A brief note on Hebrews 13.11-13 (camp and gate).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A brief note on Hebrews 13.11-13 (camp and gate).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:But the text does not have the (bolded) "outside the camp".
Right. I made that quite clear.
Instead it is "outside the gate", suggesting that gate is not necessarily one of the camp (during the exodus)....
Since the exodus camp had a gate, as I have shown, what exactly about the term outside the gate suggests that it is not the gate of the exodus camp? (Bear in mind that the author in the very next verse will invite his or her readers to join Jesus outside the camp.)
...allowing it to be understood as one of Jerusalem city gates.
I am not suggesting that Jerusalem is not allowed as a possible interpretive option. I am asking what it is about the word gate, in and of itself, that positively suggests Jerusalem instead of camp, given that both of them had gates.

(This is my last attempt here to get you to see my point. If you still cannot see it, then that is fine. I will move on.)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A brief note on Hebrews 13.11-13 (camp and gate).

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the camp. Hence, let us go out to him outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης], bearing his reproach.
But the text does not have the (bolded) "outside the camp". Instead it is "outside the gate", suggesting that gate is not necessarily one of the camp
There are many different alternatives, several of which do not include the idea that "the gate is not ... of the camp." Such a conclusion does not follow from its premise.

For a more banal take on this particular detail, I can speak from personal experience that I like to vary my nouns a bit. I find that it sounds stilted to repeat the same nouns over several sentences without any variation, so I will use synonyms and near-synonyms to vary it up. This is not, of course, something that is unique to me or particular to writers in the English language.

In other words, we have a very hard time telling whether any variation in words is, in reality, just a red herring.

Likewise, we would have a very hard time telling whether sameness in words is itself a red herring (do we need to conclude that the first "outside the camp" has the same nuance as the second "outside the camp"? not purely on the basis of the same word being used, no).

(And of course, besides all of this, which foregoing is true, there are other 'takes' on what this 'contrast' might be, not just one.)

I have no wish to 'argue' right now. This has just been repeated many times, so I wanted to make a comment.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply