A lengthy note on Hebrews 7.14 (sprung from Judah).

[Secret Alias]

I am not arguing of course that the person who wrote this bit about 'from Judah' did not believe that Jesus was a human being. But who is this person? When was it written? And why should this evidence be taken as preferable or more historically reliable than all those other writers who did not hold the same beliefs as this writer/editor who wrote this bit in Hebrew 7:14.

[Bernard Muller]

You actually believe that because our text of the Epistle to the Hebrews has this bit about Jesus being 'from Judah' that we can be certain that Jesus actually was 'from Judah.'

I did not say he was from Judah.
I said:

Regardless, for me, that claim in Heb 7:14, could not have been made if Jesus was not known then to have been a regular human earthly man.

To get back into the topic, so how do you disregard Heb 7:14 as not evidence that Jesus had been a human earthly Jew?

About the humanity of Jesus in Hebrews, Heb 7:14 is not the only evidence:
For confirmation, consider the following from 'Hebrews' (RSV):
2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
2:16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.

Also, another evidence is Heb 5:7
"In the days of his flesh, Jesus ..."
"his flesh" is describing a flesh & blood physical human condition:
Ro 6:19 Darby "I speak humanly on account of the weakness of your flesh."
2 Cor 7:5 Darby "For indeed, when we came into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest ..."
Gal 4:14 Darby "and my temptation, which [was] in my flesh, you did not slight nor reject with contempt; ..."
Gal 6:8 Darby "For he that sows to his own flesh, shall reap corruption from the flesh ..."
Gal 6:13 Darby "... but they wish you to be circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh ..."
Heb 12:9 Darby "Moreover we have had the [real!] fathers of our flesh as chasteners, and we reverenced [them] ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

I am not arguing of course that the person who wrote this bit about 'from Judah' did not believe that Jesus was a human being. But who is this person? When was it written? And why should this evidence be taken as preferable or more historically reliable than all those other writers who did not hold the same beliefs as this writer/editor who wrote this bit in Hebrew 7:14.

OK, that answers my question.

Who are " all those other writers who did not hold the same beliefs as this writer/editor who wrote this bit in Hebrew 7:14."?
I am not interested about Jesus not having been of the seed of David. Just about Jesus not having been a human earthly man.

As far as knowing who was the author of Hebrews and when that epistle was written, I researched that at length. And the answers are: Apollos of Alexandria and 54 AD.

How did I get to these conclusions? http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html#hebrewsdate
More here http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html at 2.10

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

So you are saying that you can calculate the probability of something being true or untrue 2000 years ago as accurately as you can used car sales in Canada today. Pray tell how you propose such accuracy.

You are the one who proposed these two examples about odometers and used cars for making your point. I took you on that and prove you wrong, according to the same examples.
I explained that even if a claim on some matter can be false sometimes, that does not mean that claim is unlikely to be true.

Cordially, Bernard

[ficino]

Ben, do you think that Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Temple?

I tend to suspect it was, but two things about this epistle keep me open to the other option:

1. The author sometimes uses a sort of scriptural present tense for things that one might normally use a future or a past tense for.
2. The author seems to share a lot of unexpressed background information with the readers (implied in Hebrews 5.12, for instance).

What do you think?

Ben.

When I reread sections of it recently, I wondered. It seems easier to square the text with a still-standing, still-functioning temple than to suppose it written soon after the temple's destruction. Obviously, an argument from silence, but still ... On the other hand, could it be some time after the first revolt, so that the author can use a literary present tense of events that in fact no longer occur? No proof I can see, but I found myself inclining to a pre-revolt date.

[Ben C. Smith]

When I reread sections of it recently, I wondered. It seems easier to square the text with a still-standing, still-functioning temple than to suppose it written soon after the temple's destruction. Obviously, an argument from silence, but still ... On the other hand, could it be some time after the first revolt, so that the author can use a literary present tense of events that in fact no longer occur? No proof I can see, but I found myself inclining to a pre-revolt date.

If I were writing the epistle, I do not think I would have worded Hebrews 10.1-3 the way it is worded if I were aware that the temple had been destroyed and that the official cultus was effectively at an end.

Ben.

[DCHindley]

When I reread sections of it recently, I wondered. It seems easier to square the text with a still-standing, still-functioning temple than to suppose it written soon after the temple's destruction. Obviously, an argument from silence, but still ... On the other hand, could it be some time after the first revolt, so that the author can use a literary present tense of events that in fact no longer occur? No proof I can see, but I found myself inclining to a pre-revolt date.

If I were writing the epistle, I do not think I would have worded Hebrews 10.1-3 the way it is worded if I were aware that the temple had been destroyed and that the official cultus was effectively at an end.

Ben.

IMHO, Hebrews is an attempt to systematize and "explain" some of the high Christology found in Paul's letters. In the letters, the Christology is not very coherently presented, almost like comments and introjections(sp?) where the commentator did not fully agree with what he found in his/her source. It was this kind of disjointedness in Paul's letters that the author of 2 Peter found so confusing. Hebrews, which I understand is written in better than average Greek, seems to me to be a later composition intended to provide arguments to tie it all together, as if he were Paul explaining himself. For the sake of verisimilitude, the author would write it as if the temple still stood, which it very likely did in the time usually associated with Paul (as in Acts).

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

IMHO, Hebrews is an attempt to systematize and "explain" some of the high Christology found in Paul's letters. In the letters, the Christology is not very coherently presented, almost like comments and introjections(sp?) where the commentator did not fully agree with what he found in his/her source. It was this kind of disjointedness in Paul's letters that the author of 2 Peter found so confusing. Hebrews, which I understand is written in better than average Greek, seems to me to be a later composition intended to provide arguments to tie it all together, as if he were Paul explaining himself. For the sake of verisimilitude, the author would write it as if the temple still stood, which it very likely did in the time usually associated with Paul (as in Acts).

Interesting concept. Why not just write a pseudo-Pauline epistle then? Why settle for merely linking it to the Pauline circle in 13.22-25?

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

IMHO, Hebrews is an attempt to systematize and "explain" some of the high Christology found in Paul's letters. In the letters, the Christology is not very coherently presented, almost like comments and introjections(sp?) where the commentator did not fully agree with what he found in his/her source.

I agree that Hebrews explains " some of the high Christology found in Paul's letters. In the letters, the Christology is not very coherently presented, almost like comments and introjections".
Many high christological bits in the Pauline epistles come rather unexplained, as if they were already assimilated by Paul's audience. I deducted, with the fact Hebrews makes arguments (as in Heb 10:1-3) which would backfire if the temple sacrifices were ended), is not preoccupied by dead Christians, etc., that Hebrews had to be written before the main Pauline epistles. And Paul and his audience accepted the main christological points of Hebrews and also that letter provided Paul with themes.
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html#hebrewsdate
More here http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html at 2.10

Extract from the aforementioned later webpage (with emphasis on influence of Hebrews on Paul):

>> Here is a recapitulation, according to my studies, as explained in HJ-3b, HJ-3b extension, Appendix B, this page, and the aforementioned (nine) ones about each Corinthians & Philippians letter:

a) Spring 52: Paul's trip to Jerusalem from Corinth (fourteen years after the one in 38). The "council" of Jerusalem takes place then.
b) Summer and early fall 52 (or earlier): Paul spends time in Antioch (dispute with Peter) and departs (alone).
c) Fall 52 to winter 53: Paul becomes sick on his way NW and recuperates in "northern" Galatia where he makes converts.
d) Winter 53: Paul's arrival in Ephesus. He learns Apollos & Peter had visited Corinth and each one got followers at his detriment.
'1aCorinthians' written spring 53
e) Winter 53 to spring 55: Paul preaches in Ephesus for two years and three months. He feels partially abandoned by the Corinthians.
'1bCorinthians' written later in 53
'aPhilippians' written from early 53 to early 56?, likely 53-54
{'Hebrews' written (by Apollos) in 54} (pre-existence (explained) (1:1-3a,5-10,2:5-8), "new covenant" (explained) (8:8-13,9:1-20), Sacrifice (explained) (1:3,5:8-9,7:27,9:11-15,10:1-14), (Jesus') blood (9:12,10:19,29), co-Creator of the universe (explained) (1:2,10), Moses' followers dying in the wilderness (3:16-17), home in heaven for Christians (12:22-23), atonement for sins (explained) (1:3,2:17,10:12), "Son of God" (explained) (1:5,8-9), Christians as seed and heirs of Abraham through the "promise" (2:16,6:13-17), the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-23), Jesus offering himself for sacrifice for atonement of sins (explained) (7:27b,10:12), "at the right hand of God" (explained) (1:3,13,8:1,10:12,12:2), "firstborn" (explained) (1:6,12:23), Jesus interceding with God in behalf of Christians (explained) (7:25))
But, later, the situation improves greatly.
'1cCorinthians' written early spring 55 (First (for Paul): pre-existence (8:6,10:4), "new covenant" (11:25), Sacrifice (clear-cut) (5:7), (Jesus') blood (10:16,11:25,27), co-Creator of the universe (8:6), Moses' followers dying in the wilderness (10:2-8))
f) Spring 55: Paul's trip to Macedonia and then Corinth (2nd one here), where Paul is rejected. Likely, no collection (as planned in 1Co16:1-4) is done.
g) Summer 55 to spring 56: Paul stays in Ephesus (about nine months).
'2aCorinthians' written early spring 55 (First (for Paul): home in heaven for Christians (5:1), atonement for sins (5:19,21))
'2bCorinthians' written late spring/early summer 55
h) Spring 56: Paul's short trip to Troas and Macedonia (where Paul hears the good news from Titus) then back to Ephesus. Meanwhile a collection has been on-going in Corinth since late 55.
i) Late spring 56: The "riot" in Ephesus.
j) Late spring 56 to fall 56: Paul is imprisoned in Ephesus. The collection in Corinth is aborted.
'Philemon' and 'bPhilippians' written then
k) Fall 56: Paul is freed and goes to Macedonia (probably Philippi first).
l) Fall 56 to early spring 57: Paul visits the Macedonian Christians and then stays in Corinth (for three months; the third trip to that city). The collection is restarted and completed in Corinth.
'2cCorinthians' written fall 56 (First (for Paul): "Son of God" (1:3,19))
'Galatians' (First (for Paul): Christians as seed and heirs of Abraham through the "promise" (3:16-29), the heavenly Jerusalem (4:26), Jesus offering himself for sacrifice for atonement of sins (1:3b-4a))
'cPhilippians'
& 'Romans' written winter 57 (First (for Paul): "at the right hand of God" (8:34), "firstborn" (8:29), Jesus interceding with God in behalf of Christians (8:34))
m) Late spring 57: Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and arrest <<

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

So, Bernard, on your view, a great deal of what we think of as Pauline theology actually came from Apollos, right? The one who had personally seen the Lord (1 Corinthians 9.1) really learned a lot from one who had heard at second hand (Hebrews 2.3-4), right? I find that to be a fascinating idea. Is it correct? I have no clue yet. But it is fascinating.

Ben.