Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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....
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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?
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?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 2100
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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.
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.
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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.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.
But the clear impossibility of a birth without father and mother (and related ancestry) closes the case.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
- Posts: 18362
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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.
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared (πεφανέρωται) once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will be seen (ὀφθήσεται) a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
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.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
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.
Hi Giuseppe,
I am not sure “rose up from Judah” means “descended from Judah’s tribe”. Loisy takes it to mean he rose “as a star might rise” (The Origins of the New Testament, p. 262). That is, Jesus appeared on the scene, much like the author of Hebrews has Melchisedec appearing on the scene without human ancestry.
I am not sure “rose up from Judah” means “descended from Judah’s tribe”. Loisy takes it to mean he rose “as a star might rise” (The Origins of the New Testament, p. 262). That is, Jesus appeared on the scene, much like the author of Hebrews has Melchisedec appearing on the scene without human ancestry.
https://vridar.org/2019/03/06/revising- ... ent-126839
Hence 'rose up from Judah' supports mythicism, not historicity.
Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation
I've got to agree with Ben here.