Ted Hoffman

I will be very interested in this exchange. If Layman musters the courage to email him on these "objections" (of course edited to remove the presumptuous and arrogant words), it would be very interesting to read Carriers edifying response.

I notice Layman has ignored my post, which clearly brings out Layman's error.

A brief lesson might be in order here.

Second, implies the second out of a known or possible set (Which could go up to tenth etc).

But "Twice" means the last of the set (of two).

Vorkosigan

Either something has been distorted through scribal error (and ek deuterou was not original)

What? Another suspicious interpolation in a historicist passage?

Ted Hoffman

I dont Know how tangential this is but what the heck:

F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised), at 232.
Frederick Fyvie Bruce's analysis here, IMHO, fails because first it uses an unsound analogy compared to what the author uses in Hebrews 9:27-28 (the author uses men and he uses high priests).

Secondly, I will introduce another angle to the argument - that of inconsistency. And I will be addressing the underlying assumptions to F. F. Bruce's analysis. From his bio http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A...es/Bruce.html, and books supporting the reliability of the NT documents, it is safe to believe that he believed in the resurrection of Jesus. We can test his argument for internal consistency.

First of all, men and women dont die once: Lazarus, Jairus' daighter did not die once. The high priests too, dont enter the sanctuary once. BUT Christ is supposed to have died once.

But Layman could tell us - if he believed in the resurrection (F. F Bruce) then his interpretation would be ad-hoc and therefore unreliable.

Layman

I would be interested in seeing an exchange between Carrier and the boards of translators for every modern tranlation of Hebrews.

I'll get to your post shortly.

Layman

My former comments in Bold.

IM's in Italics.

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.

Of course if Doherty is correct it is not a blow at all. The statement is clear. If the translations are correct, Doherty's interpretation is struck a fatal blow.

Let's try and move on to something substantive.

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.

I'm afraid that is as general and unspecified as Doherty's initial statement.

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.

In a specialized field like translation of ancient Greek text, yes I feel an appeal to overwhelming consensus has merit. Perhaps it is not determinative. But if you will note I am responding to Doherty's two arguments. The first I responded to was his appeal to his source from the 1800s. Obviously such an appeal is completely unpersuasive in light of the overwhelming modern consensus to the contrary.

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.

Yes. I realize that. Hence this thread.

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?

Actually, yes, I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that Doherty is wrong given the tremendous and overwhelmingly diverse scholarly opinion against his position. Should his arguments be considered? I am doing so here. And the conclusion he is wrong is reinforced by the weakness of his argument.

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.

There is nothing arbitrary about this. Out of 44 usages in the New Testament, the term "deuteros" is 38 times used to mean "second" and 3 times to mean "again."

Here are some relevant examples:

John 3:4: "Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

Luke 12:28: "Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are the slaves."

2 Cor. 13:2: "I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone."

And something that has since been brought to my attention is that the exact phrase, "ek deuterou" is only used in the New Testament to mean "second." It never has any other meaning.

Matthew 26:42: "He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done."

Mark 14:72: "Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, 'Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.' And he began to weep."

John 9:24: "So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, 'Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.'"

Acts 10:15: "Again a voice came to him a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."

Acts 11:9: "But a voice from heaven answered a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.'"

The exact phraseology at issue is never used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean anything other than "second."

And you completely excluded/ignored this part of my argument:

The Author of Hebrews Himself Uses the Term Repeatedly and Exclusively to Mean "Second"

Perhaps, however, the most important point of all -- and the one that Doherty inexplicably neglects to even mention -- is the usage of the term by the author of Hebrews elsewhere in his letter. The term is used four other times by the author of Hebrews, and every time it is used mean to mean "second." (Heb. 8:7; 9:3; 9:7, 10:9). In fact, the author of Hebrews never uses the term in any other way except to mean "second."

Next.

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.

Is there some explanation in here why the author of Hebrews would have abandoned the term "meta" -- after -- if he meant to create exactly the same sequence in a parallel between v. 27 and v. 28? Why he would should from a word which he had just used and which clearly means "after" to a word he uses elsewhere to mean "second" and which is overwhelmingly attested in other ancient Greek literature as meaning "second?"

Why the shift?

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.

You are missing the author's point and the context of most of Hebrews. The whole focus of this entire chapter is "ONCE." Jesus died "ONCE." He made an offering of himself "ONCE." The contrast is with the temple cult's high priest, who had to make offering time and time again, because once was not enough.

Jesus appeared once to give himself as an offering. He will appear a second time as evidence of the salvation his offering has established. The whole key to the author's point is that it was ONCE.

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.

I think this reveals the core of your lack of understanding about Hebrews. There is nothing tangential about this point--it is the core of Hebrew's argument about the superiority of Jesus over the temple cult.

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?

and

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?

You must be kidding. He doesn't talk about the High Priest? No reason to think this passage is contrasting Jesus with the temple cult's high priest?

The entire Chapter is devoted to explaining the temple cult and its high priest and contrasting them with Jesus.

Hebrews 9:1-28:

See also 7:27: "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself."

See also 10:10-14: "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of god waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."

Although the theme stretches throughout Hebrews, it reaches its climax in Chapter 9. Chapter 9 is devoted to highlight that Jesus only had to be/offer the sacrifice once. Jesus came once to die. He will come a second time to confirm what he has accomplished. V. 28 distinguishes the first appearance from the second by noting that the second time (unlike the first) is "not to bear sin," but to bring salvation.

The author of Hebrews painstakingly makes it clear that he is comparing Jesus' offering to the repeated offerings of the High Priests.

Philip Edcumble Hughes, A Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 384.

The sequence is clear.

The high priest appears before the people. Makes the sacrifice in the Sanctuary/Holy of Holies. The high priest appears a second time to the people--his survival a symbol itself of their salvation by God's acceptance of the sacrifice.

Jesus appears before the people (v. 26). To die once (vs. 26, 28a). He will appear a second time to bring God's salvation--but not this time to bear sin. (v. 28b).

Hughes, 384.

The congurence between v. 27 and v. 28, therefore, is not some rigid sequential statement, but the unique, "onceness" of death. "In the present argument, then the particular (the death of Christ which took place once, never to be repeated) is corroborated by an appeal to the general (the common experience of death which comes but once to all men.)." Hughes, at 387.

So you are wrong. The author of Hebrews talks a lot about high priests. And he talks a lot about the presentation of the sacrifice by the high priests. He is comparing Jesus' appearance before and after with the high priests, but he is contrasting Jesus' offering ("once") with theirs ("again and again").

NOGO

If Hebrews 9:27-28 is a fatal blow to Doherty's theories then surely Hebrews 9:26 is a fatal blow to Christianity as a whole since it says that Jesus' sacrifice took place at the end of the world.

NASB Hebrews 9:
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since (74) the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

KJV Hebrews 9:
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


Sorry for being off the topic.

Layman

You are being anachronistic. Jesus' coming was the culmination of Salvation history, not the end of the world. Obviously, because the author is writing some 30-40 years later and still expects a second coming.

The NEB gives a flavor of what is going on here by transling v. 26, thus: "at the climax of history."

The dawning of a new eschatological age does not necessarily mean armeggedon.

"All that preceded the advent of Christ was leading up to this climactic event which is the focal point for the true perspective of all human history. With his coming the long years of desire and expectation ar ended and the last, the eschatological, era of the presnt world is inacurated (cf. Heb. 1:2)."

Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, at 384.

William Newell put it like this: "All previous ages led up to this; all succeeding ages are governed by this." W. Newell, Hebrews Verse by Verse, at 323.

Vinnie

Personally, I think Paul & co. thought the end was right around the corner. To me this is very apparent in the NT and I think we can see a progression across the texts. I used this as an evidence for dating the Gospels in the "Dating Matthew and Mark" thread. Why would Christians in the second century make something up like "there are some standing here who will not taste death" and attribute this false belief to Jesus 100 to 150 years after the event never occured?! Consequently, its an argument against mythicism as well ;-)

Unless you take the common Christian stance that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration? I think that is Glen Miller's view. Personally, I don't buy that but either way it shows that some use competing arguments which would seemingly cancel one another out

I think some of the first Christians were entirely mistaken about Jesus' return. On a purely historical level, its hard not to trace the belief back to Jesus as well. As a Christian I can understand the discomfort this notion brings to fellow Christians but when doing history there is no assurance that we will always like where the evidence takes us. But this hardly signifies a fatal blow to Christianity as a whole. It survived this error in the first century and I think it will survive the exegesis of scholars 2000 years later as well.

Vinnie

NOGO

Not so.

I do not want to prolong this deviation from the stated topic too long.

There are many things which are clearly against your interpretation of Heb 9:26

If Jesus' death and resurrection is the culmination of salvation history
THEN
it does not make sense for the author of Hebrews to say that Jesus could have sacrificed himself every year from the start of history BUT prefered to do it once at the culmination of salvation history.

I hope that you see the fallacy of this way of thinking.
Essentially any time Jesus chose to do what he did would have been the culmination of salvation history. Hebrews 9:26 in such a case would be a non-statement.

That is clearly not what the author was trying to say.
The logic of his arguement is that if Jesus came at anytime for the past sins then he would have to come again for new sins. Every year in fact from the foundation of the world. Instead He came ONCE at the end of the world for all sins. Since the high priest performed the ritual of bringing blood to Yahweh every year for the sins of that year then Jesus gave his blood at the end of the world for all sins. This is the contrast which the author is explaining, ie yearly sacrifices verses a single sacrifice at the end.
This comparison does not make sense if 2000 years have elapsed since Jesus' sacrifice.

There is plenty of evidence in the NT that Jesus' return was expected before the then generation passed. So Jesus' sacrifice was a sign for the end of the world and also as you say the culmination of salvation history. But now that 2000 years have passed the two cannot be confused. If the early Christians were not expecting the end of the world to be at hand then your point could be considered but then the author of Hebrews 9:26 would have to change his statement.

He would then say that by his sacrifice Jesus put an end for the need for yearly sacrifices and is thus the culmination of salvation history. But that is not what he says. He says that Jesus sacrificed himself once AT the consummation of the ages (ie the end of the world).

Layman

Then don't.

I actually pointed out some things that supported it. You ignored them.

Ummm, this actually counts against you very strongly. The uniqueness of Christ' one time death shows why it is the culmination of salvation history.

No one has explained how it is a fallacy yet.

Ummm, what? It is not the timing of what Jesus did so much as it is what Jesus did that makes it the culmination of history.

Maybe so, but you have failed to explain why.

No. Jesus' death is not ONCE because it came after everyone sinned. It is ONCE because it is a sufficient atonement for all the sins.

Afterall, sinning was still happening after Jesus' ONCE death.

Sure it does. It was the nature of Jesus' death, not the timing of it, that made it so effective.

Now you are moving past the point at issue, Heb. 9:26. Obviously Jesus' coming was not the end of the world. 30-40 years at least had elapsed since then. Whether they expected Jesus' second coming rather soon is another matter entirely.

Consumation of an age does not mean the end of the world.

BTW--feel free to start yet another thread on the "end times" beliefs of early Christians if you want. It is really a deviation from this thread's topic.