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:
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.
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.
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://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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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 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/
Post a Comment