John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Hebrew equivalent to the Greek doxa is kavod, usually rendered 'glory', but in other rabbinic literature the kavod is a reference to the Divine Presence of God.

At Sinai the clouds that covered the mountain are called a kavod.

dybmh said:

OK... reading this now. After that, I feel comfortable discussing any of the souces you've brought so far. having read The Book John, I now have a good idea of the mystical mechanics of the story.

I'm still thinking that it would be good for you to locate a translation of Enoch for us to use if it is important for your arguments that praying to or through an Angel is kosher.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify my position, I'm not arguing that praying to or worshipping God through a heavenly mediator who somehow shares in/manifests His presence is "kosher".

It is for Jews to decide and determine what is halakhic for Judaism, not a Christian like me!

The Rabbis of the first centuries CE clearly repudiated the "two powers in heaven" binitarianism as heresy and so just as the Church Fathers defined Christian orthodoxy against other branches of Christianity deemed heterodox (the Docetics, the Arians, the Gnostics etc.), the Rabbis defined Jewish orthodoxy. That is completely 'untouched' and 'unquestioned' by my analysis here. The belief is not consistent with orthodox Judaism.

Nor am I saying that these ancient Jewish beliefs are 'kosher' for Jews in the post-Rabbinic era. Nor am I suggesting that they were 'normative' even in the pre-Rabbinic era either.

Pre-Rabbinic Judaism in the Second Temple era was characterised by a great diversity of sects and strains of thought - ranging from Pharisaism (predecessor to Rabbinic Judaism that became orthodoxy), the Hellenistic and Platonizing (Philo of Alexandria), the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Theraputae etc. Scholars even think that Gnosticism likely originated as a Jewish movement during this period.

What I am arguing is that one particular theological 'strain' which attained some spread in Second Temple Judaism (judging by the number of texts which evidence elements of this theology, from Qumran to the Enochic literature to the Testament of Abraham etc.) exerted an influence upon early Christianity, including the Gospel of John. And this was a 'divine agency' tradition in which another pre-existent heavenly being or glorified human is seated either on a throne beside God or on God's throne of glory, after being 'elevated' / 'glorified' by God, and thereby assuming some of his role / functions and being described as a kind of 'mediator' of the divine presence (a "Lesser YHWH" as the later Hekhalot literature in the Rabbinic era would put it).

That this 'strain' in Second Temple Jewish thought existed and influenced the early Christians, such that it provides a context for understanding why John depicted Jesus in the way he did, is what I'm contending.

On Enoch, I'm still considering different translations! I may actually consult with our friend @Clear on what he thinks might be the preferred one but I'm tilting in the direct of the one in my Charlesworth edition of the Jewish pseudopigrapha (because it seems to be the 'standard' English translation relied upon). I'll get you a link to it when I have the time to 'exegize' the text with you (unfortunately, I'm busy on my end at the moment but will be freer on the 21st).

I have been reading through 1 Enoch again as well, particularly the Similtudes/Parables. The first mention we have of a heavenly mediatorial being is the 'Elect One' and 'Righteous One' (chapter 53), who is then identified with the 'Son of Man' later in the text (chapter 61) and this 'Son of Man' (obviously based upon a visionary exegesis of Daniel 7) is 'enthroned' in heaven. Throughout the text, God is ubiquitously referred to using the title, "the Lord of Spirits".

Personally, I still think the context and description infers that worship is being owed by the kings to the Elect One/Son of Man after his enthronment by the Lord of Spirits. He is not the ultimate object of that worship - the Lord of Spirits - but his elevated position does place him in the context of the worship rendered to the Lord of Spirits, whose role/attributes He is assuming as the divine agent in heaven.

We need to be mindful of what it actually means for this heavenly being to be seated on the 'throne of glory' in heaven, to be reverenced by all the kings of the earth and other angelic beings. Consider the prophet Isaiah's anthromorphic vision of the glory of God enthroned in heaven from the Tanakh:



The Son of Man in Enoch is being deliberately placed in a similar position in heaven. He is assuming a role typically reserved to God alone.

Undoubtedly, the Lord of Spirits is the one to whom worship is overwhelmingly directed in the text (of course, He's God! and I'm not denying that). Scholars such as Bauckham are not denying this either, the latter writing in one study:




It is equally apparent to me, from my own reading of different translations, that all the kings on earth are invited by the Lord of Spirits to acknowledge and pay obeisance to the enthroned messianic Son of Man/Elect One. Both the Lord of Spirits and the Son of Man are described as having been "hidden" and the Son of Man is introduced as sharing qualities with God.

I'm open to my mind being changed by your exegesis but I still stand by my earlier remarks and in synch with the scholarship at the moment.

R. Asher ben David,

Regarding the ancient Jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah and saw Christianity as a more true and pure form of Judaism.

Dybmh said : “Yes, I can understand why a Jewish person at that time would have been confused. “

These Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and adopted the type of Judaism which became known as Christianity, did not see themselves as “confused”, but instead, saw themselves as freed from the contaminations which had plagued rabbinic Judaism. That is, they felt more able to distinguish what were true, authentic, basic laws of God from the hundreds of man made traditions and accretions that plagued rabbinic Judaism.


Dybmh provides us an example of a rabbinic "accretion" or man made "tradition" in the principle of “pairing” as a personal criticism of Christianity as seen through a Jewish lens

Dybmh said : “However *pairing* is not Kosher. So anytime a prayer is phrased "To the Father in Jesus' name", that's not Kosher and is a form of idol worship. This is an obscure rule, many dont know it. And honestly, I'm not qualified to say much about it except to claim that the rule exists, and it is not a kosher practice to do things in pairs. That means on a special occasion, 1 drink to celebrate is fine. 3 drinks is fine to celebrate. 2 drinks? nope. It's obscure and weird, but from a mystical perspective perfectly valid.”

Such silliness as a religious prohibition from drinking in “pairs”, or eating two hot dogs at a celebration or only referencing two individuals in a prayer are part of the very strange and silly accretions that represent man-made traditions that had come to contaminate authentic and pure religion in the eyes of those who looked at rabbinic Judaism from the outside. I do not think the individuals who made such distinctions were confused, but instead, came to make important distinctions between man made religious traditions and rules, and authentic religion with its relationship with God.

For example, in the discussion between Chrysostom and Trypho the Jew, the discussion turned to why the prophetic gifts and revelations were no longer found among Judaism of the first century but were instead, transferred over to the Christians with their Judaism which still had prophets and personal revelation among them. One of the points Chrysostom made was the contamination of Judaism with accumulations of rules that were not particularly religious in nature (e.g. “pairing”) was one of the reasons for the transfer of these gifts.

Such silliness and contamination of authentic religion with man made rabbinic traditions was part of what the Messiah was referring to when saying "... They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” (mark 7:7-8) The Jews who accepted the Judaism that became known as "Christianity" understood that many of the rules they were taught to obey as religion, was rabbinic tradition, layered on top of religion. "Pairing" is a good example. There is nothing about eating two hot dogs on a plate, or drinking two drinks in celebration that is irreligious or idolotry. To abandon such a rule is not "confusion", but cleaning up debris that was never a base religious law that was meant to enhance a relationship with God or mankind.


Hi Vouthon

Vouthon said : " Just to clarify my position, I'm not arguing that praying to or worshipping God through a heavenly mediator who somehow shares in/manifests His presence is "kosher"."

I think the tendency for rabbinic Judaism was to develop expectations for the messiah that Jesus did not meet. The problem was not in the messiah, but in the incorrect expectations. For example, dybmh sees Jewish-Christian prayer as a "pairing" while this may not be in in the mind of the Christian at all. In this case it is the Jewish Characterization that is incorrect rather than the prayer to the Father who sends the Messiah to accomplish his role in the Father's plan in the same manner that he sent Moses or other prophets to accomplish their role in the Father's plan for mankind.


Vouthon said : "On Enoch, I'm still considering different translations!...but I'm tilting in the direct of the one in my Charlesworth edition of the Jewish pseudopigrapha (because it seems to be the 'standard' English translation relied upon)."

The version in Charlesworth may or may not be any better than any other (it is probably better than lawrence...), but it has the advantage of having some comparisons and corrections and variants listed to the text that will not be found in a single translation.

You will still have to remember that the translator will have his own "flavor" in the translation. He may render "honor" as "worship". This has been a problem in the various translations of Jewish, Christian and islamic texts in their agreement regarding the Fall of Lucifer/Satan/the Devil and the war in heaven. Instead of translating the text as "God commanded the angels to honor Adam", the texts may read "God commanded the angels to worship Adam". This is perhaps an example of "pairing", which rabbinic Judaism tells us in not "kosher". Nonetheless, the early Jewish/Christian/Islamic texts tell us this is what God commanded. One will have to decide for themselves whose "rule" to follow.

While linguists know the underlying words are probably incorrect or are aware of other, better words, non-linguists may be disoriented by such usage.

In any case, Good luck you two.

Clear
ειεισιφιω

OK after pondering this some more, I'm good to go with the translation used by Charlesworth in Vol.1 of his edited collection of the Jewish pseudepigrapha for our exegesis of 1 Enoch, if you are similarly cool with that @dybmh

Link: https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/THEOL264/James H. Charlesworth The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1 Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments 1983.pdf

I'll quote from this, henceforth, as my main reference-point when discussing passages from the Similtudes (referring to variants only occassionally).

Clear said:

Vouthon said : "On Enoch, I'm still considering different translations!...but I'm tilting in the direct of the one in my Charlesworth edition of the Jewish pseudopigrapha (because it seems to be the 'standard' English translation relied upon)."

The version in Charlesworth may or may not be any better than any other (it is probably better than lawrence...), but it has the advantage of having some comparisons and corrections and variants listed to the text that will not be found in a single translation.

You will still have to remember that the translator will have his own "flavor" in the translation. He may render "honor" as "worship". This has been a problem in the various translations of Jewish, Christian and islamic texts in their agreement regarding the Fall of Lucifer/Satan/the Devil and the war in heaven. Instead of translating the text as "God commanded the angels to honor Adam", the texts may read "God commanded the angels to worship Adam". While linguists know the underlying words are probably incorrect or are aware of other, better words, non-linguists may be disoriented by such usage.

Click to expand...

Thank you Clear, your informed advice is most appreciated!

dybmh said:

: @Vouthon, did you trick me into agreeing to read 300+ pages before debating this further? Aye-Caramba. I'll skim it, but I retract my commitment to reading the whole thing.

Click to expand...

No problemo

@Vouthon,

It looks like we agree on almost everything at this point.

Vouthon said:

Just to clarify my position, I'm not arguing that praying to or worshiping

God through a heavenly mediator who somehow shares in/manifests His presence is "kosher".

It is for Jews to decide and determine what is halakhic for Judaism, not a Christian like me!

Click to expand...

It's not a Beis Din, we're having a friendly conversation. I'm not intending to be formal, to the contrary, saying it's not kosher, for me is less formal than calling it a transgression.
Although, As a christian, isn't it your duty to try to convert Jews ( or anyone )? If so, I think it's assumed that one would think that it's kosher to pray to "Father in Jesus Name". Perhaps it's not something that's discussed or considered by many, but don't you think it should be? If not, why not?

Vouthon said:

The Rabbis of the first centuries CE clearly repudiated the "two powers in heaven" binitarianism

Click to expand...

This is where we disagree. it goes way back earlier than that. Exodus states no other gods ( Elohim Acharim ). Bintitarianism is Acharim. Plural. Do we agree?



In The Book of John, Jesus is quoted consoling his disciples, Don't worry... remember the psalm, you will be gods....

Vouthon, if this story is true, the words coming out were true. But he left out the word Acharim... It is not OK to become an "other" gods. If someone does that, as stated in Exodus 20:3, they cannot be in front of G-d. Notice, this means that the plan described for absolution in the Book of John will fizzle and fail. No other gods in front of the All-Mighty. An attempt to climb a ladder, while in possession of an "other god" would be impossible. If there was a ladder guess where it would lead instead?

In light of this...

Vouthon said:

What I am arguing is that one particular theological 'strain' which attained some spread in Second Temple Judaism (judging by the number of texts which evidence elements of this theology, from Qumran to the Enochic literature to the Testament of Abraham etc.) exerted an influence upon early Christianity, including the Gospel of John.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense logically the way you are phrasing it unless the Book of John is intended to discourage meddling in the underpinnings of Creation, to discourage taking a shortcut to salvation, and to discourage anyone from emulating Jesus. If it was written from a strain fo Judiasm, that is the story being told. Jesus is not the hero. The JC-Father couplet is the enemy.

On the other hand, if the story is being written encouraging people to emulate Jesus and participate in the loophole offering absolution without atonement or purification, that would not come from Judaism. Perhaps the individuals performing these rituals had Jewish ancestry, but it is likely in my estimation that those who engaged in these practices would have been excised from the Jewish nation by heaven. it's not a Jewish practice. We can get into the details if you want. But the best example from the Book of John is the 9:39. This is a very dark non-Jewish idea. Taking away sight from one person, and giving it to another. No. It's an example of what *not* to do in Judaism. We are taught that G-d is forbearing. Not to mention that it's a violation of Love your neighbor...

Do you see what I mean? If the influence came from Judaism it could only mean one thing: it was written as a cautionary tale, and Jesus is not to be emulated at all.

Vouthon said:

We need to be mindful of what it actually means for this heavenly being to be seated on the 'throne of glory' in heaven,

Click to expand...

Agreed. But do you know what it actually means?

The Kissei HaKavod exists in Beriah. That is on paper about 2/3ds of the way up ( or more accurately in ) the ladder/chain. However, there are at least 2 infinitely large gaps of nothingness separating Beriah from Atik Yomin ( the Ancient of Days ) and the Ein Sof ( the infinite G-d ). G-d as described by the 4 letter name transcends and permeates all of this starting at the Or Ein Sof ( the light of the Infinite G-d ) allllllllllllllllll the way down ( or more accurately out ) here in the material world.

Kavod glory is one of the primary realms/dominions/functions of The Lord of Hosts ( which is being translated as Spirits ). So it makes sense that this is the focus of someone who wants to become absorbed in the role of the angelic being who grants absolution who sits in the throne of glory. At this stage, it's all about Glory. But as I stated before Glory ( Kavod ) is just 1 middah, Yes, powerful and important, of course. Samet hing with Love, a powerful and important middah. But reaching the most exalted on the throne of glory for absolution is still not the tippy-top ( or more accurately the essential core ). Arriving at this level ( for lack of better word ) is not reunification with the light of the infinite G-d and which is the ultimate definition of eternal life in heaven.. There is still much more to do after that, if a person is attempting to cheat the system and use the ladder for absolution instead of the remedy described in the Torah. In the Story in the Book of John, JC focuses on Love and Glory. Without cultivating infinite restraint in the form of Din ( another middah )... well ... there will obviously be roadblock/broken link in the chain/missing rung in the ladder, etc...

This is the context of Throne of Glory in Judaism. It exists on a chain, in the middle. This is important to keep in mind anytime the Throne of Glory is mentioned and most exalted in Glory in mentioned. From the Jewish perspective it is not the *only* gate to the pasture of heaven. Although without knowing this context, it would be natural for someone to believe that The Throne of Glory was the final gate in Judaism. If the scholars are not mentioning this context of the Throne being closer to the middle than the top, then I would not trust the scholars on this. And if a conclusion built on this foundation of missing/incomplete teachings... then garbage in >>>> garbage out. Incomplete Teachings going in >>>>> Incomplete/Unreliable conclusions are most likely.

Vouthon said:

It is equally apparent to me, from my own reading of different translations, that all the kings on earth are invited by the Lord of Spirits to acknowledge and pay obeisance to the enthroned messianic Son of Man/Elect One.

Click to expand...

Sure, but let's keep this in perspective. Abraham prostrated before the angels in Gen 18. So we don't even need to use Enoch to show that prostration ( as you say obeisance ) towards Angels is OK. IDK, just brainstorming, if there were an example of Jewish people worshiping in Eliyah's name, or worshiping in Moshe's name. That would work much better.

Vouthon said:

No problemo

Click to expand...

The thing is, I'm actually familiar with the concepts of hermetic mysticism and how/when they diverge from the Jewish mystical tradition. It looks like this is labeled in your source as Hellenized? I might not need to read the whole thing to participate in the debate as you choose to direct it.

dybmh said:

It looks like we [you & Vouthon] agree on almost everything at this point.

Click to expand...

Then it's likely to be wrong!

[sorry, but the Devil made me do it!]

metis said:

Then it's likely to be wrong!

[sorry, but the Devil made me do it!]

Click to expand...

I love you so much right now....

Clear said:

These Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and adopted the type of Judaism which became known as Christianity, did not see themselves as “confused”, but instead, saw themselves as freed from the contaminations which had plagued rabbinic Judaism. That is, they felt more able to distinguish what were true, authentic, basic laws of God from the hundreds of man made traditions and accretions that plagued rabbinic Judaism.

Click to expand...

Well...

It certainly seems true for today's Christians and Jewish converts to Christ. However, what you are describing is not at all what I am reading in the Book of John. If we focus on the Book of John, labeling the practice "True Judaism" is an insult. What is described in The Book of John is an occult practice, it's not True Judaism. Although, it is a version of freedom I suppose. But not from contamination.... this occult practice is the definition of contamination.

Clear said:

Such silliness as a religious prohibition from drinking in “pairs”, or eating two hot dogs at a celebration or only referencing two individuals in a prayer are part of the very strange and silly accretions that represent man-made traditions that had come to contaminate authentic and pure religion in the eyes of those who looked at rabbinic Judaism from the outside. I do not think the individuals who made such distinctions were confused, but instead, came to make important distinctions between man made religious traditions and rules, and authentic religion with its relationship with God.

Click to expand...

A perfectly logical assessment. However, The book of Enoch is not a logical text. We don't even have an version of it in Hebrew. Making a Merkabah is not at all reasonable. If a mystical perspective is desired by the OP, then a mystical perspective it will receive. { But that means logic gets thrown out the window }.

Clear said:

Such silliness and contamination of authentic religion with man made rabbinic traditions was part of what the Messiah was referring to when saying "... They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” (mark 7:7-8) The Jews who accepted the Judaism that became known as "Christianity" understood that many of the rules they were taught to obey as religion, was rabbinic tradition, layered on top of religion. "Pairing" is a good example. There is nothing about eating two hot dogs on a plate, or drinking two drinks in celebration that is irreligious or idolotry. To abandon such a rule is not "confusion", but cleaning up debris that was never a base religious law that was meant to enhance a relationship with God or mankind.

Click to expand...

OK.

Hear me out. You don't have to believe me or agree with me, but,

This idea of pairing being a red-flag is not silly at all. If you scroll back to yesterday's posts. You'll see that while as I was reading the Book of John for the first time I noticed right off the bat this was a spirit possession situation. It felt funny, from a Jewish perspective. I hadn't even gotten to the part where the crowd of raving Jews accuses the JC-Father duo of being a demon-possessed. You don't need to be a prophet to see the writing on wall, my friend. This idea of avoiding pairing is a good safe guard measure if a person beleives that The Book fo John is real and factual. I would recommend taking this idea of the pairing being a sign of trouble, and re-read the narrative in the Book of John. JC is quoted over and over again reaffirming this duo, paired, nature of his divine status. It's a clear red flag from a Jewish perspective, and that comes from ( at least for me ) these ideas of Exo 20:3 ( no other gods in front of my face, literally translated ) and this idea that acting in pairs is a bad idea.

It's not silly in context.

But for modern people? I agree, it's super-duper silly. But it does not introduce contamination, it literally prevents polluting prayers to The One G-d of Abraham with elokim achairim per The Torah.

Clear said:

In any case, Good luck you two.

Click to expand...

Same Thanks for your help on this. And I hope you will continue to contribute.

Sincerely,

Wandering Monk said:

. The Shekhinah and the Presence are one entity, and that is the Attribute of Judgment. '

Click to expand...

Yer a brave soul to be getting into this sandbox.

@dybmh and @Clear, one major point of contention had to do with what's called the "Oral Law" that Jesus refers to as "laws made by men". This is why Jesus kept getting asked about the Law, including its applications. You two may have already covered this as I haven't had a chance to go back through previous posts on this.

Then, of course, there's the issue of who Jesus was, and there's no doubt that what we now call "Christianity" was basically a Jesus cult mean to reform Judaism. They certainly weren't the first to try and do as such, nor were they the last.

dybmh said:

Although, As a christian, isn't it your duty to try to convert Jews ( or anyone )? If so, I think it's assumed that one would think that it's kosher to pray to "Father in Jesus Name".

Click to expand...

For a Catholic like me, in this day and age? Nope, as Pope Benedict XVI put it a number of years ago:





If I were an Evangelical Protestant, maybe, but that I am not. I have no desire, interest in or wish to convert Jewish people to my religion / conception of God and quite apart from that would regard any such endeavour as a fool's errand. Let's be honest, what chance would I stand That isn't going to happen and I'm not desirous to try and bring it about either, which would be supreme hubris on my part!

I don't get to decide what's "kosher" for Jews, anymore than Jews get to decide what's "dogma" for Catholics. To each their own.

That's why I say that the orthodox Rabbinic definitions are untouched and unquestioned by my analysis. This is a discussion about history and the right exegesis of ancient texts, not one of apologetics and proselytism.

I am, on the other hand, very interested in understanding how my own religion developed from a sect of early first century Jews and think that the divine agency tradition in the Second Temple is a good contextual background for explaining how something like early Christianity could emerge from Second Temple Judaism.

Jewish perspectives are very helpful in trying to discern the process by which this happened.

dybmh said:

Abraham prostrated before the angels in Gen 18. So we don't even need to use Enoch to show that prostration ( as you say obeisance ) towards Angels is OK. IDK, just brainstorming, if there were an example of Jewish people worshiping in Eliyah's name, or worshiping in Moshe's name. That would work much better.

Click to expand...

The scene at the oaks of Mamre in Genesis 18 is a particulary difficult one to exegete. It is not the only case, however, where an angelic figure apparently receives 'prostration' as the representative of God; one could also turn to Joshua where a similar action is performed before (purportedly) the Angel of the Lord, within whom is the name of YHWH as described earlier in EXodus:



What differentiates 'divine worship' from other forms of obeisance / honour offered to a human or heavenly being in your judgement then?

I would say (1) if the 'worship' is authorised and 'commanded' by God (2) offered with the intent of worshipping the only being that is rightly the object of worship, the one true God.

In the relevant verses of 1 Enoch, as one scholar Coutts notes: "In 1 Enoch 48, the Chosen One is named before creation (48.2-3) and prostration before the Chosen One is juxtaposed with the glorification of the name, as if to suggest the two are inseparable activities (48.5)."

The verses in Charlesworth's translation:




The same phrase "worship/prostrate" is used of the Lord of Spirits in 57.3 and of the Son of Man. One variant in translation is more explicit: "They will worship before [the Son of Man]. They shall glorify, bless and sing to him, to the name".

He thus seems to be a theophanic figure (association between the Chosen One / Son of Man and the Divine Name, indeed the 'Name' of the Son of Man pre-exists before the creation of the world with God) and is 'incorporated' into the worship given to the Lord of Spirits. In worshipping before him and glorifying the name of the Lord of Spirits, they are worshipping the Lord of Spirits in the way that he desires before the throne of the Son of Man. I don't see any distinction drawn between the veneration of the Son of Man and worship of God. The act of 'falling down' and 'worshipping' before the Son of Man, is part and parcel of their glorifying, blessing the divine name.

We aren't dealing here just with an angel - this is a being whose name is described as being bestowed upon him in the "before-time", where he apparently existed from eternity in the 'presence of the Lord of Spirits'. He now sits on the throne of glory (as Isaiah and Ezekiel both saw the Lord according to the Tanakh).

In chapter 62, this identification of the two figures - the Lord of Spirits and the Son of Man - is even starker. Charlesworth's translation:




Note that the Lord of Spirits (God) is described as sitting down on the throne of his glory on the day of judgement. Then the kings see the Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory and "bless, glorify, extol" him, the 'one who has been concealed' - the very same acts they are described as rendering to the Lord of Spirits in the above cited verse 48:5. The text then reiterates that the kings fall down on their faces and worship and raise their hopes in the Son of Man, begging him for 'mercy' because he is now acting in persona as the divine judge.

There is such a parallelism between the Lord of Spirits and the Son of Man that they 'swap' roles effortlessly even within the same passage.

In Schafer's translation, the first verse reads: "(1 Enoch 62:2) And the Lord of Spirits seated him [the Son
of Man] upon the throne of glory", so as to avoid the incongruity of it then shifting to the Son of Man later in the verse and it instead being the Son of man throughout. That seems a more logically coherent translation to me but the above translation actually stengthens the conjoined identity of the two figures.

dybmh said:

The Kissei HaKavod exists in Beriah. That is on paper about 2/3ds of the way up ( or more accurately in ) the ladder/chain. However, there are at least 2 infinitely large gaps of nothingness separating Beriah from Atik Yomin ( the Ancient of Days ) and the Ein Sof ( the infinite G-d ). G-d as described by the 4 letter name transcends and permeates all of this starting at the Or Ein Sof ( the light of the Infinite G-d ) allllllllllllllllll the way down ( or more accurately out ) here in the material world.

Click to expand...

But is this interpretation attested in the Second Temple era? It seems to be a later Kabbalist concept using language that did not exist during the epoch of the Second Temple, in the texts from the period that I have read. Merkabah mysticism emerged either just before, around or soon after the first century. 'Ein Sof', however, is not a term used in any Second Temple Jewish text that I'm aware of.

We need to interpret Second Temple texts in the context of the language and concepts used in Second Temple discourse, not later discourse.

metis said:

@dybmh and @Clear, one major point of contention had to do with what's called the "Oral Law" that Jesus refers to as "laws made by men". This is why Jesus kept getting asked about the Law, including its applications. You two may have already covered this as I haven't had a chance to go back through previous posts on this.

Then, of course, there's the issue of who Jesus was, and there's no doubt that what we now call "Christianity" was basically a Jesus cult mean to reform Judaism. They certainly weren't the first to try and do as such, nor were they the last.

Click to expand...

The law that I have been referring to is in the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:3. This would not have been replaced in the NT, if I recall?

metis said:

@dybmh and @Clear, one major point of contention had to do with what's called the "Oral Law" that Jesus refers to as "laws made by men". This is why Jesus kept getting asked about the Law, including its applications. You two may have already covered this as I haven't had a chance to go back through previous posts on this.

Click to expand...

Jesus's assesment of the 'oral torah' is a contested point even in the scholarship, because the New Testament actually relies upon it at varies stages - alongside the 'traditions of men' verse.

It tends to be Protestant exegetes who are more liable to interpret Jesus as a firm 'sola scripturist' (unsurprisingly) but if we look closely at what he himself said:


The hawk-eyed will note two things here: while he regards 'justice, mercy and faith' as the "weighter matters of Torah", he states that the scribes in question should have attended to these weightier matters - without neglecting the others, namely the tithing of mint, dill and cumin.

Where is this tithing of dill and cumin found in the pages of the written Torah? The Torah makes no explicit mention of tithing 'herbs', although one might deduce that from the mitzvot of the written Torah (i.e. 'all produce of the land').

The Mishnah (and the Jews among us can correct me if I'm wrong on this, as this is just from recollection) requires the tithing of cummin and some Rabbis such as Eliezer also taught that dill was subject to the tithe but other Rabbis disagreed that dill needed to be tithed. No mention of 'mint' appears to be in the Talmud (?)

So, in uttering that qualifying remark, Jesus appears to have upheld the keeping of the Torah strictly (including elements of the tradition not explicit in the written word) but his point was that there are 'weightier matters' of the law that must come first, without 'neglecting' the other commandments.

Jesus also appeared to recognise the 'teaching authority' of the Rabbis (as sitting on Moses' chair with his authority as keepers of the tradition):




Its complicated, therefore, in other words and I've seen persuasive arguments both for/against. A holistic interpretation of all of the synoptic data would seem to suggest that he did believe in the teaching authority of the Rabbis and in an Oral Torah but may have regarded some traditions as 'spurious', whereas others were (in his assesment) genuine Mosaic oral tradition.

Vouthon said:

Where is this tithing of dill and cumin found in the pages of the written Torah? The Torah makes no explicit mention of tithing 'herbs', although one might deduce that from the mitzvot of the written Torah (i.e. 'all produce of the land').

The Mishnah (and the Jews among us can correct me if I'm wrong on this. as this is from recollection) requires the tithing of cummin and some Rabbis such as Eliezer also taught that dill was subject to the tithe but other Rabbis disagreed that dill needed to be tithed. No mention of 'mint' appears to be in the Talmud (?)

Click to expand...

One of the first results of googling cumin and mishna is:
Torah in the New Testament

But what I'm wondering is: what was mint even called during the time of the mishna? Because there are a number of species, both of plants and animals, that it's not 100% certain what they are in modern terminology.

Harel13 said:

One of the first results of googling cumin and mishna is:
Torah in the New Testament

But what I'm wondering is: what was mint even called during the time of the mishna? Because there are a number of species, both of plants and animals, that it's not 100% certain what they are in modern terminology.

Click to expand...

Good point, I honestly have no clue what terminology would have been used back then but its an interesting thing to consider.

I did my own search for dill and came up with this:

Niddah 51b

Harel13 said:

One of the first results of googling cumin and mishna is:
Torah in the New Testament

But what I'm wondering is: what was mint even called during the time of the mishna? Because there are a number of species, both of plants and animals, that it's not 100% certain what they are in modern terminology.

Click to expand...

Apparently, according to Maimonides, it was called "Dandena". Assuming of course one accepts his opinion on the identification. I did a quick search and found the plant mentioned a few times in the Mishna and the Talmud, but not in relation to tithing. I don't have enough understand of what plants are subject to tithing...