by Margaret Barker ... Has anyone here (@ JWD) read it? I have it on order from amazon.com -- (link) -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664253954/qid=1079173431/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9850443-5827053?v=glance&s=books
Book: The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God
by ikthuce4u 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
peacefulpete
I have not read it, but should. I have three on the shelf that are yet to be opened. R.Price reviews the book favorably. What stirs my interest is this quote from Price about her thesis on the origin of Gnosticism bearing upon Christian origins:
"In thus providing a surprising Israelite (not just Jewish) pedigree for Gnosticism, Barker means to make superfluous the theories of Reitzenstein and others which trace Gnosticism back to Hellenistic and Iranian sources. Similarly, she seeks to stultify the widespread position that New Testament Christology and, later, the doctrine of the Trinity were derived from Hellenistic speculation or the Mystery Religions. Her conclusion is that when early Christian theologians quoted the Old Testament theophanies as Christophanies, they were not merely proof-texting the Old Testament in the service of an alien Christ-concept, but that they meant to say that in their belief the exalted Jesus had become identified with Yahweh the Son of Elyon, that he was the lesser and second God who had been manifest as such in the Old Testament theophanies. "
-
Double Edge
Interesting post.... thanks.
-
Leolaia
This is not exactly a new idea. John Day in GOD'S CONFLICT WITH THE DRAGON AND THE SEA: ECHOES OF A CANAANITE MYTH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT quite ably shows how the personage of the archangel Michael and the "one like a son of man" in Daniel (which is transparently an angelic description) both derive from that of Baal the Cloud-Rider, the adopted son of Elyon (who appears in the same merkebah vision as the Ancient of Days). Day, for instance, shows how Michael was still viewed as the bringer of rain and snow even in late rabbinical times. The best explanation I have seen of the evidence (drawing on Day and Smith), is that the total merger between Yahweh and El that occurred under post-exilic monotheism, and the demotion of all other lesser deities as angels and demons, did not obliterate the traditional distinction between the creator-deity and the favorite "patron god" son who rules as king, but rather the Baal-type role gained new life in the Persian and Hellenistic periods as a Messianic motif.
It seems Barker is too dismissive of the mystery cult explanation. Being very syncretic, such cults would surely draw on the older traditional concept of Yahweh as a son of Elyon (as found in Deuteronomy), or of Baal as a son of Elyon/Kronos as found in Phoenician mythology. I don't think it can be explained by just one factor.
-
Leolaia
And I just found this gem on rabbinal Messianic eschatology. According to Rabbi Eliezer, on Judgement Day in answer to the protests of the "princes" of the seventy-two nations, God will say, "Let each nation go through the fire together with its guardian deity," when Israel alone will be saved (Cant. R. ii. 1). This idea perfectly fits what I discussed yesterday in another thread, that the gods worshipped by the nations as their national guardian deities were believed to be real demonic beings, and they share in their worshippers' judgment.
-
Leolaia
Here is another thought-provoking text I found on the mythology behind El and his "first-born son". The myth presented below is Phoenician in origin:
"Kronos then, whom the Phoenicians call Elus (e.g. El), who was king of the country and subsequently after his decease, was deified as the star Saturn, had by a nymph of the country named Anobret an only-begotten son (monogene), whom they on this account call Ieoud, the only begotten being still so called among the Phoenicians. When the very great dangers from war had beset the country, he arrayed his son in royal apparel, and prepared an altar, and sacrified him" (Philo of Byblos, PE, 1.10.45).
The story is reminiscent of that of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis, and also closely resembles the story from the Elisha Cycle in 2 Kings 3:24-27 in which the king of Moab, during a time of war and seeing himself surrounded, "he took his eldest son who was to succeed him and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall". (BTW, it kinda reminds me of Denethor too). The son that is sacrificed is not Baal (who was a son of Dagan later adopted by El as his son) but someone whose name is variously spelled Ieoud, Iedod, and Idoud in the manuscripts. The difference in spelling seems to reflect a difference in etymology between West Semitic ychyd "only" and ydyd "beloved". The latter might reflect the title that El bestows on the divine king he adopts as his son, "Beloved of El" (mdd 'l), in Ugaritic, and is of similar form as Jedidah (ydydh) in 2 Kings 22:1. Anyway, this is an interesting text because El gives up his only-begotten son as a sacrifice, and the son is dressed in "royal apparel" before the sacrifice.
-
ikthuce4u
Thank you all for replying. (*quick-note* to Leolaia -- I was "referred" here (to JWD) by someone from Beliefnet.com who mentioned one of the topics you had been posting on; they gave me a link, and so forth). At any rate, I'll just say that I enjoy "historical-critical" biblical and/or theological studies ... and have been lurking around JWD to see what I can find = several very interesting threads! I apologize for not knowing "how to post" here @ JWD (and will do my best with whatever HTML stuff, and so forth, I can figure out). I don't know how to make paragraphs here, btw. On-Topic now: not having read this particular book yet; I've read several reviews of Margaret Barker's books and have located some of her (online) articles. To try to provide more of a "context" for the thread, I'll post: Ioudaios-Review of 'The Great Angel'. Here, the book's general ideas are laid out with what seems to be Barker's general "gist" (or aim); to reconstruct (for lack of vocab.) a NT Era "Judaism" that has special relevence to Christian origins. When I say "a" Judaism, what I mean is one of the several kinds of systems of Jewish belief of the Intertestamental/NT Period. I've heard some refer to a "binitarian Judaism" which could be contrasted with "monotheistic Judaism" of the era. The Sadducees, we could say, were monotheists very much in the same sense as what later became Orthodox Judaism ... although there was a period of evolution as Leolaia points out. To theorize, I'll list (1) Monotheistic Judaism of the period with "God in his heaven" and operating or manifesting himself via the priesthood (Sadducean) and; (2) Binitarian Judaism, "God in his heaven" but also ... he may appear himself as an "angel or spirit" or shall we say "in human form(?)". The Essenes, Pharisees and "Enochic Jews" can be seen as "binitarian" in this definition: God in heaven and (there also exist) "Divine Mediator Figures" such as the Son of Man (Book of Enoch, Daniel), Elijah (in Pharisaical and Essenic traditions), and, as another mediator figure we see Melchizadek (in Dead Sea Scrolls)....I hope the link "works"....Will be back later, thanks. rick
-
ikthuce4u
I've detected an error in no. 2 (above). The "binitarian" view would have (a) "God in his heaven" (God as the Lord of Spirits in Enoch; the Ancient of Days in Enoch and Daniel) and, (b) the Son of Man (a quasi-divine, preexistent, superhuman figure in both Daniel and Enoch). So we wouldn't be talking about a "lesser god" with the Son of Man as he is presented in Enoch ... and in the NT, imo. But of course, I may have gotten waaaay ahead of the discussion by now. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm finding evidences that support this binitarian (or binary) view of "God" in the BCE-NT Era. I'm looking forward to buying and reading: Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticisim, by Alan Segal---(and)---One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, by Larry Hurtado....whatever "ancient Jewish monotheism" was. It's someone else's turn now!
-
Leolaia
WELCOME TO THE JWD COMMUNITY, Mr. Fish
First, a technical note, you can make paragraphs if you type your messages in Internet Explorer, rather than Netscape. I have no idea why this is so, but hope this helps.
Interesting that the "binitarian" view, as you put it, is of God appearing as an "angel or spirit" or "in human form". Again, Daniel does NOT say that the "one like a son of a man" in fact is in human form but only appears humanlike, and similar expressions are used repeatedly in the book to describe the appearance of Gabriel and other angels. And does the binitarian view actually designate the entity that interacts with mankind as a hypostasization of God? But what is the evidence that an actual epiphany of God occurs in such figures as Michael or the "Son of Man", rather than understanding them as angels or divine beings (e.g. lesser deities) that do God's work? For instance, Daniel refers to Michael as "one of the leading princes" and he certainly seems to belong to a class of divine "princes" who are also referred to as "deities" and "guardian deities" in the War Scroll and in the rabbinics. Is it that 1 Enoch is further along binitarian development than Daniel? And then there is situation in Daniel and perhaps the War Scroll (tho this is less clear) where the Messianic figure and Michael appear to be one and the same, and then later works like Revelation and the rabbinics which clearly distinguish Michael from the Messiah (e.g. Michael annoucing the coming of the Messiah and the resurrection with his trumpet, or Michael trying to protect the Messiah from the Dragon).
-
ikthuce4u
Leolaia- (off-topic, for now). Thanks for the warm welcome! And I can tell we might have quite a few things to talk about (yep, it sure looks like it). I'm a Nite People ... and post, read, study, (etc.), after I get off my 2nd shift job. I'm a professional forklift-jockey---(and)---an amateur-armchair-theologian, which I also see as a kind of "job/calling(???)" So, thanks again! I'll try to figure-out the browser thing ... and "come back later." (Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion)......;)