Talk:Heb 1:1-2:18

Verses 2:6-9: Why vv. 6-9 are key

Joe, I am following the questions you are writing on Heb 1. The questions you raised about the angels there have really got me thinking, and it seems a lot depends on how we read vv. 6-9 here. First, I think the KJV suggests a very different reading than most more modern translations. In particular, I'm referring to the "little while" phrase in verses 7 and 9 (in most modern translations, but not in the KJV; the KJV seems truer to the MT, but other translations seem truer to the LXX and Greek text of Hebrews). So my questions is how much you think we should stick to the Greek vs. the KJV if we are interested in understanding how Joseph Smith read this (I didn't notice any JST changes to this passage). Sorry for my ignorance on the JST, but I don't know enough to know how to approach this. How much Greek did Joseph learn, and when did he learn it, and when did he start with the JST--Hebrews in particular--and how "complete" should we take his changes?

Sticking to the Greek, I'm inclined to read the angels here in contrast to man(-kind), or at least the path for mankind that Jesus is showing the way for. (I'm heavily influenced here by the WBC and AB, Craig Koester 2001, on this view....) That is, Christ "descended" temporarily below the angels through his incarnation and suffering and there-by/after sat (and I take sat in contrast to the angels who are always described as standing...) at the right hand (which I take as the position-of-honor at a banquet) of God--above the angels. And I would be inclined to take the angels as being set in contrast to mankind, with mankind having the possibility to follow Christ's example to become inheritors also, contra the angels. The alternative I'm favoring this reading for is the idea that mankind can become like the angels, or that this example/path is for the angels.

I realize this is a big, sweeping generalization of how to interpret much of Hebrews, and that I'm getting way of myself and you here, but these seem like such foundational questions, that I don't know how to approach chapter 1 without tackling these issues. Anyway, if you have any even preliminary thoughts on all of this, I think it would be very helpful for me to hear them. --RobertC 22:24, 9 February 2007 (CET)

I'd never looked at this issue, but I am familiarizing myself with it as I write. Yes, this is a major question. Let me make just a couple of really preliminary (and hence, most likely foolish) statements (read: things I will deplore or more likely publicly repudiate later on).

I'm not sure yet what I'm trying to do with Hebrews and Joseph Smith. It is obvious to me that Hebrews can be read as a kind of underpinning document for the restoration, but I'm hesitant to suggest that it "influenced" the "mind" of Joseph Smith, because then I feel like I've wandered into the camp of the New Mormon Historians (who wrote that article on Hebrews and Alma 12-13? it was awful!). While working on Hebrews, I'm essentially trying to work out a modus operandi for interpreting Hebrews, a modus operandi that is entirely unclear to me so far. What I'm trying to find, while doing this work, is a way to read the connections between Hebrews and the whole of the restoration without thereby developing some kind of theory of dependence, of causality. I have no idea what the contours of such a hermeneutic would be. I'll be interested to see what happens.

I suppose a consequence of this indecision for the time being is that I'm very open to any and all ways of reading the document so far. I'm very interested (I imagine you can pick this up in my questions for chap. 1) in the major question of "Hebrews hermeneutics," that is, of how the author of Hebrews relates to the Old Testament. In part I'm trying to decide if there is some distance between the profoundly violent readings of the author and the (potential) violence of a spiritual or typological reading. Put another way, I'm asking whether or not Hebrews represents a genuine and justifiable typological project. I'm not sure yet. That it has so profound a relationship with the restoration is suggestive, but I'm keeping myself a little aloof so far.

As for angels, I'm only just coming to this question, really. I got the article from the TDNT yesterday, but I've not had a chance to read it yet. When I'm at the library on Monday, I'll read the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry, and maybe a few other sources. My studies in angelology have all been too closely tied to LDS theology for me to have anything like an objective point of view on these questions. I've been influenced profoundly by the Book of Abraham and by the D&C. I recently purchased Margaret Barker's Extraordinary Gathering of Angels, but I haven't yet read it. I don't know how objective it would make me anyway, since she seems to think far more along LDS lines here than along traditional lines. So I'm not sure.

I'll be doing some more research on these questions in the meanwhile. Incidentally, this will help me with another project I'm working on: I've been working on an article on the "keys of the ministering of angels" to send to the Ensign. I gave a kind of fireside talk for an hour on the subject, and several people told me the ideas need to be published, and so I gave in and am trying to write something for the Ensign (I have no idea how impossible it is or isn't to publish there). So this will help me as I work through that article as well. Thanks for all your focus. --Joe Spencer 16:06, 10 February 2007 (CET)

Sounds good Joe. Notice that on the blog I requested a bit more detail on how you see the violence in the quotations, esp. in chapter 1. --RobertC 16:30, 10 February 2007 (CET)