnie agrees with Nogo over that.
If you are interested in what I think about it, maybe I will look at it.

There you go again.

Vinnie

See my recent thread "Dating Matthew and Mark". layman's dating is correct. I haven't layed out all the evidence there but the stuff I did should suffice.

i used the urgent eschatology to argue against a 2d dating of the gospels. It argues against mythicism as well. See the thread for more info.

I have not studied Hebrews in depth.

My position begins with Paul in 1 Thess (ca 50ad) and ends with 2 Peter (ca 130 ad). I see a clear progression across the texts. To use words from one of Pocahontas' songs, in 1 Thess the return is "just around the riverbend" but in 2 Peter this idea has been lost forever (the Lord is not slow but a day is as a thousand years). That was in response to those who were scoffing at the Christian claims if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately for would be HJ skeptics, this view hurts a late dating of the gospels and mythicism. Why? Well why would a Christian in the late second century make up a text like the one in the Gospels saying that "some here will not taste death until my return"? Why would anyone knowing create and attribute a false statement like that to Jesus? This pushes the dating back into the first century.

Also, as E.P. Sanders will tell you, the progression across the texts on a historical level only makes sense if Jesus himself said he would be back soon. Otherwise all the apologetics by Christians is unnecessary. It also better explains Paul's urgent eschatology as well and some of the work of GJohn's redactor.

This is somewhat weird: Apologists and skeptics don't like it. It says Jesus was wrong about something on a historical level but it also says he existed at the same time

Layman

So why the profanity and shock?

There you go again. Everytime I blow you out of the water with a substantive argument you claim I'm only relying on others.

Yes, it is true that almost every translation of the Bible and commentary written about Hebrews disagrees with Doherty here.

It is also true that every time this word is used elsewhere in Hebrews it means second. Every time the exact phrase is used in the New Testament is means second. And it is also true that the author -- despite purportedly trying to establish some rigid "parallel" -- switches from using the term "meta" (which means "next") to using a word that he always uses to mean "second." And it is also true that the author is clearly analogizing Jesus to the High Priest, who appears before the people twice during the offering of the atoning sacrifice!

If you are going to refute me you might try addressing some of my arguments for a change.


Sigh. I do not think that when liberal and conservative and moderate scholars agree that Matthew was written between 75 CE - 85 CE that is is a sign of "collective maddness."

I do not have the time nor the inclination to turn every little disagreement in a thread into a full blown argument. Especially here where the I don't really care when Matthew was written. YOUR dating of Matthew helps defeat your point. If you date Matthew into the second century then you cannot argue that its author considered Jesus' death to be the end of the world. Get it?

If you are obsessed with knowing why I date Matthew as I do, please read Raymond Brown's intro to the New Testament. Or Ben Witherington's New Testament History.

That much is obvious.

Vorkosigan

Hardly. I can think of many reasons why a later writing might make up stuff like this. For one thing, it is easier to do missionary work. For another, you are talking about a group of people who thought the texts they inherited were addressed to them, a habit of mind that began with the DSS crowd and continues with the Rapture and Hal Lindsey nuts today. It is not surprising that they would read the texts against their own time.

Your conclusion here assumes that the writers viewed the texts the way we do, and that they were "honest" even in their rewriting. But I do not assume that their frauds were pious ones, and I think it is dangerous to do so.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

Right!

The combination "sunteleia aion" occurs six times in the NT

Five of the six times it clearly means end of the world.

But in Hebrews 9:26 just because Layman says so it means something else.

Nowhere in the NT does it ever mean the culmination of salvation history but that is what is needed here to salvage the faith and therefore that is the proper meaning.