The Holy Places/Holy Place in Hebrews
Hebrews 8:2-τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος.
9:1-Εἶχε μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν.
9:2-σκηνὴ γὰρ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη ἐν ᾗ ἥ τε λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτις λέγεται Ἅγια·
9:8-τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν,
9:12-οὐδὲ δι' αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος.
9:24-οὐ γὰρ εἰς χειροποίητα εἰσῆλθεν ἅγια Χριστός, ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, ἀλλ' εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν, νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν·
9:25-οὐδ' ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ' ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ,
10:19-Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παρρησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ,
13:11-ὧν γὰρ εἰσφέρεται ζῴων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, τούτων τὰ σώματα κατακαίεται ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς·
88 comments:
Penned after the destruction of the temple.
Are you sure that it was penned after the temple's destruction? The writer gives the impression that the temple was still operative when he penned the letter:
"For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle." (Hebrews 8:4-5 NKJV)
"not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another" (9:25 NKJV)
See http://datingthenewtestament.com/Hebrews.htm
ESV.org also says that the letter was probably composed before 70 CE/AD.
Hebrews 13:14...
As I have said before it is easy to write about the past but not so easy to write about the future and the burden of proof is really on those who claim an early date. All those in chapter 11 have no city but I am still a little puzzled about the treatment of Joshua.
But the references you make can be just as applicable and contextually more so to the desert tabernacle.
https://www.andrews.edu/agenda/60110
The case for Paul here regarding the conclusion screams something else to me.
Duncan, as you know, you can't merely assert that the letter was written after 70, but you need proof too. However, I gave references plus if you read the link I included, there is abundant proof that Hebrews was composed before 70 ce. The does not just say things happened at the ancient tabernacle but he refers to activities happening in his time plus he shows no awareness of the destruction by the Romans. Odd for a book with Hebrews' focus. And what does Joshua and chap. 11 have to do with the date?
For Hebrews 13:14, see 12:22-24.
Later Jewish writings also seem to have not knowledge of the destruction of the temple.
You also have no proof that Paul wrote it either.
I will need to track this down but - "Also, I should amend slightly what I said about the Talmudic passages. I think my advisor referred to the rabbis describing the temple liturgy in the present tense as an idealizing rather than an archaizing. They were describing the liturgy as it was given in the bible as though it were actually taking place in the present, even though they would have known the actual temple in the world they lived in had been destroyed."
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=128959
I wont argue it anymoor but you have NO PROOF.
Not forgetting - https://seforimblog.com/2019/01/two-jewish-temples-in-egypt/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/authorship-epistle-hebrews-denis-o-callaghan-/
"It is a peculiar fact that, from the first, the Eastern Church decided that the epistle was the apostle Paul’s, if not directly, then mediately, either as a free translation of his words or a reproduction of his thoughts and teaching; whereas the Western Church did not reckon it among the Pauline epistles or recognize its canonical authority until the fourth century A.D."
"The first witness is Clement of Rome who shows clear evidence that he was acquainted with it, in the letter he wrote to the Corinthian church about >>A.D. 96<<, but he nowhere names the epistle or its author."
Not true, this could go all the way into the 140s. As per all arguments on the this the conservative always pushing thing to the earliest possible or impossible date. Just like when "dating" manuscript fragments.
I have no proof? That makes me laugh. Granted, I don't have an explicit statement asserting that it was written before 70 ce, but I've given reasons and I know a case can be made for a pre-70 date.
On the other hand, I've seen no proof from you either but just speculation. Nothing really substantial from the text itself to support your argument.
The letter gives no implication whatsoever that it was written after 70. Lastly, where did I ever claim that Paul wrote the letter? James Efird calls Hebrews, an anonymous epistle.
The consensus now among scholars is that Paul did not write Hebrews: very few insist that it's a product of the apostle. And dating works is always a precarious enterprise but the most common date I've seen for Clement of Rome's work is 96 CE. Maybe it was written around that time but I take all of these dates with a grain of salt although I believe they could be in the ballpark.
The consensus now among scholars is that Paul did not write Hebrews: very few insist that it's a product of the apostle. And dating works is always a precarious enterprise but the most common date I've seen for Clement of Rome's work is 96 CE. Maybe it was written around that time but I take all of these dates with a grain of salt although I believe they could be in the ballpark.
https://dspace.sewanee.edu/bitstream/handle/11005/2161/FishbeckHighPriestlySOT2012.pdf
Hinging on Acts, a late second century production, as no one quotes it until then. Call it final form or whatever you like, it did not exist until very late.
https://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-do-we-know-nt-documents-were.html?m=1
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Gospel-Luke
See section 4. The suggestion that a work must be quoted in order for us to have an idea about when it was written doesn't seem to work for me. How can we base a work's coming into existence on when someone quotes it? That is like me writing something in the 20th century that no one quotes until the 21st century. Obviously doesn't mean I wrote it in the 21st.
We are not talking about "anyone quoting it" , we are talking about "Christians" quoting it, you know, this canon that was formed very early on? What's coming out of these Marcion investigations are not looking good for that idea.
I am refering to Luke Acts, not GLuke, but in any case, it is becoming quite evident that the NT as we have it is far more greek than Hebrew. Matthew is a later production too that attempts to talk to Jews about jesus. One simple question, did Jesus speak in the plane or on the mount? My guess is that you will reply with a bullinger type answer and say both. Remember his idea that jesus died with four criminals, because there are no contradictions.
I am enjoying Staples new book but he has a major fly in the ointment, that basically ALL of the Marcion reconstruction ommit to use the term "Israel" in any of the NT texts, but he has no problem using and quoting the Tanakh.
Thanks for letting me know about the Staples book. I realize that Christians would have been the ones quoting Luke or Luke-Acts, but I still question that as a criterion for determining when a work was written. Try applying the same criterion to the OT.
And I have little to no faith in the Marcion reconstructors and there is pushback out there if you care to look.
My friend Roman Montero wrote a book about the Sermon on the plain. IMO, why could it not be both like the sea and lake example that critics try to push.
I've always viewed the NT as more Greek than Hebrew. Yeah, it was written by Jews, but Greek was the Weltsprache of the time. Kline was a perfect choice.
Koine
https://www.youtube.com/live/hE-uL8KFZwI?si=MI8QGZH0t-7YUIeL&t=2693
Yes try applying it to the OT - Deuteronomy was probably written first.
As for Marcion, the push back is irrelevant as the consensus lies with ALL the reconstructions.
sea and lake example - they are both bodies of water and theological reasons rule the decisions made based on OT texts. This is the exact same point about the plane and the mount - Jesus is being portrayed as the new Moses in Mathew.
This is when the preaching to Jews was clearly not working & Acts is portraying a collaboration of Paul and Jerusalem that never happened. This can all be answered with what was going on at the time of Hadrian and beyond, why they used codex's and dropped circumcision. I am no skeptic & these text had there purposes at the right time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostomus
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/abs/ban-on-circumcision-as-a-cause-of-bar-kokhbas-rebellion/D2172E8DFDD61DC8AD9E16CC5AE8EE4A
Regarding the potential social context of Hebrews: https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/19640/1/Dyer_Bryan_R._2015Jan_Ph.D..pdf
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/09/hebrews-12-these-last-days.html
My point about the OT was that scholars don't date those books by when Jews or Christians first quoted them. Yeah, that could play some part maybe in the dating of certain works, but many other factors affect how books are dated than when they were first quoted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#:~:text=Dating%20the%20composition%20of%20the,evidence%20provides%20more%20subjective%20indications.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/how-do-scholars-estimate-when-each-book-of-the-bible-was-written
For the sea/lake and plain/mount examples, there are philological explanations as well. Second, Wikipedia says this about the Gospel of Marcion:
"The Gospel of Marcion, called by its adherents the Gospel of the Lord, or more commonly the Gospel, was a text used by the mid-2nd-century Christian teacher Marcion of Sinope to the exclusion of the other gospels. The majority of scholars agree that this gospel was a later revised version of the Gospel of Luke,[2] though several involved arguments for Marcion priority have been put forward in recent years."
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion
So the consensus is not with the reconstructions.
"Derek Thomas saw R.C. Sprout as a brilliant theologian" - EXACTLY.
The consensus is not evidence based and it is out of date.
As the "church fathers" are now being scrutinized they all have there own agendas and are quite happy to polarize and slate the opposition.
But they contradict themselves and trip themselves up as humans tend to do.
So are you saying that Matthew DOES NOT portray Jesus as a new Moses ? come now.
Yes ther are always possible explanation but I think we know what is more likely if we do not cherry pick between OT comparisons in the NT.
https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/11-3.htm
https://www.academia.edu/29798032/Life_Time_Entirety_A_Study_of_AI%CE%A9N_in_Greek_Literature_and_Philosophy_the_Septuagint_and_Philo
Clement too polemicizes against the Gnostics and teaches how to be a true,
Christian ‘gnostic’ instead. He often speaks of the aiōns (in plural: referring to
the future life)─not taking over the New Testament way of speaking about
‘this’ and the ‘coming’ aiōn─but then this plural has definitely a different
meaning from the Gnostic term. When Origen († 253/4) speaks of aiōns in the
plural, this is part of a view (later condemned as heretical) of distinct,
successive aiōns which together form God’s scheme of salvation: that is to
say, aiōns for the human soul to traverse after death. Here the word in
singular is far from meaning “eternity”. The same holds true for aiōn as
discussed by a Cappadocian Church Father like Gregory of Nyssa († 394).
Although the study of aiōn can be pursued further, also into the Latin world
(where, e.g., Jerome in the Vulgate translates ‘olām/aiōn by saeculum, and a
few times by aeternitas), the following description of Gregory of Nyssa’s
interpretation of aiōn makes a good finishing point for now: “Aeon designates
temporality, that which occurs within time.”14
12 The view of the seven aijw'ne" of world history, and aijwvn having the meaning “1000
years” (see Chapter I text [4]) implies that aijwvn by now stands for a period (and part) of
time, in contrast with what we have observed so far. In this new context and sense too,
however, the ‘ages’ are never individually, historically determined or identified. Of a wholly different order are the many aijw'ne" distinguished in Gnostic systems (LAMPE s.v. aijwvn [G] gives many references). It is interesting to note at this point that the word for “century” in modern Greek is aiwvna".
13 See, e.g., ZUNTZ (1989) and (1992), and FESTUGIÈRE (1954).
252
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc0849
EARLY SECOND CENTURY - two can play that game.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/marcion-and-the-making-of-a-heretic/5CACAE98DAE26863383990F4EBD18F72
The making of a Heretic and the Theologians are still towing that part line today.
"Anyone (whether Jew or gentile) who circumcised a non-Jew, no
matter whether the person circumcised was punished according to his
status in society, could face the death-penalty or banishment with
consfication of his property. If he was >>>a physician<<<, he was always liable
to the death-penalty. Furthermore, whoever was an accessory to the
circumcision, such as a master who allowed his slaves to be circumcised,
was liable to penalties.114"
I can't say for certain whether Matthew portrays Jesus as the new Moses or not, but I know how other writers say he is greater than Moses and he's a better mediator of a better covenant. Matthew certainly does not make an explicit identification between Jesus and Moses.
I'm not cherry picking when it comes to the sea/lake or plain/mount issues: how is an appeal to philology cherry picking?
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/znw-2021-0006/html
Marcion
https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/27747-dating-luke-acts-further-arguments-for-an-early-date.pdf
True Paul was to be an Apostle to the nations as Acts 9:15 points out, but that verse concludes to the son of Israel, so he would be one who could write to the Hebrews he had the upbringing for it as well.
Additional research shows that the book of Hebrews shows up at the book of Romans in the CB Papyrus No.2 (P46) the writer of this Papyrus connected in that way to Paul.
McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia states there is no substantial evidence, external or intrnal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship for Hebrews except Paul. I think the Key phrase here is substantial.
One other thing he also talks about Timothy in chapter 13 of the letter of Hebrews. The only other writer who speaks about Timothy is Luke in the book of Acts. And that is in conjunction with Paul.
Good points, Philip, and I appreciate your input. For the record, I don't have a problem with viewing Paul as the author of Hebrews. However, in view of the fact that the letter is anonymous, I'm not dogmatic about who wrote the letter. One scholar I know who defends Pauline authorship for Hebrews is D.A. Black. There are others, but the consensus thinks otherwise. On the other hand, I understand that the consensus (majority view) is not necessarily right and can always change.
Matthew is recognized as the "Hebrew" gospel. I think that is all that needs to be said. I believe that even at least one "father" states that. There is very little room for doubt here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://davidseccombe.com/about/
"From AD 66 a period of intense anti-Jewish sentiment prevailed
throughout the empire." - the time of the second revolt any different????
"My second objection to a later date, therefore, arises from the nature of Acts, which, whatever other purposes it had, clearly included an apology for the admission of Gentiles among the people of God.47 The need for such an argument after the war is questionable." Could also be an argument for tying a Greacoroman religion back the a Hebrew back story. - There was NO Jerusalem council in the first century to whom Paul could appeal & you also need to explain why Paul never talks about the Acts of Jesus if he had been filled in by said council. Jesus remains purely pnuma to Paul.
"My third consideration is a repackaging of Rackham and Hemer and
relates to the effect of events of the 60s and 70s on the author of Acts.
AD 62–71 was a momentous decade for Christians, Romans, and Jews.
In 62 Festus died in Judaea, and in the interregnum, before the new
prefect arrived, the high priest, Ananus, seized the opportunity to put
James, the brother of Jesus, on trial, and executed him by stoning.62"
Please explain how footnote 62 justifies his conclusion and anything to do with James.
https://lexundria.com/j_aj/20.197-20.223/wst
They just assume that no one is going to bother to check these things?
P46 - https://brentnongbri.com/2023/06/22/the-oldest-codex/#:~:text=Chester%20Beatty%20BP%20II%20is,third%20or%20fourth%20century%20CE.
Irellevant.
"in favor of any claimant to the authorship for Hebrews except Paul" No evidence for him either.
Wasn't Timothy supposed to have co written many of Pauls letters ?????
https://www.academia.edu/31671476/Review_Dieter_T_Roth_The_Text_of_Marcions_Gospel_Pre_Publication_
An opportunity missed, but I am not surprised.
https://gnosis.study/library/Гнозис/Исследования/ENG/Roth%20D.T.%20-%20The%20Text%20of%20Marcion's%20Gospel.pdf
https://kingsreader.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/marcions-not-quite-marcionite-gospel/
https://vridar.org/2010/12/18/jesus-moses-matthew/
Heard about Matthew writing a Hebrew Gospel, but I read where Eusebius said it wasn't so. At least he could not confirm it, in one of his writings. If we look at the writers after the books are compiled who do they say wrote Hebrews? Also who of the bible writers knew the law as well as Paul a fomer Pharisee did, not Matthew he was a known tax collector for the Romans. Paul also excelled as a Pharisee it meant he really knew what he was talking about. To the Hebrews he would have been known as Saul, so it may be that he would not attach his name Paul to such a letter. Just my thoughts.
But yeah the Website Early Christian Writings has it possible date as 60CE to 95CE.
Duncan,
We're going here and there. I will mention that one cannot be dogmatic about Matthew being written in Hebrew, to say the least plus we have no textual evidence that this was the case although it might have happened. If there's a time to exercise restraint in judgment, one should do it regarding Matthew. This is not a denial, but I would like more evidence before being definitive.
On Marcion and Luke, see https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zac-2017-0001/html
https://www.academia.edu/92422779/Marcion_vs_Luke_A_Response_to_the_Pl%C3%A4doyer_of_Matthias_Klinghardt?uc-sb-sw=72620731
As for Paul writing Hebrews, you brought it up, not me. I stand by my earlier comments and see no need to make an issue of who wrote Hebrews.
Read again, that's not what I said. For the Hebrews, not IN Hebrew, of which I am not interested.
Possible != Probable.
Unfortunately the response does not deal with internal evidence of each "father" with respect to there testimony and general consistency of testimony. And who says the central control of activity for the Christian movement was in Rome at this time? An excommunication is just a regional dispute until proven otherwise and eventually the victors write the history but it does not mean that it cannot be picked apart.
BeDuhn conclusion- "All three authors discussed here agree – and I concur – in recognizing the importance of recovering the content of Evangelion, as a gospel text that comes into view at the same time that the gospels later canonized do, and as an authoritative scripture of a sizable segment of second century Christianity. All three studies add in complementary ways to a new phase in the study of Marcion and his scriptures, one in which he no longer stands outside core developments of Church and Bible as a heretic, but as an integral and key part of the emergence of those institutions. Our disagreements, large or small, are incidental to this growing consensus that the history of early Christianity must be rewritten yet again, with Marcion occupying a prime place. Through Marcion, we may even recover his textual or personal antecedents in literature he acquired or views passed down to him from first century forebears. We are realizing at last that access to actual first century Christianity must come via its second century echoes, for only in the second
century do we begin to have palpable artifacts of an emergent Christianity."
This is why I say that the onus is on the ones who promote first century dates for the synoptics. I would not bring GJohn into this at the moment and the solution is going to be far more complex for it, I am sure.
Just like we might argue for Arius? because any of his own writings or versions of texts he may have had have been lost to us and we have to rely on his critics. I am willing to give Marcion a fair hearing.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/299011
Duncan, you wrote:
Matthew is recognized as the "Hebrew" gospel. I think that is all that needs to be said. I believe that even at least one "father" states that.
I was replying to that comment but evidently misunderstood your point. As I implied earlier I like focus.
I'm willing to hear a new view about Marcion; my main objection is to the idea that he was prior to Luke-Acts. I think that is wrong, unsubstantiated and pure rubbish. And we should not conflate possibility with probability.
The quote froom BeDuhn does not impugn a 1st century date for the Synoptics. You also lost me oon the Rome stuff :-)
Who said Rome was the center for Christian activity?
"Who said Rome was the center for Christian activity?" that my point for Someone who supposedly got "excommunicated " in Rome.
The position for an early Luke Acts is also rubbish as it has no basis in the evidence of use in early textual tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts#:~:text=The%20gospel%20of%20Luke%20and,130%20%E2%80%93%20c.
https://jesustweezers.home.blog/2020/06/08/is-dating-acts-to-the-2nd-century-still-only-a-fringe-view/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrPK_7NFCO4&t=3207s
I thought you would get the Rome stuff and the real persecution of Christians starting with Hadrian. I think it was in the first paragraph.
https://asejournal.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/beduhn-ase-29-1.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OP4F5aPn-g
Lieu, Marcion, 208-9: ‘Thus, both at the macro- and at the micro-level any solution to the origins of Marcion’s “Gospel” – or indeed of all Gospel relationships – that presupposes relatively fixed and stable written texts, edited through a careful process of comparison, excision, or addition, and reorganization, seems doomed to become mired in a tangle of lines of direct or indirect dependency, which are increasingly difficult to envisage in practice.’
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4722
"For example, Irenaeus does not argue that the four gospels are scripture so much as he claims there should only be four gospels—the closing of the gospel canon, as it were."
https://pursuingveritas.com/2014/09/02/nt-canon-second-century/
Irenaeus didn't insist the Gospels are scripture? Yeah right: http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml
I will agree to disagree on Luke -Acts and pick that issue up another time. And Christians were also persecuted by Nero in the first century.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249264178_The_Four-Gospel_'Canon'_in_the_Epistula_Apostolorum
I am not going to waste my time pulling that last paper apart with its claims of an early muratorian fragment. Its bosh. You've seen this before - https://www.jstor.org/stable/26566520
So I am not going to hang anything of significance on it.
I have looked into the the Nero issue in detail - I am not convinced.
I don't think any new evidence has turned up since this was written - https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/3570074 but I am happy for you to prove me wrong.
Well, if you are going to hang your hat on this gibberish, be my guest - "The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. (3.11.8)"
https://archive.org/details/neroemperorinrev00gran/page/n279/mode/2up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0fgs4gqhII
Very interesting but make of it what you will, however, he is right on one thing. Paul does not talk about the temple in any significant way yet the gospels obsess over it.
I have just ordered
Josephus and the New Testament - Mason, Steve 2002-11-01
https://biblehub.com/greek/2411.htm
When studying Nero and the early persecution of Christians, did you read Tacitus?
The Grant book about Nero featured in the link you provided was published in 1970. I think there's been more work done on Nero since then although I admit that I'm not sure what Grant says about him.
I never said Irenaeus was coherent or right, just that he believed the four Gospels constituted Scripture and bore apostolic authority contra what your source implies.
Paul's writings contain many temple allusions or he talks about the temple and its greater significance.
The Josephus book looks good.
Isn't it strange that Paul and the gospels use different terms nearly always.
And this other term clearly has some slightly different meaning - https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/15-5.htm
Tacitus is covered in that book. It all is and it has a chapter at the back of my Folio edition that is just about the burning of Rome and the Christians (not sure if its in a standard edition).
Just because Nero wanted an extension to his palace in the area of Rome that burned and it may have been convenient to blame the Christians as the smallest minority for it rather than just blaming the Jews in general does not equate to an empire wide ban or persecution of Christians at that time & as I have already said, I see no reason to pick Rome as a main center for Christianity at that time. Its all very sketchy and tenuous.
I want to get this soon - https://www.foliosociety.com/uk/dynasty.html
"I never said Irenaeus was coherent or right, just that he believed the four Gospels constituted Scripture and bore apostolic authority contra what your source implies." - that language is not about apostolic authority.
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-christians/
Vs
Regarding Slaves killing masters in Rome - "But the consequence was not limited to the slave who did the killing-all of the master’s slaves would be put to death. There was a case during the reign of Claudius in which a save killed a master who had a lot of other slaves and it was decreed that all of the master’s slaves, even young children would be put to death. There was a public outcry, but the Emperor refused to countermand the order and it was carried out.
I presume the purpose of such a barbaric practice was so that if a slave got wind of a plot to kill his master, he or she would inform on the potential assassin so to avoid being executed themselves."
So this was the kind of environment in Rome.
https://bibleresearchtoday.com/2019/02/27/the-death-of-the-apostle-paul/
Irenaeus and apostolic authority (Adv Haer 3.21.3-4):
But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.
4. For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fullness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn near, and that He was dwelling within those that believe in Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost; Matthew 1:18 and that the angel Gabriel said to her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God; Luke 1:35 and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child. Matthew 1:23
Irenaeus (Adv Haer 2.27.2):
Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it — those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.
I agree that we cannot say for sure whether Nero had Peter and Paul killed or not, but I think we're on firmer ground to think Nero did have the 1st century Christians persecuted. We don't know how extensive the persecution was, but it was apparently fierce. One reason I mentioned it was because Hadrian's time was not the only case of persecution, but Domitian seems to have opposed the Christians too. In fact, there were many conflicts.
Christian persecution and Nero: https://equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/the-maltreatment-of-early-christians-refinement-and-response/
https://chesterrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10034/621812/2019%20rev%20Were%20the%20Early%20Christians%20Persecuted.pdf?sequence=1
I will let you have the last word on this thread, then I'm going to shut it down.
I will await any evidence you can provide that Nero's "persecution" went beyond Rome. I believe that the Pete and Paul execution in Rome myth was to reinforce a persecution ideology much later on. I noticed you referenced candida moss, very good as she has done a lot of work on this although I don't know that she had anything to add to the history of Nero, I will have to check.
https://www.youtube.com/live/E-OV9c_f-GA?si=vN1PTDR4SUp6Q4wn
If you believe that all the text of Irenaeus is original and authentic that's your prerogative, I however do not. It has nothing of the feel of what I already quoted, they are very different hands.
It is spelled out with such precision, something I would expect after the council of nicea, etc.
"without interpolation" - would like to know the original terms used for this and where else it is used in ancient texts???!??!
That other short paper attempting to rebuff moss is just not in touch with the reality of the situation and the evidence that can be clearly seen in the Mediterranean. They state - "While there was no state-sponsored persecution of Christians, their rejection of local cults resulted in sporadic bouts of pressure or violence. However, Christians then imperialised these experiences of suffering, that is, they read them as originating from a single imperial source, and interpreted them as persecution."
Were is the evidence that cults were rejected exactly. In Italy we have clear evidence of local cults and gods being adopted and transformed as the tales of saints and the veneration of those imaginary persons. As long as they existed in the guise of Christianity, no problem & this was just modelled on the same process of the near east of calling all other gods lower than Yehovah and then calling them messengers, a council. They were already in councils of deified persons. So it was an evolution.
So I await new threads that deal with the facts of these matters in more detail.
I really want to conclude discussion on this thread, but in reply to your thoughts about Roman cults, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire#:~:text=The%20persecution%20of%20%22superstitious%22%20sects,Druids%20during%20the%20early%20Principate.
https://central.edu/writing-anthology/2019/07/10/roman-persecution-of-the-early-christians/
As for the Wikipedia entry, there are no footnotes to backup the comments about Hadrian and the Christians, and it definitely does not align with the other sources I have read. As I claimed before this is the institution period of the codex, which made it possible to avoid the persecutions of the Jews of which until now the Term "christian" would be anachronistic. They would have been lumped together and Rome was not that nuanced in its dealing.
Christianity survived in Rome and the empire because of its accommodation of the gods and adopted the parlance. You can state what the text tell us about the way idealized Christianity should be, but it does not change the facts. I await more commentary on the new Imperial cult temple find that is solidly tied to Constantine.
If you think that Revelation was actually talking about Nero with the 666/616 at the time of Nero? I don't think they would have dared as it would have been easily uncovered. To me this is just the same as the usage of Babylon as a legacy term for Persia and many other past as future motifs, just as someone today might call someone a Nazi as opposed to other terms.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110224719.7/html?lang=en
This paragraph spells out my point - "In their attempts to excavate and interrogate the different stages of Hadrian’s political, administrative, religious and monumental activity, all the researches presented in this volume locate a crucial turning point around the year 124/125.At this point, the process of administrative reform widened its scope to embrace a deeper political and religious rebuilding of the entire imperial oikumene. In 131–132 Hadrian would achieve a result in the Greek environment through the realisation of the panhellenion; during the second journey to Egypt the episode involving Antinous took place and during these years one should hypothetically set the definitive separation between Judaism and Christianity (a substantial separation, particularly in the mutual self-consciousness of the two religions).Indeed, the necessity of such distinction between the two groups emerged at the same time in which religious cults acquires a novel and different value according to Hadrian’s new political theology. >>>>Before this point, it was common for Christians to be generically labelled as “Jews”<<<<"
Post a Comment