Hello, Rick,
Thank you for your response.
kaufmannphillips: I also hedge at lumping early Christians together with ancient Hebrew beliefs. Early Christianity developed out of late Second Temple Judaism, which is a different animal from both Israelite religion and the early Jewish religion of the post-exilic/pre-Hellenistic era.
Rick_C: Early Christianity had origins in Enochian and Essene Judaisms, imo. The scholars I've been reading see Christianity (read: "Jesus and the original Christians") as developing out of First Temple Judaism: from the traditions that the Enochians and Essenes upheld. Put another way, both the Enochians and the Essenes wanted to see the First Temple "restored" and looked forward to the Day it would happen. They believed themselves to be the "true priests", the "sons of light", "the elect of the new covenant", and so on: There are very many thematic "parallels" between the Intertestamental literature (Dead Sea Scrolls, Enochian literature, etc.) and the NT.
(aleph) "Second Temple Judaism" is conventional scholastic nomenclature for post-exilic/prerabbinic Judaism. Even if the Enochian and Essene traditions looked to a restoration of the temple cultus, they were participants in the Second Temple-era spectrum of Judaisms.
As for the correlation of these movements with First Temple Judaism - one may invoke the example of some "bible Christians" who imagine themselves to be part of "the New Testament church," when (despite their best intentions and deepest wishes) they are part-and-parcel of contemporary American Christianity; although they derive inspiration from the past model, many of these Christians' basic assumptions and patterns of thought are established by intervening influences, alien to the past tradition. Even those who seek to reclaim the past do not fully escape their present.
(beth) It would appear that earliest Christianity held the Second Temple in some regard. The disciples are described in Acts as frequenting its precincts and sanctioning its sacrificial cultus. Although early Christianity has conflict with some individuals holding religious authority, and probably would like to see the temple leadership embrace Jesus of Nazareth, it does not appear to make constitutional reform of the cultus a practical or theoretical priority.
(gymel) Although Christianity may have drawn from Enochian and Essene traditions, it would be easy to overestimate their influence; the character of each is notably distinct from early Christianity (at least, in its "orthodox" tradition). Furthermore, it should not be assumed that because early Christianity and a movement have a feature in common, that there is a direct relationship between the two; both may be drawing upon a common backlog of Jewish tradition.
(daleth) This is not to deny that "
[t]here are very many thematic "parallels" between the Intertestamental literature (Dead Sea Scrolls, Enochian literature, etc.) and the NT." The intertestamental literature is a rich resource for gaining a broader perspective on the background and context for early Christianity, and I heartily encourage its study.
But I also recommend a cautious engagement of its evidence: we have only remnants of the spectrum remaining to us - fragments that offer limited windows into ideas of the period. It can be challenging to gauge the extent to which the glimpses afforded by these apertures are indicative.
kaufmannphillips: So I would affirm the relevance of "two powers" traditions to exploring Christian origins, but I would distinguish them from ancient Hebrew beliefs (though they may be an outgrowth of earlier beliefs), and I would balk at interpreting Genesis through their lens.
Rick_C: I agree the consensus is: It is "insane" to think that anything other than the "monotheism" we are familiar with existed in the First Century. But there is evidence for a "monotheism" during the period that incorporated (embraced) the worship of two divinities.
This evidence poiints toward the possibility that: The ancient Hebrews believed in two divinities: El/Elyon and Yahweh. Of course, they believed in Baal and Molech at times also! and The Prophets railed against this! But in the Bible you never see any condemnation of the worship of El/Elyon (the Most High God)...the God of Melchizedek, from the old times of Abraham and the Patriarchs. Ne'er a word is said against El!
I will complain against speculating about ancient Hebrew beliefs on the basis of first-century phenomena. The two religions (ancient Israelite religion and late Second Temple Judaism) are far removed from each other. One might as well try to deduce what Martin Luther thought from the Pentecostal movement, or what Jesus thought from the writings of Augustine.
The later movement's holding a certain posture does not necessarily indicate that such a posture was inherited from earlier tradition. Speculation on ancient Israelite religion should be drawn from contemporaneous sources, insofar as possible.
"The Son of God Scroll" (among the Dead Sea Scrolls) almost seems to be quoted in Luke 1:32: "He shall be called...the Son of the Most High God." Here is a possible "two powers" motif: El (the Most High God) and Yahweh/Jesus (His Son).
Regrettably, the fragmentary nature of the scroll in question (4Q246) does not give us as much context as would be preferable. But we may recognize that the epithets it assigns to this figure -
viz., "son of God" and "son of the Most High" - are simple messianic titles, in light of the Hebrew bible (
q.v., 2 Samuel 7:12-16; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14; 28:4-8; Psalm 2:7). Such is the Davidic analogue to the divine sonship claimed by various Ancient Near Eastern/Mediterranean rulers. There is no need to see this as a "two powers" theology.
First, the popularly held notion that religions are essentially syncretistic, borrowing from one religion here, and again, from another religion there, doesn't undermine the inherent orthodoxy of any given religion of any certain time, imo. This kind of postmodern concept would have us all wonder if our beliefs are "only on loan" from someplace or someone else! And beside that: Postmodernism is DEAD! imnsho, haha. In some of the Early Fathers of the Church and scholars I've been reading lately; the theory is in the reverse. Namely, that it was the pagans who "borrowed" from the Hebrews: They got monotheism from the Jews! (as the theory goes).
(aleph) My concern here is not for "orthodoxy," but for historical perspective.
(beth) Attentiveness to syncretism is not postmodern in origin.
(gymel) The early church fathers can hardly be considered to hold an objective opinion on this matter, and the same could be said for certain scholars.
(daleth) Influence often flows both ways, but it is hardly tenable that Zoroastrianism or Hellenism derived the more florid aspects of their cosmogonies from the Jews. What we find in the Hebrew bible and other Jewish literature is that, prior to the exile, the subsidiary spiritual beings are anonymous and the inner politics of heaven are largely opaque. After the exile, there is greater elaboration of the subsidiaries' persons and of metaphysical matters (ranging from protocol to
(so to speak) space opera). Considering the vectors of Persian and Greek religion/philosophy, this does not suggest that the flow of influence in these departments favored the Jewish side of the equation.
And yes: In the Hellenistic period "Greek concepts" were incorpated into religious -- and even Jewish -- thought. But this doesn't make the Jews of the time less Jewish. Philo of Alexandria was an expert in Greek philosophy but remained orthodox, imo. The same with how John (in John 1:1,2) uses concepts readily known to his audience. The use of familiar and contemporaneous language doesn't indicate a sell out to another religion, agreed?
Here we step into sensitive territory. The usage of borrowed imagery and conceptualization may be, in its first intent and application, simply a device. But translation commonly shades into transmogrification, despite even the best intentions.
It would be overly optimistic to imagine the entire exercise as merely translating Jewish ideas into convenient language, without infusing concepts and methodology that are alien to Jewish precedent. What is more, such infusion often transpires because the interpreter is beholden to
both systems of thought - the prior tradition and the contemporary worldview - and wants to satisfy each.
Shlamaa,
Emmet
