Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hence the only possible inference is that Ben thinks that one can be born without having mother and father. I believed that the Christians were laughable since they do without only the father for the birth of Jesus. Now I have found someone who does without also the mother for the birth of Melkizedek. Good to know. ...To the face of mater semper certa....

Amazing.

I think that I have proved in this thread that only the interpolator introduced the idea that a Melkizedekian Jesus descended from Judah. That in 7:15-16 any possible ancestry from any possible tribe is denied.

What I consider sane objections (but not against the points above) is that Melkizedek appeared on this earth, probably already adult (hence still without coming from an earthly tribe), before Abraham. Was Jesus appeared already adult (as without birth) on earth too?

I want to put on the record that I do not think Hebrews 7.13-14 being an interpolation is a bad idea; my initial reaction was hasty on that score, since having no ancestry would be as impermissible for a priest as having an actual ancestry other than Aaronide. It is frustrating to watch the evidence get trampled underfoot so ignorantly, and an interpolation seems far from proven, but the overall instinct may hold merit.

I always read that "Melchizedek" was a variation of "Malachi-Zadok" and may point to Hasmonean Origins.
Perhaps a study of the word in its proper Priestly setting could provide an understanding for the Hebrews version that came later, with the Transvaluations of meanings that Hebrews gives.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:58 pm having no ancestry would be as impermissible for a priest as having an actual ancestry other than Aaronide.

having no ancestry would be more impermissible for a priest than having an actual ancestry other than Aaronide. And there is no evidence in Hebrews of the need that Jesus has to be davidic and therefore judahite.

But the clear impossibility of a birth without father and mother (and related ancestry) closes the case.

It always seem with you Giuseppe that you know the answers but spend your time instead using the evidence to frame the questions which lead to those desired answers.

Jesus's earthly life is denied not only in 8:4 but also in 9:26-28:


Note the remarkable difference: Jesus is merely "appeared" (πεφανέρωται) , to mean that he didn't exist on earth.

In the future, at contrary, he "will be seen"(ὀφθήσεται) with physical eyes, to mean that he will exist really in the future.

Roger Parvus has resolved this apparent contradiction between Hebrews 7:14 and Hebrews 7:3


https://vridar.org/2019/03/06/revising- ... ent-126839

Hence 'rose up from Judah' supports mythicism, not historicity.

I've got to agree with Ben here.