Amlodhi

Hello Rick,

Based on the description in Toto's OP, it doesn't appear that the "Paul vs. orthodoxy" sidebar will fit in there very well either. Yet, I do feel I owe you a response so it might be best to create yet another topic heading. Perhaps others will join the discussion and add to our collective understanding.

IMO, your examples don't represent the body of orthodox temple Judaism in the 1st century a.d. But even as somewhat fringe, mystic and sectarian works, they still don't stray beyond the bounds of monotheism and, more to the point, certainly don't suggest that any "prince" will become a human sacrifice or advocate forsaking the Torah.

The reference to Enoch as the "lesser YHWH" comes from 3 Enoch which, like a number of other Merkabah texts, is attributed to Rabbi Ishmael. In this recension, there were 8 great honored princes (angels) who had the name YHWH as part of their title. Enoch's title of "lesser YHWH" is thought to have arose from various references to the angel of the Lord "in whom God's name resides". This is Jewish mysticism and 3 Enoch was likely not collated until c. 3rd - 5th century a.d.

Thus, even though this later and mystic oriented tract "remained within the bounds of monotheism and paid due respect to Torah", it still elicited the unease of mainstream orthodoxy.



In 11Q13 (or Melch), Melchizedek is not equated with God.

"And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgments of God."

". . . [God] spoke through Isaiah the prophet, who said 'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion; your elohim reigns" ; (and) its interpretation ; the mountains are the prophets. . . and the messenger is the annointed one of the spirit, concerning whom Daniel said, "Until an annointed one, a prince . . ."

Here then, in 11Q13, Melchizedek is described as the annointed prince that will come. This is well within the bounds of Jewish messianic thought and nowhere is Melchizedek equated with God himself.



It is thought (based on style and contrast with the other thanksgiving hymns) that the above represented text was written by a scribe after the T of R was dead. The scribe thus writes as though the T of R is speaking from his position among the holy council in heaven. I would be interested to see the original text to determine the original term that E. Eshel has translated as "angels", because there seems to be a mixing of terms here between "the holy ones" of heaven and "holy ones" on earth, i.e. the Qumran sect itself. Considering the phrase, "I am beloved of the King, a companion of the (heavenly) holy ones", it seems unlikely in the extreme that the author is insinuating elsewhere that no one in heaven can associate with or compare in judgment with this mortal who has been translated to heaven.

In any event, the author certainly isn't insinuating that the (now) heaven abiding T of R is in any way equal to God himself.

Also, as to the sectarian aspect of the Qumran community compared to orthodox temple worship in Jerusalem:

With which I can only agree.



IMO, the primary tenets of Torah and orthodoxy in 1st century Judaism are fairly well known. I will outline my reasons for thinking so in a subsequent post. As it is, enlarging upon (what I think to be) the somewhat sectarian and fringe examples above will make this post long enough as it is.



In my estimation that is not a very good argument since, by the same token, I can claim any number of interpolations in the alleged letters of Paul. Also, what cannot be discounted as easily is that someone had some reason to remark that Paul was doing so, and I can scarcely imagine Luke's motive.



But I have to disagree. Paul says here that the law has lordship over the man as long as he liveth. But then he immediately gives the example of a woman being bound by the law to her husband and says, "but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law . . ."

Then he says, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ that ye should be loosed to marry another . . ."

The gentiles don't need to be "loosed to marry another" because they were never married to Mosaic law in the first place.

Then Paul, vs. 6, says, "But now we are delivered from the law, that (Mosaic law) being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Note that Paul says "we". Paul is here explicitly saying that "we" should not serve in the (oldness of) the letter of Mosaic law."

By "the letter of" is Paul saying here that "we just don't have to be real nit-picky about that Mosaic law stuff"? "But we should still be burning animal sacrifices for remission of sin even though it's pointless now"? Personally, I can't imagine it.



But nevertheless, again, the idea developed from somewhere.


As ever, namaste'

Amlodhi