A lengthy note on Hebrews 9.24 (into heaven itself).

[Peter Kirby]

There is an interesting earlier thread on ancient cosmology:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=749

It basically illustrates the 'sublunar' concept--and the fact that in Hellenistic cosmology everything closer than the sphere of the moon belonged to the "earth" instead of the "heaven"--I don't know why Doherty doesn't just say that "outside heaven" (the proximal "X") was this sublunar sphere.

... especially because Doherty talks about 'sublunar' concepts himself.

I understand that this may be outside the scope of the thread's OP.

[Peter Kirby]

There is at least one case where the phrase seems to indicate something else entirely than 'something that which can include the physical sun, planets, and stars' (i.e., a concept of heaven that will actually be very familiar to us moderns, who balk at the idea that one could climb into heaven with a tall enough ladder). This is something of a distinction between what we might call 'sky' (the regular heaven, which can be placed and observed) and 'heaven itself' (the true heaven, which has no place).

Sextus Empiricus Phil., Adversus mathematicos Book 10, section 35, line 2
πῶς οὐ καταγέλαστόν ἐστι λέγειν τὸν οὐρανὸν αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ τόπον εἶναι;

When we come to the Heaven itself, however, according to Aristotle, it is not in place but abides within itself and in its own proper selfhood; for since place is the extreme limit of the containing body, and according to this philosopher nothing exists outside Heaven so that its limit should be the place of Heaven, it is necessary that Heaven, being contained by nothing, should existed in itself and be contained within its own limits, and not exist in place. Hence Heaven is not existence anywhere; for that which exists anywhere both exists itself and its "where" is other than it, but Heaven has no other thing besides and outside of itself; and on this account, as existing itself within itself, it will not be anywhere.

There is another case where it seems at least ambiguous (or... not really?). It's mentioned in the OP, but the reading given there is not truly secure.

Plato Phil., Respublica Stephanus page 516, section a, line 8
ἐκ δὲ τούτων τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν νύκτωρ ἂν ῥᾷον θεάσαιτο,

“Then there would be need of habituation, I take it, to enable him to see the things higher up. And at first he would most easily discern the shadows and, after that, the likenesses or reflections in water of men and other things, and later, the things themselves, and from these he would go on to contemplate the appearances in the heavens and heaven itself (ἐκ δὲ τούτων τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν), more easily by night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon, than by day the sun and the sun's light.”

The reason the reading is not truly secure is that Plato, like Aristotle, appeared to have a conception of a "really real" heaven, totally apart from the spheres in which the sun and planets travel. And this passage is talking about the progression required to come to an understanding of such "really real" existence. It's possible to read it as in the OP, but its also possible to read it as Plato being a bit more clever and saying that the contemplation of the appearances in the heavens is the final step before contemplation of αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν, where really real ideas are.

On one occasion, Plato's dialogue (Plat. Phaedrus 247c), in a parable, apparently has it such that this is called "the region above the heaven" (apparently something that Aristotle further distinguished by claiming that it has no place or limit):

"pass outside and take their place on the outer surface of the heaven, and when they have taken their stand, the revolution carries them round and they behold the things outside of the heaven. But the region above the heaven (τὸν δὲ ὑπερουράνιον τόπον) was never worthily sung by any earthly poet, nor will it ever be. It is, however, as I shall tell; for I must dare to speak the truth, especially as truth is my theme. For the colorless, formless, and intangible truly existing essence, with which all true knowledge is concerned, holds this region"

This wraps up together the doctrine of the really real forms and the doctrine of the craftsman who cannot hope to make them accurately, while also providing a fairly good parallel for the illumination of the quote regarding coming to know of the things in heaven and of heaven itself:

“Thus,” said I, “these sparks that paint the sky,3 since they are decorations on a visible surface, we must regard, to be sure, as the fairest and most exact of material things but we must recognize that they fall far short of the truth,1 the movements, namely, of real speed and real slowness in true number and in all true figures both in relation to one another and as vehicles of the things they carry and contain. These can be apprehended only by reason and thought, but not by sight; or do you think otherwise?” “By no means,” he said. “Then,” said I, “we must use the blazonry of the heavens as patterns to aid in the study of those realities, just as one would do who chanced upon diagrams drawn with special care and elaboration by Daedalus or some other craftsman or painter. For anyone acquainted with geometry who saw such designs would admit the beauty of the workmanship, but would think it absurd to examine them seriously in the expectation of finding in them the absolute truth with regard to equals or doubles or any other ratio.” “How could it be otherwise than absurd?” he said. “Do you not think,” said I, “that one who was an astronomer in very truth would feel in the same way when he turned his eyes upon the movements of the stars? He will be willing to concede that the artisan1 of heaven (τῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δημιουργῷ) fashioned it and all that it contains in the best possible manner for such a fabric; but when it comes to the proportions of day and night, and of their relation to the month, and that of the month to the year, and of the other stars to these and one another, do you not suppose that he will regard as a very strange fellow the man who believes that these things go on for ever without change1 or the least deviation2—though they possess bodies and are visible objects—and that his unremitting quest3 the realities of these things?” “I at least do think so,” he said, “now that I hear it from you.”

And the nice thing about this is that it is part of the context of the same passage:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ep.+7.529c

This definitely seems to say that the realm of the really real ideas (called a pattern here) can be called heaven:

“Well,” said I, “perhaps there is a pattern2 [παράδειγμα] of it laid up in heaven (ἐν οὐρανῷ) for him who wishes to contemplate it and so beholding to constitute himself its citizen.3 But it makes no difference whether it exists now or ever will come into being.4 The politics of this city only will be his and of none other.”

The exploration of Plato's "heaven" led me to create too many notes... I moved the rest of them to another post...

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =11&t=1628

[Peter Kirby]

The picture that I am arguing against looks like this:

If we allow that a Platonic, Hellenistic, and / or otherwise philosophical conception of "heaven itself" as true existence (rather than a copy or shadow, made by hands, whether made of aether or lesser substances) may be in Hebrews here, then there does seem to be another (possible, at least) alternative against which one may (or may not choose to) argue.



This might be another alternative to consider (two options marked, the fact that heaven itself also seems to be mentioned in the plural in Hebrews noted).

[Ben C. Smith]

There is another case where it seems somewhat ambiguous. It's mentioned in the OP, but the reading given there is not truly secure.

Plato Phil., Respublica Stephanus page 516, section a, line 8
ἐκ δὲ τούτων τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν νύκτωρ ἂν ῥᾷον θεάσαιτο,

“Then there would be need of habituation, I take it, to enable him to see the things higher up. And at first he would most easily discern the shadows and, after that, the likenesses or reflections in water of men and other things, and later, the things themselves, and from these he would go on to contemplate the appearances in the heavens and heaven itself (ἐκ δὲ τούτων τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν), more easily by night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon, than by day the sun and the sun's light.”

The reason the reading is not truly secure is that Plato, like Aristotle, appeared to have a conception of a "really real" heaven, totally apart from the spheres in which the sun and planets travel. And this passage is talking about the progression required to come to an understanding of such "really real" existence. It's possible to read it as in the OP, but its also possible to read it as Plato being a bit more clever and saying that the contemplation of the appearances in the heavens is the final step before contemplation of αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν, where really real ideas are.

And Plato is saying, on this reading, that one can see this really real heaven better by starlight than by sunlight?

Or is this still just part of the elaborate analogy of the cave?

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

There is another case where it seems somewhat ambiguous. It's mentioned in the OP, but the reading given there is not truly secure.

Plato Phil., Respublica Stephanus page 516, section a, line 8
ἐκ δὲ τούτων τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν νύκτωρ ἂν ῥᾷον θεάσαιτο,

“Then there would be need of habituation, I take it, to enable him to see the things higher up. And at first he would most easily discern the shadows and, after that, the likenesses or reflections in water of men and other things, and later, the things themselves, and from these he would go on to contemplate the appearances in the heavens and heaven itself (ἐκ δὲ τούτων τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν), more easily by night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon, than by day the sun and the sun's light.”

The reason the reading is not truly secure is that Plato, like Aristotle, appeared to have a conception of a "really real" heaven, totally apart from the spheres in which the sun and planets travel. And this passage is talking about the progression required to come to an understanding of such "really real" existence. It's possible to read it as in the OP, but its also possible to read it as Plato being a bit more clever and saying that the contemplation of the appearances in the heavens is the final step before contemplation of αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν, where really real ideas are.

And Plato is saying, on this reading, that one can see this really real heaven better by starlight than by sunlight?

Or is this still just part of the elaborate analogy of the cave?

Ben.

Plato is saying that this astronomy is the science that brings one closest to the contemplation of heaven itself, yet that astronomy (if considered the study of the physical objects created by the craftsman) does not yet even describe heaven itself but still only a shadow and copy of heaven itself. The person who observes the things in heaven, however, which are at least more mathematically regular than most things here on earth (being able to compute the days and seasons, etc.), is more ready to contemplate the nature of true existence.

This is all said more completely in the other statements, just afterwards in the Republic, of which the paragraph above is a paraphrase.

[Ben C. Smith]

Plato is saying that this astronomy is the science that brings one closest to the contemplation of heaven itself, yet that astronomy (if considered the study of the physical objects created by the craftsman) does not yet even describe heaven itself but still only a shadow and copy of heaven itself. The person who observes the things in heaven, however, which are at least more mathematically regular than most things here on earth (being able to compute the days and seasons, etc.), is more ready to contemplate the nature of true existence.

This is all said more completely in the other statements, just afterwards in the Republic, of which the paragraph above is a paraphrase.

I have read the later passages, but what I am saying about this one is that it is still part of the cave illustration. The heaven in this one is something that the people in the cave are actually viewing, with their eyes; hence the bit about being able to see it better by starlight than by sunlight. In other words, this phrase (things in heaven and heaven itself) is surely representing ideas that Plato is trying to convey, but they are, in the passage that I cited, no different than the shadows on the wall.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Plato is saying that this astronomy is the science that brings one closest to the contemplation of heaven itself, yet that astronomy (if considered the study of the physical objects created by the craftsman) does not yet even describe heaven itself but still only a shadow and copy of heaven itself. The person who observes the things in heaven, however, which are at least more mathematically regular than most things here on earth (being able to compute the days and seasons, etc.), is more ready to contemplate the nature of true existence.

This is all said more completely in the other statements, just afterwards in the Republic, of which the paragraph above is a paraphrase.

I have read the later passages, but what I am saying about this one is that it is still part of the cave illustration. The heaven in this one is something that the people in the cave are actually viewing, with their eyes; hence the bit about being able to see it better by starlight than by sunlight. In other words, this phrase (things in heaven and heaven itself) is surely representing ideas that Plato is trying to convey, but they are, in the passage that I cited, no different than the shadows on the wall.

Yes, it is part of the cave illustration.

Yes, the things in heaven can be seen better by night.

I don't think you can prove your reading (though it is possible), and I don't think I can prove my reading.

Your reading might seem to have the advantage that both can be "seen," both the things in heaven and heaven itself are thus literally "seen."

My reading might seem to have the advantage that the repetition is not completely redundant and that it would underscore both the meaning of the allegory of the cave and cohere with the later explanation related to that allegory.

The things in the heaven are no different than the shadows on the wall, but the phrase "heaven itself" may not be. That actually seems to be the preferred interpretation of the translator quoted, who thus chooses the English verb "contemplate" to suggest both seeing the things in the heavens and coming to apprehend the nature of heaven itself.

If there is no other real data on which to decide, we may just agree to disagree here.

[Ben C. Smith]

Yes, it is part of the cave illustration.

Yes, the things in heaven can be seen better by night.

I don't think you can prove your reading (though it is possible), and I don't think I can prove my reading.

Your reading might seem to have the advantage that both can be "seen," both the things in heaven and heaven itself are thus literally "seen."

My reading might seem to have the advantage that the repetition is not completely redundant and that it would underscore both the meaning of the allegory of the cave and cohere with the later explanation related to that allegory.

The things in the heaven are no different than the shadows on the wall, but the phrase "heaven itself" may not be. That actually seems to be the preferred interpretation of the translator quoted, who thus chooses the English verb "contemplate" to suggest both seeing the things in the heavens and coming to apprehend the nature of heaven itself.

If there is no other real data on which to decide, we may just agree to disagree here.

Okey doke.

[Ben C. Smith]

Paul Shorey (the translator) appears to have a bit of wit about him. One of his notes (emphasis mine):

Pythagoras is a great name, but little is known of him. “Pythagoreans” in later usage sometimes means mystics, sometimes mathematical physicists, sometimes both. Plato makes use of both traditions but is dominated by neither. For Erich Frank's recent book, Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer, cf. my article in Class. Phil. vol. xxiii. (1928） pp. 347 ff. The student of Plato will do well to turn the page when he meets the name Pythagoras in a commentator.

[Ben C. Smith]

From that other thread you started, Peter:

This still doesn't bring us back to the τὸν δὲ ὑπερουράνιον τόπον concept mentioned earlier.

One is reminded of Hebrews 7.26, in which Christ is exalted above the heavens. (Ephesians 4.10 says even more explicitly that he ascended above the heavens.) I suppose this could be poetry based on the language of the Psalms (8.1; 57.5, 11; 108.4-5; et alii). But I wonder if there might be a connection here.

Ben.