John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Vouthon]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1B_rOdUrTAq6FGL1bwUVb_

Interestingly, your translation by Knibb (which I think must have some relationship to the German one by Kautzsch that Schafer refers to above, as its following the same renderings) also renders 62:9 in a different way:

"62.9 And all the mighty kings, and the exalted, and those who rule the dry ground, will fall down before him, on their faces, and worship; and they will set their hopes on that Son of Man, and will entreat him, and will petition for mercy from him."

It leaves the verse slightly more 'ambiguous' as to whether the Son of Man is the object of the worship (I think, although they are described as falling down on their faces and 'worshipping' which still seems to refer to the Son of Man, as its him they are bowing down before).

The Son of Man is still the figure that the action is being performed 'before' in this verse (which helps us understand that the earlier verse is imputing the same kind of action).

 

[dybmh]

I'm thinking dybmh's translation must be based upon the German translation described by Schafer (himself German).

It would interest me to know how it translates that later verse I cited.

Have you read it in it's entirty? There is no ambiguity, prayer to an angel doesn't fit at all.

The book of Similtudes is a part of the Book fo Enoch. It's a compilation of 3 parables. The 2nd parable is about the Messiah and the end of days. It is chapter 45-57. It will take approx. 20 minute to read the whole thing. The parable describes whom is being worshipped, and it's not an angel.

 

[dybmh]

It leaves the verse slightly more 'ambiguous'

It's not ambigous if you read the entire Book of Similtudes. It will take about an hour to read the whole thing. Multiple times worship is detailed, example: "57:3 And all will fall down and worship the Lord of Spirits. And this is the end of the second parable. "

Anytime in the text where the worship is described it specifies The Lord of Hosts/Spirits. Check it out yourself.

Also of note, there are no extant Hebrew versions of this text, so, if it started in Hebrew, then whomever translated it into Ge'ez ( the laguage of the most complete version ) may very well have adjusted this parable / legend to fit their agenda.

 

[Vouthon]

Have you read it in it's entirty? There is no ambiguity, prayer to an angel doesn't fit at all.

The book of Similtudes is a part of the Book fo Enoch. It's a compilation of 3 parables. The 2nd parable is about the Messiah and the end of days. It is chapter 45-57. It will take approx. 20 minute to read the whole thing. The parable describes whom is being worshipped, and it's not an angel.

I have read the text in its entirety before and the scholarship I've consulted on it, typically understands the heavenly Son of Man to be pre-existent (i.e. his name is created by God before the constellations) and the object of worship i.e.

The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative

Most scholars interpret the text in this way, as indicated by the rendering in the English translations that I and Harel read.

The translator of your version adopts a different framework but in that verse above, the second verse, it still seems to be the Son of Man whom the kings are bowing down "before" (clearly before in this second verse even in your translation) and although it is somewhat more ambiguous, it looks to me that the scholarship is correct in understanding him as receiving worship.

 

[Vouthon]

Also of note, there are no extant Hebrew versions of this text, so, if it started in Hebrew, then whomever translated it into Ge'ez ( the laguage of the most complete version ) may very well have adjusted this parable / legend to fit their agenda

That's true but a Christian would not be seeking to portray some other entity associated with Enoch as his earthly counterpart or manifestation, as the Son of Man accorded divine honours.

For a variety of reasons, the consensus among scholars of the text is that these are not later scribal adjustments to the text, as the text itself states later that "you [Enoch] are" somehow that Son of Man, in a manner that is still debated but the identification of the two is made in that paragraph.

This, obviously, was not something that sits with Christian theology and its Jesus exclusivism.

We see this same Enoch-angelic relationship (in the context of a deified Lesser YHWH figure) reflected in the later Hebrew Jewish Hekhalot literature as well, so it was a Jewish trope in antiquity (not a Christian one).

 

[dybmh]

That's true but a Christian would not be seeking to portray some other entity associated with Enoch as his earthly counterpart or manifestation, as the Son of Man accorded divine honours.

For a variety of reasons, the consensus among scholars of the text is that these are not later scribal adjustments to the text, as the text itself states later that "you [Enoch] are" somehow that Son of Man, in a manner that is still debated but the identification of the two is made in that paragraph.

This, obviously, was not something that sits with Christian theology.

We see this same Enoch-angelic relationship (in the context of a deified Lesser YHWH figure) reflected in the later Jewish Hekhalot literature as well, so it was a Jewish trope in antiquity (not a Christian one).

The focus is Jesus as the gate. is that kosher? We can agree that enoch is the son of man, we can agree that the son of man is Moshiach, but what where we disagree is whom is being worshiped in this parable about the end of days.

I have read the text in its entirety before and the scholarship I've consulted on it, typically understands the heavenly Son of Man to be pre-existent (i.e. his name is created by God before the constellations) and the object of worship i.e.

I'm not disputing pre-existance, I'm disputing the focus of worship.

Most scholars interpret the text in this way, as indicated by the rendering in the English translations that I and Harel read.

The translator of your version adopts a different framework but in that verse above, the second verse, it still seems to be the Son of Man whom the kings are bowing down "before" (clearly before in this second verse even in your translation) and although it is somewhat more ambiguous, it looks to me that the scholarship is correct in understanding him as receiving worship.

At this point, I need to read a translation that you deem appropriate. I expect that the translations you and I are using are not that far off, and that the translation you are using will also reference The Lord of Hosts as the object of worship far more often and in a far clearer way than any worship of an angel.

 

[dybmh]

The focus is Jesus as the gate. is that kosher?

@Vouthon, previously you had commented about this ^^

The word used in John 14:6 is hodos - which means "way, path". No gate is mentioned in this verse.

In John 14:6, the words to focus on are: "οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ" "No one comes to the Father if not by me." This is the description of a gate which is before God. The specific word "Gate" is earlier in the story about the sheep. John 10:7, θύρα, a door, portal. Jesus says, "... Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep."

 

[Vouthon]

The focus is Jesus as the gate. is that kosher? We can agree that enoch is the son of man, we can agree that the son of man is Moshiach, but what where we disagree is whom is being worshiped in this parable about the end of days.

Jesus has no nothing to do with 1 Enoch. Its about Enoch and this heavenly angelic, messianic Son of Man that he somehow is/becomes/is mysteriously associated with. The question we were discussing is whether this Son of Man (who has nothing to do with Jesus) is the recipient of worship in the text. Most scholars think that he is.

I'm not disputing that.

That confuses me, I must admit, since until now you seemed to be disputing the idea that the heavenly Son of Man is worshipped in the text?

At this point, I need to read a translation that you deem appropriate. I expect that the translations you and I are using are not that far off, and that the translation you are using will also reference The Lord of Hosts as the object of worship far more often and in a far clearer way than any worship of an angel.

Whilst that may be the case, the text still does seem to 'place' the Son of Man in God's position (by God's exaltation of Him) as a pre-existent figure of worship by the assembled kings.

That's all I, and the scholars I've been citing such as Schafer, are saying.

 

[Vouthon]

In John 14:6, the words to focus on are: "οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ" "No one comes to the Father if not by me." This is the description of a gate which is before God. The specific word "Gate" is earlier in the verse, the story about the sheep. John 10:7, θύρα, a door, portal.

I noted this earlier on (before your post) in an edit, realizing that you were associating this verse with the 'gate' verse:

If you are referring to John 10:7 where Jesus figuratively refers to himself as the "gate for the sheep", the sheep are his disciples - so all he is intimating here is that he is the 'pathway' for his disciples to ascend to the merkabah (divine throne). That particular verse doesn't exclude that other entities - angels or exalted humans - might also be so (albeit in a lesser way) for other people.​

The 'way' in this verse also must be read in conjunction with Jesus's description of himself as Jacob's ladder in (John 1:51): by saying he is the 'way', he is describing himself as the ladder connecting earth (with the angels ascending and descending) to the 'palaces' where the divine throne and 'many rooms of the Father' are.

Note that the angels ascending and descending are also acting as lesser 'intermediaries' (messengers) of God but Jesus according to the Johannine author describes himself 'as' the ladder that these angels go up and down on.

 

[Vouthon]

I'm not disputing pre-existance, I'm disputing the focus of worship.

Thank you for the clarification! I get what you're saying here now - you accept the pre-existence of the heavenly Messianic figure as depicted in the text but not the worship element. Gotcha.

I think your interpretation of Enoch is possible and defensible but it isn't the one preferred by most experts in the field - and I would tend to trust their judgment on this given that they have devoted such attention in their academic careers to translating and explicating the text.

Regardless, though, of this 'worship' point - we should both be able to agree with the scholars that: "the Son of Man [in Enoch] is enthroned as the eschatological judge on the “throne of his glory.” Both the enthronement on the throne of glory and carrying out of the judgment are attributes that are otherwise reserved for God alone. He was at first hidden by God and is not revealed until he assumes his function as judge, not only of the chosen ones, but of all humanity...There can be no doubt: what we have here before us borders on a theophany, the appearance and revelation of God."

This bears similarity to the theology reflected in the Hebrew Qumran texts regarding Melchizedek (11q13) and the Self-Glorification Hymn. A similar theology is at at play here in all three texts. The figures are different (one group of Jews understood the human Melchizedek as having been elevated to this divine eschatological honour, one thought the human SGH figure had been so elevated, another judged that the human Enoch had actually been elevated in this way etc.) but the overriding theological framework and presuppositions are basically the same.

My central argument throughout this thread has been that the ideas evident in such Second Temple Jewish texts are the original interpretative paradigm through which we should contextualize and understand the christology of the Gospel of John and other New Testament texts, which emerged from the same background and employed many of the same - or substantially similar - concepts. In saying this, I have the support of many scholars of late antquity (for instance Schafer and Collins), also including Dead Sea Scroll scholars such as Martinez, Fletcher-Louis and Charlesworth.

 

[dybmh]

Thank you for the clarification! I get what you're saying here now - you accept the pre-existence of the heavenly Messianic figure as depicted in the text but not the worship element. Gotcha.

I think your interpretation of Enoch is possible and defensible but it isn't the one preferred by most experts in the field - and I would tend to trust their judgment on this given that they have devoted such attention in their academic careers to translating and explicating the text.

Please, lets pick a translation a look at it together.

Regardless, though, of this 'worship' point - we should both be able to agree with the scholars that: "the Son of Man [in Enoch] is enthroned as the eschatological judge on the “throne of his glory.” Both the enthronement on the throne of glory and carrying out of the judgment are attributes that are otherwise reserved for God alone. He was at first hidden by God and is not revealed until he assumes his function as judge, not only of the chosen ones, but of all humanity...There can be no doubt: what we have here before us borders on a theophany, the appearance and revelation of God."

This bears similarity to the theology reflected in the Hebrew Qumran texts regarding Melchizedek (11q13) and the Self-Glorification Hymn. A similar theology is at at play here in all three texts. The figures are different (one group of Jews understood the human Melchizedek as having been elevated this divine eschatological honour, one thought the human SGH figure had been so elevated, another judged that the human Enoch had actually been elevated in this way etc.) but the overriding theological framework and presuppositions are basically the same.

I'm not ready to switch to Melchezedek and Qurman until we have addressed the issue with the Book of Enoch. This is why:

On reading the Book of Similtudes, if my translation is correct, the scholars you are referencing are ( forgive me ) cherry picking the most obscure references to the word "worship" to use in their conclusion. Had they looked at the entire text, worship and blessing and prostration is described in detail several times, if I recall. It makes sense to leave the worship unqualified in those cases ( that the scholars are citing ) because it had been defined clearly earlier. Please note: this is a feature of a prophecy. It needs to be specific. Without specifics, it's not divine, ( basically ).

In my opinion, the text is specific, and it is clear, and it could be a good source for us *if* we look at the entire book ( it's not that long ). But we do need to agree on a translation to use.

If I'm right, and the scholars that you are citing and trust are cherry picking, intentionally or not, I think that is important to have some clarity on this. Especially if they are the same scholars that are going to be referenced and trusted while discussing the Melchezedek and Qurman connections. If at the end of this I have misread or misjudged or somehow allowed my own bias to influence my reading of the text, I will certainly admit it and concede the point.

---------------------------------------------------

My central argument throughout this thread has been that the ideas evident in such Second Temple Jewish texts are the original interpretative paradigm through which we should contextualize and understand the christology of the Gospel of John and other New Testament texts, which emerged from the same background and employed many of the same - or substantially similar - concepts. In saying this, I have the support of many scholars of late antquity (for instance Schafer and Collins), also including Dead Sea Scroll scholars such as Martinez, Fletcher-Louis and Charlesworth.

Yes, I have been hearing you. I had started collecting my thoughts on this based on the comment below, but, I got side tracked by the notion that an angel was being worshiped...

For one, I remain unconvinced that it is the only text from the Second Temple era where an agent is being touted as the unique manifestation of the divine presence - in a manner utterly incomparable to any other, such that the 'others' effectively go through this divine being's agency, because the agent in question is uniquely associated with God.

Agreed. But not an agent. The best match for this is found in the Zohar and Tikkunei Zohar, coming from the same region, Galilee, where Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai and his companions traveled the region speaking about the divine presence. Yes, it's much later ( 700 years, i think ), but these are old ideas. It's a much closer match than the Enoch-Angel-Hekachalot legends. Examples:
Book of John, Jesus is the word.
Tanya, Rabbi Scheur Zahlman of Liadi, Chapter 52, God's "word" is termed "Shechina".
Jacobs Ladder... that's the Shechina in the Zohar... ( if I recall ).
The angel we've been focusing on is in some legends depicted/described as the Shechina....

The problem is... in those stories, in the Shechina narrative, the divine presence is the Bride, Matronit, unquestionably female. That's why I think scholars focus on the obscure Son-Of-Man narrative and skip the Shechina narrative. They need the divine presence to masculine for Jesus to be a match. Not to mention all the other issues if the Zohar and it's foundational principles are introduced as a source and supporting evidence. Many of those would disqualify Jesus.

So either the scholars you are using aren't familiar with the Shechina narrative and its connection to Galilee and that's why they aren't bringing it up. Or they are familiar with it and they chose to omit that narrative because it discredits Jesus in other ways.

So.

If the the Book of John is not an all out fabrication ( forgive me ), then it is much more plausible that the imagery is borrowed from the Shechina narrative of that region at that time rather than the obscure Son-Of-Man/Enoch narrative. If you're looking for texts look for descriptions of the Shechina. Jewish people are aware of the Shechina narrative, it's part of the Temple mythos. If Jesus borrowed imagery and concepts from it, it would likely resonate with people who were interested in salvation. Salvation. That's important. It's a contextual match, unlike going the Enoch/Son-of-man route which presumes the use of mystical process that would be rendered inert if Jesus is the *only* way.

Further, there is a connection between Shechina narrative and the Enoch/Son-of-Man narrative. This means that your sources aren't 100% wrong in following clues with lead them to Merkabah Mystics and the vision described in The Book of Enoch. It's Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Akiva is the one in the Talmud who is reputed as being the only one to make a Merkabah and return unscathed. Making the Merkabah is where the Son-Of-Man/Enoch narrative comes from. Rabbi Akiva was the teacher of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the author of the Zohar. The Zohar is where the Shechina narrative is best described.

Rabbi Akiva was alive and teaching during Jesus' time and all of this is centered in Galilee. Rabbi Akiva's tomb is in Galilee.

If Jesus was influenced by the Jewish mysticism of the time and region, he would have had access to both narratives ( the Enoch/Son-Of-Man and the Shechina. ) coming from the same source of Mystism. That would explain elements of the Merkabah process ( Jacob's Ladder and the gates ) being claimed by Jesus as himself in addition to taking elements from the Shechina narrative ( Jesus is the word and the divine presence on earth ) and claiming those as himself, as well as the claims that he is in fact the Primodrdial being, The PassOver Angel which also has connections to the Enoch/Son-Of-Man narrative.

The result is a blend, a multi-purpose Messiah. Something which borrows from diverse folk legend, but ultimately goes too far when claiming to be "the only way".

---------------------------------------------------

After all of these words, ^^ do you think that the MalchiZedek narrative will have sufficient Jewish roots and demonstrate an example of Jewish people praying to MalchiZedek and/or in his name? If so, l propose we look at it together after coming to some agreement on what is said in the Book of Similitudes. Otherwise, I restate my request to look at a translation of the Book of Similtudes to see if I'm correct that authors previous descriptions of worship remove the ambiguity from the vision described in therein ( specifically Chapter 48).

 

[dybmh]

in the Shechina narrative, the divine presence is the Bride, Matronit, unquestionably female.

@Vouthon , I just now realized that Matronit sounds like the feminine version of the Angel we have been discussing... It's Aramaic, i don't know the grammar rules... but it's another fun link for you to chew on.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The focus is Jesus as the gate. is that kosher?

I'm still working on that reply, but I have in late years come to the point of view that in Jesus parable of the narrow gate (In Matthew not necessarily John) that he is speaking about humility rather than himself as the gate. I'm not sure if that is the intent in the disputed passage in John and will be treating that separately, but it may be relevant to the question. It could be that in both passages the gate is (understood to be) humility.

 

[Harel13]

Matronit

Matronit/matronita means madame and though it appears several times in the Talmud, is actually Latin in origin (matrona) and is similar to the English matron.

 

[Vouthon]

If you're looking for texts look for descriptions of the Shechina. Jewish people are aware of the Shechina narrative, it's part of the Temple mythos. If Jesus borrowed imagery and concepts from it, it would likely resonate with people who were interested in salvation

I would be happy to work through the text with you in dialogue (on my side) with the scholarship. That could take some time though, so it might be best to leave that particular activity to the weekend (as I will need to scrutinize both the text and the scholarly commentaries on it in a more methodical manner, as opposed to the more ad hoc referencing from their works I've been giving in this thread, and then consult with you to see where we diverge).

Firstly, I do not think the scholars in question have exhibited partisan bias (or cherry-picking) and whilst some of them have written on both the Qumranic and Enochic material, others have confined themselves to one or the other. When I'm referring to the scholarship, what I am in fact speaking about are broad points of consensus amongst scholars who might otherwise disagree regarding other details.

Also, some of the scholars writing on this literature (such as Alan Segal, Boyarin, Knohl and a few others) are actually Jewish. Others are secular and others again are Christian. I don't detect any partisan agenda here. Their academic work is their academic work and they are all peer-reviewing one another.

Where qualified experts in a given field of research do reach a consensus on certain points, I think we are bound to consider carefully why that might be (and in good faith, I might add as well). Also, these scholars have not simply read translations like us - rather, they have studied the original texts and compared renderings with other qualified experts in peer-reviewed journals. So, I do think that their multi-translation and exegetical readings will find or interpret elements of the text that we may perhaps miss, if simply reading on our own account.

With that proviso out of the way, I am very interested in learning more about your narrative here regarding the shekhinah and its association with 'salvation'. The divine agency tradition, in both the Melchizedek tract from Qumran and in the Similitudes, also has to do with redemption.

We do need to be mindful here that the Qumran and Enochic material should be understood in its own Second Temple 'context' - and that this intellectual background may not be identical to prior or later Jewish understanding (as, for instance, in the Rabbinic era or in the Targums). At this time, scholars have discerned 'divine agency' - in which one elevated figure becomes the unique vehicle of the divine presence and is described as an 'elohim' or 'lesser YHWH' assuming the roles normally accorded to God alone, in an eschatological and/or messianic context - as a particularly important strain of thought in these particular Second Temple texts.

Further, there is a connection between Shechina narrative and the Enoch/Son-of-Man narrative. This means that your sources aren't 100% wrong in following clues with lead them to Merkabah Mystics and the vision described in The Book of Enoch. It's Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Akiva is the one in the Talmud who is reputed as being the only one to make a Merkabah and return unscathed. Making the Merkabah is where the Son-Of-Man/Enoch narrative comes from. Rabbi Akiva was the teacher of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the author of the Zohar. The Zohar is where the Shechina narrative is best described.

I would agree with you that Rabbi Akiva is particularly important in this equation as a 'link' in the chain from the earlier Second Temple theology reflected in the texts I've been citing and the later Hekhalot literature of the Merkabah mystics. The scholarship I've read frequently cites two Talmudic traditions concerning Rabbi Akiva, preserved in the Bavli which help to shed light on this "two powers in heaven / binitarian" idea amongst the very early Merkabahists.

The Zohar is a much later written text, however, from a time long after the the Second Temple - so I would regard it as having far less utility/applicability to the discussion compared with the Targums, the Hekhalot and the Talmud. I don't discount it (it obviously preserves earlier mystical tradition) but we do have to factor in that time difference.

On these Babylonian Talmud narratives concerning Akiva, we could firstly consider Hagigah 14a in the Bavli in which the Rabbis discuss the proper exegesis of Daniel 7:9:

One verse says: His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool (Dan. 7:9), and (elsewhere) it is written: His locks are curled and black as a raven! (Cant. 5:11)—There is no contradiction: one (verse refers to) (the court) in session, and the other (verse refers to) war. For the Master said: In (court) session none is more fitting than an old man, and in war none is more fitting than a young man.

One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9); and another passage says: [I watched] until thrones were set in place, and an Ancient of Days (‘atiq yomin) took his seat! (Dan 7:9)—There is no contradiction: one (throne) for him [the Ancient of Days], and one (throne) for David: For it has been taught (in a baraita): one was for him, and the other was for David—these are the words of Rabbi Aqiva.

Said Rabbi Yose the Galilean to him: Aqiva, how long will you treat the Shekhinah as profane! Rather, one (throne) was for justice (din) and one (throne) was for mercy (tzedaqah)

Said Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah to him: Aqiva, what have you to do with the Haggadah? Cease your talk (about the Haggadah), and turn to (the laws concerning) Nega‘im and Ohalot!​

And likewise in Hagiga 15a, the story of the four sages including Akiva and Aher entering pardes for a vision of the Merkabah:

Aher chopped down the shoots’: Of him the verse says, “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). What does this mean? He saw that Metatron had been given permission [תושר] to sit and write the good deeds of Israel. He said, but it is taught that on high there will be no sitting, no conflict, no “back,” and no tiredness! Perhaps, G-d forbid, there are two powers [יתשתויושר]!​

Boyarin (himself a Talmudic scholar) discusses both of these narrations at length in one of the three lectures I linked to at the beginning of this thread. Schafer also gives them great attention, as did Alan Segal in his Two Powers study from the 1970s.

In the first story, Rabbi Akiva interprets the 'ancient of days' and the 'one like a son of man' in the Book of Daniel as two distinct heavenly powers just like the author of 1 Enoch, with the "son of man" being a messianic manifestation of God and an exalted figure ('David', that is the Davidic Messiah).

Akiva is then immediately corrected by Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eleazar who upbraid him for what they deem to be erroneous exegesis of the passage involving the 'thrones' in Daniel's heavenly vision, explaining that two divine powers are not implied by the passage (in their exegesis).

In the second story, the Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah is one of four sages - along with Rabbi Akiva - to have an ecstatic, mystical vision of the divine 'merkabah' or throne which he comes back from a 'heretic': namely, he comes to the conclusion that the angel Metatron is one of 'two powers' in heaven alongside the God of Israel (i.e. his heavenly agent and the manifestation of His Divine Presence). Again, he is condemned for lapsing into this binatarian heresy but unlike Rabbi Akiva, ben Abuyah remains in heresy.

We can see this same idea reiterated in the later merkabah literature, such as in the Book of 3 Enoch where the same story of 'Aher's' vision of "two divine powers" is given lengthier treatment:

Rabbi Ishmael said to me: The angel Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence (shekhinah), the glory of highest heaven, said to me:

At first I was sitting on a great throne at the door of the seventh palace, and I judged all the denizens of the heights, the familia of the Omnipresent, on the authority of the Holy One, blessed be he...

But when Aher came to behold the vision of the Merkabah and set eyes on me, he was afraid and trembled before me...

Then he opened his mouth and said: “There are indeed two powers in heaven!”​

 

[Vouthon]

Now, linking this to the New Testament material:

We don't know for certain what the historical Jesus taught about himself.

What scholars can say with confidence, however, is that soon after his death - in the 30s CE, in the circles of the people who had originally known him - the belief emerged that he was this "lesser YHWH" and that he had personally been pre-existent with God before creation as his agent of creation and revelation (in this, they associated him with the Wisdom &M referred to as God's creative agent in the sapiential literature, such as Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon).

The baptismal creed cited by Paul in 1 Corinthias 8:6 ("yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist") and the christophanic hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 ("who, though he [Jesus] was in the form of God, who did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness") are 'quoted' by Paul as pre-existent traditions that were already known to his audience in the 50s CE (i.e. they needed no elaboration, their truth claims are just presipposed), so scholars such as Hurtado, Ehrman, Bauckham, Fletcher-Louis and Boyarin are convinced that this belief in Jesus's exaltation/glorification to the heavenly realm and corresponding pre-existent divinity, had been taught by the early church soon after Jesus's death.

Why this belief about his status emerged in the circles of those who had actually known him - and taught Paul - is disputed. Hurtado thinks it stemmed from post-resurrection 'mystical experiences' like that attributed to the deacon Stephen in Acts 7:55-56 ("But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”)

There is a binitarian formula to all of these early 'visions' and we know from Rabbinic literature in the Talmud that other Jews of this period - including a Rabbi of note, Elisha ben Abuyah (born in Jerusalem sometime before 70 CE) - also had visions of the divine merkabah (throne) in which they reportedly claimed to see 'two divine figures' (the God of Israel and his 'agent', in ben Abuyah's case 'Metatron', the lesser YHWH seated beside him on a throne) and thus fell into a form of Judaism that other Rabbis regarded as "heretical".

It seems that Elisha ben Abuyah's 'merkabah mysticism' ultimately led him to join one of these binitarian Jewish strains in Second Temple Judaism - specifically the Enochic-Metatron tradition (for Metatron is the focus of the vision in this case) that may bear some relation to the group that produced the Similtudes of Enoch and some of the early Hekhalot literature, such as the Sefer Hekhalot we were discussing earlier on.

This same binitarian theology is attested in a number of the Dead Sea Scroll texts from Qumran dating from the first century BCE, such as the Melchizedek scroll (11q13) and the Self-Glorification Hymn. These were earlier Jewish sectarians unrelated to the strain/sect that produced the Enochic-Metatron texts. So there seems to have been quite a few of them across a wide geographical spread, with early Christianity being yet another of these 'sects' to have emerged in the Second Temple era (albeit, ultimately, by far the most successful and enduring in the long-term).

 

[dybmh]

I'm still working on that reply, but I have in late years come to the point of view that in Jesus parable of the narrow gate (In Matthew not necessarily John) that he is speaking about humility rather than himself as the gate. I'm not sure if that is the intent in the disputed passage in John and will be treating that separately, but it may be relevant to the question. It could be that in both passages the gate is (understood to be) humility.

John 10:7-9... NIV

"Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.

Here's an interlinear of the KJV. The wording about jesus as the door/gate is repeated. This repetition indicates emphasis of an important Theme. The theme to me is put into sharp focus later in John 14:6, as I have previously postulated.

That said: I am indeed focused ( perhaps too closely ) on a just a few words in The Book of John. I honestly don't know the book at all. So I'll go ahead and read it ( *blush*, I don't even know how long it is... ) But I'll read it. I'll look for elements of humility in the story about the Sheep. But I'll also be looking for coinsistent imagery and themes indicating that salvation is a simple one step process which is only available thru Jesus. That's the idea of a gate. All ya gotta to do, is walk thru. Simple, one step, then you're on the other side... in the pasture of G-d. This is the part that seems most obviously incompatible with Judaism and if this idea is consistently threaded thru the Book of John.... it's check-mate on this debate

 

[Vouthon]

@dybmh This study is also worth reading for John specifically:

"’Mysticism in the Gospel of John : an inquiry into the background of John in Jewish mysticism"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2leTLgd4L0MSjD-XMWqzZ6

It's from the 1990s but still useful.

 

[dybmh]

I would be happy to work through the text with you in dialogue (on my side) with the scholarship. That could take some time though, so it might be best to leave that particular activity to the weekend (as I will need to scrutinize both the text and the scholarly commentaries on it in a more methodical manner, as opposed to the more ad hoc referencing from their works I've been giving in this thread, and then consult with you to see where we diverge).

Why are you opposed to looking at a translation together? Why do you need commentary to address whether or not the worhip, blessing, and prostration is well defined earlier in the text? It's literally reading comprehension. All we need to get started is a translation to work from.

Honestly it sounds like you came to this debate with commentary as evidence but you don't have a full translation that you trust.

Firstly, I do not think the scholars in question have exhibited partisan bias (or cherry-picking) and whilst some of them have written on both the Qumranic and Enochic material, others have confined themselves to one or the other. When I'm referring to the scholarship, what I am in fact speaking about are broad points of consensus amongst scholars who might otherwise disagree regarding other details.

The proof is in the pudding. I'm claiming it will be easy to see that worship is not directed at an angel in the Book of Enoch, which is your source. If I'm right, and the worship and prostration *is* defined in close proximity to the verses in question, then, something went wrong with the scholars cognitive assessment of what is happening in the vision in the text. Whether it's cherry picking, or confirmation bias, IDK. This happens though, often recently. Someone with academic credentials publishes a biased opinion. We as readers are the ones who are best suited to identify this bias. The scholars themselves in these cases seem to be too emotionally invested or something and it compromised their objectivity. And, please remember, I am not immune to this as well. Looking at the text together will flush out if there's bias and whether or not it's my own cognitive fault.

Why this belief about his status emerged in the circles of those who had actually known him - and taught Paul - is disputed. Hurtado thinks it stemmed from post-resurrection 'mystical experiences' like that attributed to the deacon Stephen in Acts 7:55-56 ("But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”)

relevance?

There is a binitarian formula to all of these early 'visions' and we know from Rabbinic literature in the Talmud that other Jews of this period - including a Rabbi of note, Elisha ben Abuyah (born in Jerusalem sometime before 70 CE) - also had visions of the divine merkabah (throne) in which they reportedly claimed to see 'two divine figures' (the God of Israel and his 'agent', in ben Abuyah's case 'Metatron', the lesser YHWH seated beside him on a throne) and thus fell into a form of Judaism that other Rabbis regarded as "heretical".

A couple things here. The throne is the Kissei HaKavod, the Merkabah is a Chariot. Also, the scholars you are citing are advocating for this bintarian point of view, that is their bias. They want to make a discovery, and their skepticism is not engaged when looking at the vague references of "worship" in a parable that doesn't exist in Hebrew. Not to mention that each time worship is mentioned, except for 2 ( I think ) the worship is directed to God. In those two instances, the worship is unqualified, definitely not directed to and/or thru an Angel. Also, in the text it describes the two thrones that you've previously used as a source, the thrones are side by side. That's not a gate. the only intercession that is described is that the prayers are gathered and lifted by the Angel. But these prayers and psalms are not addressed to the angel. The prayer is still addressed to God. It says so in the text. Finally, it doesn't matter at all whether or not the scholars are Jewish. What matters is their knowledge base. Boyarin's credentials are primarily in womens, gender, and LGBT studies. His only academic attainment in Talmudic studies is from Berkley, a liberal college where fringe scholarship would not be unexpected.

Let's just look at the text together, if I'm wrong it will be obvious....

It seems that Elisha ben Abuyah's 'merkabah mysticism' ultimately led him to join one of these binitarian Jewish strains in Second Temple Judaism - specifically the Enochic-Metatron tradition (for Metatron is the focus of the vision in this case) that may bear some relation to the group that produced the Similtudes of Enoch and some of the early Hekhalot literature, such as the Sefer Hekhalot we were discussing earlier on.

No. So far there has not been evidence in this thread to support that conclusion. Jewish strains of that kind are Idol Worship. No different than any of the other non-kosher practices that are documented in the later chapters of Tanach.

Sefer Hekahalot describes a process of many steps. That is the opposite of salvation as described by Jesus in The Book of John. The process of making a Merkabah is completely out of context for comparison in the Book of John.

This same binitarian theology is attested in a number of the Dead Sea Scroll texts from Qumran dating from the first century BCE, such as the Melchizedek scroll (11q13) and the Self-Glorification Hymn. These were earlier Jewish sectarians unrelated to the strain/sect that produced the Enochic-Metatron texts. So there seems to have been quite a few of them across a wide geographical spread, with early Christianity being yet another of these 'sects' to have emerged in the Second Temple era (albeit, ultimately, by far the most successful and enduring in the long-term).

I am not moving on to another source unless we can come to some agreement about how to handle the previous source you brought. When/If we discuss the Self Glorification hymn, I'm going to be asking for the same things. I need a translation that you deem correct, and then we can look at the words together to see if it actually has evidence of a Jewish practice that involves worshiping to and thru an Angel as the single *only* source of salvation.

 

[Vouthon]

Why are you opposed to looking at a translation together? Why do you need commentary to address whether or not the worhip, blessing, and prostration is well defined earlier in the text? It's literally reading comprehension. All we need to get started is a translation to work from.

Its not that I don't trust any given translation but I don't think that a single translation may capture all the nuances of the text - and I also think the scholarship is important in contextualizing the text and in drawing parallels from other contemporaneous literature and/or linguistic usage that may shed further light upon it.