On the So-Called Letter to the Hebrews

[netspawn]

"Concerning him [Jesus] we have much to say that is hard to explain,

since you have become dull in understanding." -- Hebrews 5:11

.

Now the first thing I want to do is to inform the Reader that I have NOT consulted any commentaries upon Hebrews. This means that I have no idea whether or not the things I am about to say are known to the exegetes, or to what extent my interpretations agree or disagree with the general scholarly consensus. I say this so that the reader will know that the only authority at work here is my own feeble reasonings, assisted (I hope) by the spirit of truth.

.

Having said that, I will begin by reiterating my previous observation that the author of Hebrews was a literate and educated man who had a wide knowledge of the literature available to a scholar within walking distance of the famous library in Alexandria (ie. it was still in operation during the last decade of the first century, when Hebrews was written). Thus the author not only had knowledge of early christian literature, such as Paul's epistles (see eg. 5:11-14; which is doubtless the primary source of the mistaken notion that Paul was the author) and the gospels of Mk and Mt (ie. Lk-Acts was not yet written), but also of classical Greek philosophy, as in this verse from 2:15 :

.

... and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. -- NASB

.

This verse shows us that the author had a good knowledge of, and perhaps even some admiration for, the otherwise much-hated Greek philosopher Epicurus; who taught (among other things) that we ought not to fear death (for fear of anything is a form of slavery) or the gods.

.

The author of Hebrews also demonstrates an intimate (even essential) knowledge of the gospel of John; as evidenced by the use of the phrase 'the Word of God' in a way that would have been quite impossible prior to John's gospel:

.

Indeed, the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. -- 4:12-13 / NRSV

.

Moreover, the significance of Hebrews' literary and theological dependence upon John is further demonstrated by the nature and structure of the all-important opening verses. Compare then the first three verses of these two books:

.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and divine was the Word. This one was in the beginning with the God. All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. -- John 1:1-3 / Prophet Version

.

In many and various ways God long ago spoke to the fathers by the prophets, [and now] at the end of these days he spoke to us by the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages. He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory, and the representation of the essence of Him [God], and he [the Son] sustains everything by the power of his Word. -- Heb.1:1-3 / Prophet Version

.

The significance of the author's literary and theological dependence upon John's writings is that it allows us to grope our way toward a better understanding of where, when, and why this essay or extended homily (it's quite obviously not a letter as such) was made. Since John's gospel was written during the crisis that tore the Faith away from its mother religion (ie. Judaism), what church-historians have called the 'Parting of the Ways', we can confidently place the gospel's origin at Alexandria round about the years 85-90CE. And since Hebrews is still very much concerned with the relevance of the Hebrew scriptures, it too can be pegged to the same area, say round about the years 90-95CE. As further evidence for this date I will point out that the text itself frankly admits to a second generation origin:

.

Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it ... It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him -- Heb 2:1&3 / NRSV

.

That is, "those who heard him" are the first generation of greek-speaking believers who were driven out of Jerusalem (c.40-45CE), some of whom went north to Antioch, and some of whom went south-west to Egypt. Thus there were, in the first century, three great centers of the still emergent Faith: the original Aramaic church in Jerusalem, and the two hellenistic daughter-churches in Antioch and Alexandria. In the gospel of Mark and Peter these churches are identified through their apostolic leaders: Jacob (James) - the head of the Jerusalem assembly, Peter - the head of the Antioch assembly, and John - the head of the Alexandria assembly. Just a few years after the original gospel was written (c.60-65CE), a Roman army marched on Jerusalem and leveled the place to the ground. Thus ended the mother-church in violence and flames.

.

So even though the jewish-hellenistic prophets Paulos and Silvanus had already taken the Faith to the Gentiles of Asia Minor and Greece, the assemblies of Antioch and Alexandria remained very much within the Jewish element within these cities; such that the majority of believers (in the first century) were Greek-speaking Jews, and the Faith was still very much a form of Judaism (ie. a reform movement within Judaism). But after the destruction of the Holy City and its Holy Temple (in year 70CE), the Jews were suddenly bereft of the very core and center of their religion. And the result of this shocking loss was nothing less than a revolution within Judaism that radically changed its nature and structure. Gone were the bloody sacrifices and the priesthood who managed them. How could the Rabbis fill this massive void? Chiefly by changing the focus of Judaism away from the Holy Temple to the Holy Scriptures. Thus it was the Rabbis (at the council of Jamnia) that created the canon of the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah/Law, Prophets, and Writings), and it was this unique achievement that saved Judaism from utter dissolution.

.

Unfortunately for the jewish-believers in the Christos, the salvation of Judaism required the rejection of all radical fringe groups, especially those who believed that Joshua of Nazareth was the Messiah. Thus the jewish-believers found themselves no longer welcome within the synagogues. Hence the 'parting of the ways' which forced these Jewish-believers into a position where they had no choice but to make a truly agonizing decision. If they wished to remain with their friends and families within the bosom of the religion of their ancestors, they would have to renounce their Lord and Messiah. On the other hand, if they could not bring themselves to 'turn away' from Jesus, then they would have to give up their heritage and identity, as well as the people that they have loved all their lives.

.

But since most people are by nature change-hating conservatives, we may well suppose that a good many of the greek-speaking jewish-believers reluctantly returned to the synagogues (some with their heads bowed in shame, some not). In any case, the loss of these believers was a very bitter pill for the 'pillars' in Antioch and Alexandria to swallow. John reacted with considerable hostility toward 'the Jews' (as is evident within the pages of his gospel), while in Antioch a midrashic expansion of the original gospel had been composed (c.80-85CE) for the jewish brethren, and making a strong case for Jesus from out of the pages of the sacred Hebrew scriptures (albeit in greek translation). In Alexandria this same noble crusade (and specifically targeting the wayward and undecided jewish-believers) was soon taken up by the author of the essay that would later become known as 'Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews'.

.

So now that we know when and where and why Hebrews was written, as well as who the essay was written for, we are in a much better position to understand the intentions and teachings of its inspired author. Moreover, we can now more effectively deal with the many misunderstandings surrounding the essay, as well as with the unfortunate corruptions to the text that only increase and intensify these misunderstandings ...

.

netspawn previously said: ... Sometimes what the biblical authors DON"T say is just as important as what they do say.

.

CANADIEN replied: ... Indeed. That being said, what we have here is one verse in a larger text. Hebrews was likely aimed at a Greek-speaking community, familiar with judaic religious practices.

.

And also with the jewish scriptures in greek-translation ... as befits a community of hellenistic jewish-believers.

.

It's main themes are the divinity of Jesus, His priesthood, and holding fast in the face of persecution.

.

Actually, the one main theme of the entire essay, the one central and over-riding concern (if you will), is to convince those who are considering it *not* to "turn away from Him' (12:25). Everything else is subordinate to this primary directive. Moreover, you are way off base if you think that the so-called "divinity of Jesus" (in the Trinitarian sense) plays ANY part in the thinking and theology of the author. For him Jesus is Lord and Logos, "Apostle and High Priest" (3:1), the Son of God (note - not to be equated with 'God the Son'), and even Shepherd; but above all of these Jesus is primarily "the mediator of a new covenant" (12:24).

.

However, I can certainly understand your confusion regarding this important matter. The author does in fact lay it on rather thick in the opening chapters; but he never really takes it to the extreme point of actually referring to Jesus as 'God' or 'God the Son'. To do something so incredibly stupid would be to deliberately alienate his intended readers, and thus totally undermine the entire purpose of all his efforts! Remember who he's talking to, CANADIEN, and what he's trying to accomplish. His intended audience consists of waffling jewish-believers, and the fastest way to drive them all out of the assembly, and back to the synagogue, would be to say, suggest, or even vaguely hint at, the possibility that Jesus is actually God himself. Divine, yes; but equal to the One Living God? Hardly. The author of Hebrews (like John and all the other NT writers) was a staunch monotheist, and not at all a Trinitarian; for this vile heresy of episcopal invention would have to wait until well after the NT period (ie. 50-150CE) had ended. Think about all this as you re-read the text of Hebrews, and you will see why this MUST be so.

.

But now you will object, saying: 'But netspawn, are you blind as well as stupid? Look at chapter one again. The author clearly calls the Son (ie. JC) 'God' not just once, but twice (1:8&9)!' ... Well yes, the word is indeed twice there in the text, BUT it certainly wasn't put there by the inspired author. Rather, these grossly uninspired additions were inserted into the text decades after the original autograph was finished (and therefore have no authority whatsoever over truth-loving believers); placed there by some overly-pious and incredibly ignorant scribe who doubtless imagined that he was only adding to the greater glory of God.

.

'How do I know this', you ask? Well, my friend, the answer is that it is perfectly OBVIOUS. So obvious, in fact, that I'll go out on a limb here and predict that if you check some of the better commentaries on Hebrews you'll doubtless find at least a few bible-scholars making the same observation. In other words, it's so obvious that even the bible-scholars couldn't possibly miss it; unless of course they are fundamentalist bible-scholars, who pride themselves on being blind to such subtle textual distinctions. Moreover, I can even tell you what sort of scribe committed this textual sodomy; he was a Romish scribe! We know this because he foolishly identifies himself in yet another pointless addition at the very end of the text (ie. 13:22-25), where in the course of a very feeble attempt to make the essay seem like a letter from Paul, our idiotic scribe tips his hand by saying 'Those from Italy greet you' (v.24).

.

And Hebrews is not the only document to be thus sodomized by Romish scribes. Even books outside the canon were not safe from the lies and deceptions of the Romish church. One famous example is First Clement whereby this work of an Egyptian prophet was callously hijacked and falsely attributed to the fictional "pope" Clement! Thus we see that right from the beginning the Lying Romish Whore was far more concerned to advance the greater glory of the Romish church than to glorify God. Is it any surprise then that these arrogant Romish scribes should sodomize the text of Hebrews by inserting lies and deceptions?

.

Also, IF Paul had written the "epistle" it is inconceivable that he would not identify himself directly by name: 'Paulos, an apostle of Jesus Christ'. Paul was simply not the type of prophet to beat around the bush regarding matters of such overwhelming importance as his apostolic authority and authorship.

.

C: I do not see how an unspoken reference to the atomism theory (the idea, developed in India 6 centuries before Hebrews, then in Greece by Leucippus 5 centuries before Hebrews, that the universe is composed of indivisible particles and empty void) would fit with the rest of the message.

.

It's simply a minor detail, made in passing, and of no great significance either way. After all, our hellenistic-jewish author has a very odd manner of discourse. And his logic also leaves much to be desired. As to his rhetorical style, he flutters about like a nervous butterfly, not landing anywhere for more than a brief moment, and then hurrying on. His sense of urgency to convince his jewish brethren not to return to the synagogue is palpable. To this end he'll gladly throw anything and everything into the mixture.

.

netspawn previously said: ... Actually, it was the ancient greek philosophers who first came up with the notion of atoms, and it was from this source that the educated author of Hebrews got the idea ...

.

g_bambino replied: Right on the first point, because the evidence that supports it is still there. Nothing, though, to prove the second point to be true; it rests on two assumptions: first, that the passage in Hebrews about what is seen being not made out of what was visible is actually speaking about atoms ... and, second, that the author of Hebrews was inspired by the Ancient Greek theory.

.

Neither 'assumption' strikes me as being beyond the realm of possibility. Indeed, I still think that Betsy's atomic interpretation of 11:3 is, at the very least, plausible. In any case, I don't believe I've seen a MORE plausible interpretation on the other thread ... unless I've over-looked something? ARRRG! I hate it when that happens.

.

g: ... (despite, as has already been shown, atoms are not, nor ever have been, invisible) ...

.

I have no idea what any of this means. Color me confused ...

.

And so concludes today's lesson in biblical hermeneutics!

[Oleg Bach]

The only thing I trust are the words that came directly from the masters mouth - all the other interlopers such as Paul and Peter are not to be listened too . Matthew on the other hand seems close to the source. That is the major problem with Christianity - is that in the early stages there were to many people interpreting and manipulating a great wisdom - making it political in it's nature..as for letters - let them write - but as the weasil Paul said "by the way bring me my winter coat" - he should have shortened the letter to Timothy and said - I need my coat - instead of a lot of bull shit.

[Rue]

Lets keep this response right to the point:

1. you took a great deal of effort to respond and your hard work is appreciated-you are commended for your sincere effort;

2. sorry I disagree with the pith and substance of your classic Christian interpretation of Hebrews although I think you did a supberb job of restating it as per the Christian tradition-I personally believe the true author(s) of Hebrews like the true author(s) of the New Testament (and for gthat matter the Old Testament) is a a conglamoration of unknown editors who took a bunch of original manuscripts and then took bits and pieces out of them and discarded the rest, then mixed them with the political propoganda agenda of the day as ordered of them by Constantine who had an agenda to merge Pagan and Christian beliefs to prevent a civil war and required a political organ to be able to monitor and control political dissidents which therefore required he re-write the Bible so as to fuse the pagan story of a son of God and the creation of the Church as a central organ to be able to pacify both Christians and pagans while rendering them both controllable by a central organ which could monitor and control their beliefs and prevent dissidents (the central church).

3. I believe the Chapter you interpret was a re-write designed as part of this political agenda and as such is fictitious.

4. I personally believe if a Jesus existed,which there is zero proof of, if he was a Rabbia, as such would have had to have been married and would never have used wording to suggest he was the ONLY son of God but most certainly would have preached Teekam Olem which we see recycled in his alleged Gospels.

5. I also believe it is quite plausible this Rabbia would have taught we are all sons and daughters of God and that heaven is within us as is the battle between good and evil, and he used himself as an example of a son of God suggesting we were all sent from this "God" to save the world and we are all its messiah.I also have no problem with the idea he would have rebelled against a corupt hierarchy of the Jewish religion which remarkably exists today only is called the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church, etc. The structure remains as does the organized secrecy and coruption I contend he would have fought. I also think is plausible he travelled to India and so learned medicine and fused spiritual concepts from Hinduism and Buddism with Judaism as the three would be quite compatible in being able to do this. There is nothing in Hinduism or Buddism that explicitly contradicts Judaism. The multiple Gods in Hinduism of course would at first glance look to a layman to clash with a monotheistic religion but it would also be plausible to think a rabbiah would have interpreted these Gods not as literal Gods but as symbolic ones to better illustrate divine principles and thus not necessarily have rejected some of the lessons behind them as mere idol worship. I see this Jesus if anything as a progressive of his day and someone loath to label and use black and white definitions-someone who would look like a God to people used to a different method of thought pattern.

6. As a result my interpretation does not lend itself to the one you have which is traditional Christian in orientation. All I read are the second hand edited writings of HUMANS who claim they were inspired by God. Sorry so am I. Please don't have me believe I am not as inspired. Thanks I can write my own stories and think for myself as to what I think God is.

7. As for my beliefs, I believe they are just as subjective as yours. I do not think either of us knows the original Bible manuscript's contents or what was originally intended to be taught or written or what actually happened during the time Jesus existed if he did.

8. I believe the Bible at best is a hodge podge of re-written and therefore compromised writings and were never meant to be taken literally but were drafted the same way Aesop's fables were-to serve as parables to illustrate behaviour.

9. I reject interpretations of the Bible that are literal.

10. I reject the interpretations of Besty as being simplistic, rigid and illogical.

11. I believe the passion play portion of the Bible was written well after the fact for a specific political agenda of creating a scapegoat people (Jews) to unify pagans and Christians-no more, no less.

Cheers.

p.s. I respect your beliefs I simply disagree with them-I have no problems with concepts of civility and tolerance-its just when I see the Old Testament or New One used to justify intolerant behaviour I say, my problem is with the people who use the Bible as a weapon to divide and alienate and that is precisely what Heavens To Betsy does in her well intentioned she is gonna save the world way.

Nothing is more dangerous some days then a well intentioned preacher who can't hear anything but their own words.

Thanks, my God is as simple as the wind in the trees and the movement of water or the flight of a bird or the sun's light falling at a certain angle. Miracles? I see them all over the place. Flowers, insects, the colour of the sky, a smile on a person's face, a dog playing, etc.

[netspawn]

Actually, OB, Paul's authentic epistles (not including Timothy), and the gospel of Mark, are both chronologically closer to the source than Matthew. Perhaps you should read more of the secondary literature to get a better sense of what is worth studying, and what isn't. Silvanus is the author of1Peter, and 2Peter was written long after Peter had gone to his reward. In fact, 2Peter was the last NT book to be written, and I think, one of the best ...

Edited September 19, 2011 by netspawn