• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I read with interest a post by @dybmh concerning the Gospel of John and its incompatibility with Judaism. I wanted to discuss this topic further but it was rather 'off-topic' for the original thread (about Mormonism and unifying Abrahamic faiths), so I decided to give the matter its own thread:

No matter how I try to look at it, the manner in which Jesus describes himself in The Book of John is incompatible with Judaism. In previous discussions here on RF, some people disavow this book in the Christian Bible as a way to bridge the gap.

In terms of the Gospel of John:

I think there are some relatively close parallels to its 'high christology' in certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, such as (but not limited to): (1) the 'Self-Glorification Hymn' (4Q491) which scholars have dated to the late Hasmonean period (first century BCE) (2) the 'Daniel Apochryphon' (4Q246) dated circa. 100 BCE and (3) the 'Melchizedek Scroll' (11Q13) which has been dated to the late second century BCE.

For the DA and MS, see:


Aramaic Apocalypse I-II: The “Son of God” Text (Martinez)


The so-called Son of God text, an Aramaic apocalypse, provides a vision of Israel’s redemption which terms a messianic figure “son of God,” showing that such a designation existed among Jews in the third or early second century B.C.E...

"II 1 He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the
sparks of a vision, so will their kingdom be..."

11Q13 - Wikipedia

11Q13, also 11QMelch or the Melchizedek document, is a fragmentary manuscript among the Dead Sea Scrolls (from Cave 11) which mentions Melchizedek as leader of God's angels in a war in Heaven against the angels of darkness...

In the fragmentary passage the term "Elohim" appears a dozen times, mainly referring to the God of Israel, but in commentary on "who says to Zion "Your Elohim reigns" (Isa. 52;7) 11Q13 states that Zion is the congregation of all the sons of righteousness, while Melchizedek is "Your Elohim" who will deliver the sons of righteousness from Belial.[5][6][7][8]


The dualism and 'light vs darkness' trope in John is an adaption of earlier Qumranite language (i.e. the eschatological war between the "sons of light" led by Melchizedek and the "sons of Belial" in the Qumran sectarian literature). In 11Q13, for instance, we find one of many references to light:


"He [Melchizedek] will proclaim to them the Jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins...Then the Day of Atonement shall follow after the tenth jubilee period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light, and the people who are predestined to Melchizedek....

...by the judgment of God, just as it is written concerning him; "who says to Zion "Your God reigns" (Isa. 52;7) "Zion" is the congregation of all the sons of righteousness, who uphold the covenant and turn from walking in the way of the people. "Your God" is Melchizedek, who will deliver them from the power of Belial"

Compare with Jesus's words in the Gospel of John: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light" (John 12:36); "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it" (John 1:3-4) and in the first Johannine letter: "but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

If you read the composite text of the Self-Glorification Hymn (the pieced together 'composite' of all the fragments with expert interpolations for missing words), in tandem with a good commentary by a dead sea scholar explicating the meaning, context and presuppositions of the text, I reckon it will provide a framework for contextualizing some of the bewilderingly 'bold' Christological statements in John.

In the text of the SGH, an unidentified figure declares his own "self-glorification": boasting about his having been exalted among and above the elim (gods/angels) and seated on a heavenly throne, while simultaneously going through a humiliation in which he is 'despised' by other human beings and somehow bears affliction. It thus has a dual 'deification' / 'humiliating suffering' theme which obviously parallels early Christian beliefs about Jesus's divinity and vicarious suffering, only this is a pre-Christian Hasmonean Jewish text that is referring to some other divinized human (maybe Enoch ascending to heaven?).

A few choice experts from the SGH (Schafer translation):


....forever a mighty throne in the congregation
of the gods (elim). None of the ancient kings
shall sit in it, and their nobles shall not [
(6) [ ] shall not be like my glory (kevodi), and none shall
be exalted save me...

For I have taken my seat in the throne in the heavens...
I shall be reckoned with the gods (ani ‘im elim ethashev)...
I do not desire as would a man of flesh...
Who has been despised on my account (mi la-vuz nehshav bi)?
And who can be compared with me in my glory (u-mi bi-khvodi yiddameh li)?
...who bears all griefs as I do? And who suffers
evil like me? No one!

I was instructed and (any) teaching (horayah) will not be equal to my teaching.
And who shall measure the flow of my speech, and who shall be my equal, and be like (me) in my judgment?

(11) I am the Beloved of the King, companion of
the holy ones, for I shall be reckoned with the gods (elim),
and my glory (kevodi) with [that of]
the King’s sons (bene ha-melekh).


This language of a human figure having unique divine 'glory' (none shall be exalted like him) and a throne above the angels (a 'mighty throne in the congregation of the gods', reckoned with the elim, the beloved of God), which surpasses any Davidic King and who is possesed of 'unequalled teaching/words' yet endures 'all griefs' and suffers hugely despite being one of God's "sons", bears some similarities to the depiction of Jesus in John.

Consider the language of 'glory' and 'glorification' in John:


"Who do you claim to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, ‘He is our God'....Then the Judeans said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.’" (John 8:54-58)

"When he had gone out, Jesus said, ‘Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself and will glorify him at once." (John 13:31-32)

"After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people...So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed...Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world" (John 17)

Note also the similar allusion to Jesus's greater standing among the 'elim' (gods, congregation of the holy ones):


"Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" (John 10:34-35)

"Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." (John 1:49-51)

"When you see the Son of man lifted up, then you shall know I am" (John 8:28)​


And in terms of the 'glorified' person being the 'beloved of God':


"No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known" (John 1:18)

In terms of his 'teaching', 'words' and speech having no equal:


"Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life."" (John 6:68)​


Professor James H. Charlesworth (Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at the Princeton), published a comprehensive book in 2018 addressing a variety of themes in the Gospel of John and the tenth chapter dealt with its possible indebtedness to the SGH (you should be able to view some of it on Googlebooks):

Jesus as Mirrored in John

(continued....)
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The consensus in the scholarship seems to be that the SGH was likely first composed in Jerusalem and that it was a widely distributed text in various locales before reaching Qumran (there are also many fragments of it from different caves in Qumran, including as part of the Hodayot Scroll in Qumran Cave 1, which suggests it was extremely popular with and important to this ancient Jewish sect).

If you combine the theologies of 4Q491, 4Q246 and 11Q13 together, what results is a concept not dissimilar to the 'deified' Son of God of the Gospel of John. Of course, the Johannine author adapts these kind of themes in his own novel way but he wasn't entirely lacking in precedent from within Second Temple Judaism.

Whoever wrote the Fourth Gospel appears to have been heavily influenced by the theology of the Qumran texts. If I may quote the perspective of Peter Schafer, a prolific German scholar of Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity at Princeton University, in chapter 3 of his new study, Two Gods in Heaven (2020). In relation to the SGH:


"The speaker, definitely a human being, is sitting on a throne in heaven among the divine beings... His glory and exaltation are unique. The elevated status of the speaker is emphasized by the fact that neither “ancient kings” nor “nobles” can sit on this throne. The kings are likely the Israelite kings of the Hebrew Bible, or more precisely the kings of the Davidic dynasty. As the speaker also feels superior in particular to them, he is evidently asserting a claim to messianic qualities...

Two parallel fragments of the hymn take the superior, angel-like status of the author yet further. There the speaker asks explicitly, “Who is like me among the divine beings?” (mi kamoni ba-’ elim); this is a rhetorical question, with which he evidently means, Who else is like me among the angels? Is there anyone else who is as elevated as I am among the angels or above them?

And the answer is of course, No! The question, though, is by no means as innocent as it sounds, as it clearly alludes to Exodus 15:11, where the question refers to God: “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods/angels?” (mi kamokha ba-’ elim YHWH). This definitely means, Is there anyone among the gods/angels, who is like you, God, who could be compared with you? And again the answer is, No! There is reason to suspect that the speaker not only boldly compares himself with the angels but also with God, even almost taking the place of God: he is not merely a particularly high angel among the angels but rather like God unique among the angels.

Another characteristic that distinguishes the speaker in his superior position is his instruction or teaching. He is the undisputed teacher, and no one can question his instruction...What does not at all conform with the image up to now of the uniqueness and superiority of the speaker are the statements in lines 8 and 9. Juxtaposed with the statement on glory in line 8 is the odd expression mi la-vuz nehshav bi, which was translated above as “Who has been despised on my account?” and literally might mean, “Who has been attributed to me, to be despised?”—that is, Who is despised and thus associated with me? The answer here too is probably, No one! The speaker is despised, and with respect to this particular contempt, no one is like him...

This refers directly to the suffering servant of God in Isaiah, about whom it is also said that he is “despised” (nivzeh), a “man of suffering,” who “has borne our infirmities” (Isa. 53:3–4). It is fitting that the speaker “bears all griefs” and “suffers evil” like no one else (line 9). The author thus models himself at the same time as the suffering servant of God in Isaiah 53, thereby presumably placing himself in the messianic interpretative tradition of the Suffering Servant Songs. As a suffering Messiah, he is raised up in an unparalleled manner onto a throne in heaven, which even the Israelite kings cannot claim for themselves...


Our hero is not just one angel among many angels, and it is not said that he will be transformed into an angel. Rather, he is and remains a human being who is elevated to the status of a god, and as such will return to earth. Certainly, “in no case does this ‘divinization’ impinge on the supremacy of the Most High, the God of Israel”14 and the distance between our hero and God remains intact. And yet the divinization of a human being can hardly be driven any further. Israel Knohl therefore sees our hero not simply as another Qumran Messiah but instead as a real, direct precursor to Jesus, who then influenced Jesus and the Christian notion of the Messiah..."​

(p.34-37)​
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
The so-called Son of God text, an Aramaic apocalypse, provides a vision of Israel’s redemption which terms a messianic figure “son of God,” showing that such a designation existed among Jews in the third or early second century B.C.E...

"II 1 He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the
sparks of a vision, so will their kingdom be..."

Baralaha. Benelohim. Son of God. Is all over the place in Judaism. But doesn't mean what it means in the Christian theology. A pious person, Godly person, appointed person, can be called the son of God.

Yet the Gospel of John, especially in the prologue makes this monogenis para patros matter divine unlike the Jewish usage of the same phrase for many people. The passage you quoted from the DSC is evident of that easily. Its not about a divine person, its a messianic figure and is fully human with a plan from God.

In John, you should try and do an exercise where you could separate the quotes of Jesus in the first person, and the author's writing. You would see that the authors writing or his views actually are more common with Judaism (Not totally) and also with the synoptic gospels, yet the quotes by Jesus are making him a divine person.

Anyway, if you do this exercise you will see as you said that John has a very high Jewish influence in his Gospel. What will contrast is Jesus' quotes. John uses the Jewish Tanakh extensively in his writing. Extensively. It would look like he is trying to harmonise the Christology with Judaism and bridge the gap rather than division. In this matter, I think you got it right. Yet, there may be more to it. Interesting post mate.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi @Vouthon. Although I've only skimmed your two OPs at the moment, I wanted to point out something:
I think there are some relatively close parallels to its 'high christology' in certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, such as (but not limited to): (1) the 'Self-Glorification Hymn' (4Q491) which scholars have dated to the late Hasmonean period (first century BCE) (2) the 'Daniel Apochryphon' (4Q246) dated circa. 100 BCE and (3) the 'Melchizedek Scroll' (11Q13) which has been dated to the late second century BCE.
I'll stop you right there. As we both probably know, just because there are parallels between a Jewish sect and an outside idea, does not mean that idea can actually be considered as being related to Judaism. Not everything a Jewish person says is reflective of Judaism.
A few more points:

a. It's interesting to note that it is unclear who the Essenes were. They aren't mentioned by that name in any contemporary or later Jewish sources. They were learned, sure - but were they learned in a good way or not?

b. There's a reason the books that are known as apocryphal today weren't included in the Tanach. It means they aren't compatible with Judaism. Some of the debates on the canonization of the Tanach can be found in the Mishna and Talmud.

c. Sometimes ancient texts are found buried in caves or in the ground. Jewish tradition holds that texts with holy names should be buried. This is something that isn't always taken into consideration by researchers. A newly discovered text is taken to mean that the Tanach is wrong or part of the tradition was lost or whatever. What about: they buried it because it was decided it was useless/meaningless/heretical, but couldn't burn it or tear it apart because of the holy names it included? Why is that not taken under consideration?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@Vouthon, thank you for the interest. What you have provided above is informative but does not address my question from the other thread. Put simply:

John 10:7 and John 14:6 both insert Jesus before G-d in violation Exodus 20:10. Jesus says in the Book of John, "I am the gate" and "No one goes to the father except through me." However God says in the Book of Exodus to the Jewish people: "You shall have no other gods before me."

Conclusion: Christianity which accepts Jesus as the gate from the Book of John is not compatible with Judaism. It seems irreconcilable.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I've only skimmed your two OPs at the moment,
From what I can tell, none of it addresses the problem with Jesus as the intermediary. It speaks about the father/son paradigm which isn't at issue, imo.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I'll stop you right there. As we both probably know, just because there are parallels between a Jewish sect and an outside idea, does not mean that idea can actually be considered as being related to Judaism. Not everything a Jewish person says is reflective of Judaism.

Of course, nor am I meaning to imply that it does.

The Qumran library itself evidences an abundance of texts from a cross-section of ancient Judean religious literature (not limited to the self-produced texts of the Qumran community itself).

For example, there's evidence that some of the Qumranites believed in two Messianic figures - a Messiah Aaron and a Messiah Israel. Other Qumran texts evidence no interest in the concept of an "annointed one", at all.

In writing what I wrote in the OP, therefore, I'm not making a claim to these pre-Christian Qumran texts being representative of Judaism.

Rather, what I'm trying to demonstrate is that early Christians did not "pioneer" some of these ideas that have since become emblematic of the sect but rather inherited them from a given Jewish interpretative tradition - one out of many, I might add.

Also, I'm wary of referring to the Qumranites as Essenes - some scholars think they were related to the Essenes described by Josephus, others disagree. We can't really be sure.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Rather, what I'm trying to demonstrate is that early Christians did not "pioneer" some of these ideas that have since become emblematic of the sect but rather inherited them from a given interpretative tradition - one out of many, I might add.
Gotcha.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member


But this is little more than saying that the victor writes the rules.
Sure, if you view (and I'm pretty sure you do hold this view) that it is merely a theological battle between men with man-inspired ideas, then yes. But if your view is that these men were working to discern what the truth of God's teachings is and that in their debates they had some degree of divine inspiration, then it's a whole 'nother ball game.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
John 10:7 and John 14:6 both insert Jesus before G-d in violation Exodus 20:10. Jesus says in the Book of John, "I am the gate" and "No one goes to the father except through me." However God says in the Book of Exodus to the Jewish people: "You shall have no other gods before me."

Conclusion: Christianity which accepts Jesus as the gate from the Book of John is not compatible with Judaism. It seems irreconcilable.

Hello dybmh,

Thank you for your response, I very much appreciate it!

Having only read that initial post of yours, I was not aware of what element - specifically - in John you were referring to. So, I decided to post some information about the specific Jewish interpretative tradition which a number of scholars believe preceded and shaped the theology of John, namely a number of Qumran tracts preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By understanding the interrelationship - conceptual and linguistic - between these texts (dating circa. second century BCE to late first century BCE) and John, it is possible to 'contextualize' John against the background of the precise strain in Second Temple Jewish thought which appears to have spawned the text. Ultimately, the only way to properly 'exegize' and understand a given text, is to trace the prior origins of its key ideas and influences. That's what I'm doing with John in the OP.

I thank you for providing me with the element in Johannine thought which strikes you as the most heterodox from a Jewish POV.

You are right that the Gospel of John describes Jesus's in an 'intermediary' function (between God and creation) and equally correct that this could be construed as standing in a potencially tense relationship with the mitzvot in Exodus 20:10. This 'mediatory' role is quite a common Christological notion in the early Christian literature.

In one of the texts I cited in my OP, 11Q13 (the Melchizedek scroll), scholars believe that the Torah figure of Melchizedek - a rather minor person in Genesis, who has a famous discussion with Abraham and is described as the high priest of El (Most High God) in Salem - had been elevated to a heavenly 'mediator' role as an eschatological figure, described in the text as being the "your Elohim" (your God) referred to in Isaiah 52:7.

Here is an example of only one Dead Sea Scrolls scholar who discusses Melchizedek's elevation in the text to the role of a 'divine mediator':

The Dead Sea scrolls as background to postbiblical Judaism and early Christianity

So, in my opinion, my OP does actually relate to this issue of 'mediation'. There was a strain of thought in pre-Christian Second Temple Judaism - and I place emphasis upon the word "strain" so as to avoid any misunderstanding here - called the 'divine agency' tradition by scholars, first attested circa. 200 BCE, which introduced either angels (such as Michael and Metatron) or human biblical figures (Enoch and Melchizedek, also sometimes Moses himself) as 'deified' personages who sat on a throne next to God and manifested his presence - in the later Metatron tradition, the Jews in question went so far as to label this mediator figure, "the Lesser YHWH", just as Melchizedek in this much earlier Qumran text (from 100 BCE) was accorded epiphets and passages in the Hebrew Bible that are traditionally applied to the God of Israel alone (in this case, Isaiah 52:7, with Melchizedek assuming God's role in the text).

See also this, in terms of Metatron's presentation in the Sefer Hekhalot:


Andrei A


The significance of Metatron’s figure among the angelic hosts can be briefly and accurately summed up in his title the Lesser YHWH,[1] which occurs with abbreviations several times in 3 Enoch, including passages found in Synopse §15, §73, and §76. In Synopse §15, Metatron reports to R. Ishmael that the Deity proclaimed him the junior manifestation of his name in front of all the angelic hosts: “the Holy One, blessed be he, fashioned for me a majestic robe…and he called me, ‘The Lesser YHWH’ (N+qh ywy) in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, ‘My name is in him.’”[2]

As with Metatron’s other offices, this designation as the lesser Tetragrammaton is closely connected with the angel’s duties and roles in the immediate presence of the Lord. Scholars have thus previously noted that the name the Lesser YHWH, attested in 3 Enoch (Synopse §15, §73, and §76) is used “as indicative of Metatron’s character of representative, vicarius, of the Godhead; it expresses a sublimation of his vice-regency[3] into a second manifestation[4] of the Deity in the name[5] YHWH.”[6]

The sharing of the attributes with the Godhead is significant and might convey the omniscience of its bearer. Peter Schäfer observes that in Sefer Hekhalot, Enoch-Metatron who stands at the head of all the angels as “lesser YHWH” is the representation of God. Endowed with the same attributes as God, Metatron, just like the Deity, is omniscient.[9] Another important attribute that the Deity and the lesser manifestation of His name share is the attribute of the celestial seat, an important symbol of authority.


This kind of 'binatarian' heresy, which the Talmudic Rabbis fought against as a violation of monotheism, is thought by many scholars to lie at the roots of the New Testament 'high christology' (with Jesus assuming the role other 'heretical' Jews like Aher gave to 'Metatron') and it is a separate matter from later Nicene Trinitarianism (which relied upon Greek philosophical categories of ontology, in part, for its articulation), which had no analogue in Second Temple Judaism.

To the Jews and later Christians who 'developed' out of this strain of thought in Second Temple Judaism, they did not personally believe themselves to be in violation of monotheism or that particular mitzvot of Exodus which warns against worshipping any gods before God. This is because these 'exalted' figures - whether Enoch, Michael, Metatron, Melchizedek or Jesus depending on the given sect - were incorporated into God's unicity and worshipped with Him as part and parcel of one divine reality (even though, in practice, there were two 'figures' here - hence the scholarly description of this tradition as binatarian).

The early Christians were not 'Trinitarian' - as with later Nicene Christianity - but rather 'binatarian' as representatives of a preceding tradition of such theology (or 'heresy' depending on one's POV) in Second Temple Jewish thought, as reflected in the Qumran texts cited and in the Similtudes of Enoch (and other extra-canonical Jewish literature from the time).
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
b. There's a reason the books that are known as apocryphal today weren't included in the Tanach. It means they aren't compatible with Judaism.
It actually was more due to their relatively late writing, whereas there was the fear of the texts being too Hellenized. There really isn't much within them that is even slightly controversial.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Also, I'm wary of referring to the Qumranites as Essenes - some scholars think they were related to the Essenes described by Josephus, others disagree. We can't really be sure.
I've resisted the Essene identification for some time, but articles such as ...

Josephus's Essenes and the Qumran Community
Author(s): KENNETH ATKINSON and JODI MAGNESS
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , SUMMER 2010, Vol. 129, No. 2 (SUMMER 2010), pp. 317-342
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature​

... seem pretty compelling.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I've resisted the Essene identification for some time, but articles such as ...

Josephus's Essenes and the Qumran Community
Author(s): KENNETH ATKINSON and JODI MAGNESS
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , SUMMER 2010, Vol. 129, No. 2 (SUMMER 2010), pp. 317-342
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
... seem pretty compelling.

Ooh, that looks juicy. I will enjoy reading this - many thanks!
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It actually was more due to their relatively late writing, whereas there was the fear of the texts being too Hellenized. There really isn't much within them that is even slightly controversial.
I disagree.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Hello dybmh,

Thank you for your response, I very much appreciate it!

Having only read that initial post of yours, I was not aware of what element - specifically - in John you were referring to. So, I decided to post some information about the specific Jewish interpretative tradition which a number of scholars believe preceded and shaped the theology of John, namely a number of Qumran tracts preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By understanding the interrelationship - conceptual and linguistic - between these texts (dating circa. second century BCE to late first century BCE) and John, it is possible to 'contextualize' John against the background of the precise strain in Second Temple Jewish thought which appears to have spawned the text. Ultimately, the only way to properly 'exegize' and understand a given text, is to trace the prior origins of its key ideas and influences. That's what I'm doing with John in the OP.

I thank you for providing me with the element in Johannine thought which strikes you as the most heterodox from a Jewish POV.

You are right that the Gospel of John describes Jesus's in an 'intermediary' function (between God and creation) and equally correct that this stands in a tense relationship with the mitzvot in Exodus 20:10. This is quite a common Christological notion in the early Christian literature.

In one of the texts I cited in my OP, 11Q13 (the Melchizedek scroll), scholars believe that the Torah figure of Melchizedek - a rather minor person in Genesis, who has a famous discussion with Abraham and is described as the high priest of El (Most High God) in Salem - had been elevated to a heavenly 'mediator' role as an eschatological figure, described in the text as being the "your Elohim" (your God) referred to in Isaiah 52:7.

Here is an example of only one Dead Sea Scrolls scholar who discusses Melchizedek's elevation in the text to the role of a 'divine mediator':

The Dead Sea scrolls as background to postbiblical Judaism and early Christianity

So, in my opinion, my OP does actually relate to this issue of 'mediation'. There was a strain of thought in pre-Christian Second Temple Judaism - and I place emphasis upon the word "strain" so as to avoid any misunderstanding here - called the 'divine agency' tradition by scholars, first attested circa. 200 BCE, which introduced either angels (such as Michael and Metatron) or human biblical figures (Enoch and Melchizedek, also sometimes Moses himself) as 'deified' personages who sat on a throne next to God and manifested his presence - in the later Metatron tradition, the Jews in question went so far as to label this mediator figure, "the Lesser YHWH", just as Melchizedek in this much earlier Qumran text (from 100 BCE) was accorded epiphets and passages in the Hebrew Bible that are traditionally applied to the God of Israel alone (in this case, Isaiah 52:7, with Melchizedek assuming God's role in the text).

See also this, in terms of Metatron's presentation in the Sefer Hekhalot:


Andrei A


The significance of Metatron’s figure among the angelic hosts can be briefly and accurately summed up in his title the Lesser YHWH,[1] which occurs with abbreviations several times in 3 Enoch, including passages found in Synopse §15, §73, and §76. In Synopse §15, Metatron reports to R. Ishmael that the Deity proclaimed him the junior manifestation of his name in front of all the angelic hosts: “the Holy One, blessed be he, fashioned for me a majestic robe…and he called me, ‘The Lesser YHWH’ (N+qh ywy) in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, ‘My name is in him.’”[2]

As with Metatron’s other offices, this designation as the lesser Tetragrammaton is closely connected with the angel’s duties and roles in the immediate presence of the Lord. Scholars have thus previously noted that the name the Lesser YHWH, attested in 3 Enoch (Synopse §15, §73, and §76) is used “as indicative of Metatron’s character of representative, vicarius, of the Godhead; it expresses a sublimation of his vice-regency[3] into a second manifestation[4] of the Deity in the name[5] YHWH.”[6]

The sharing of the attributes with the Godhead is significant and might convey the omniscience of its bearer. Peter Schäfer observes that in Sefer Hekhalot, Enoch-Metatron who stands at the head of all the angels as “lesser YHWH” is the representation of God. Endowed with the same attributes as God, Metatron, just like the Deity, is omniscient.[9] Another important attribute that the Deity and the lesser manifestation of His name share is the attribute of the celestial seat, an important symbol of authority.


This kind of 'binatarian' heresy, which the Talmudic Rabbis fought against as a violation of monotheism, is thought by many scholars to lie at the roots of the New Testament 'high christology' (with Jesus assuming the role other heretical Jews like Aher gave to 'Metatron') and it is a separate matter from later Nicene Trinitarianism (which relied upon Greek philosophical categories of ontology, in part, for its articulation), which had no analogue in Second Temple Judaism.

To the Jews and later Christians who 'developed' out of this strain of thought in Second Temple Judaism, they did not personally believe themselves to be in violation of monotheism or that particular mitzvot of Exodus which warns against worshipping any gods before God. This is because these 'exalted' figures - whether Enoch, Michael, Metatron, Melchizedek or Jesus depending on the given sect - were incorporated into God's unicity and worshipped with Him as part of one divinre reality (even though, in practice, there were two 'figures' here - hence the scholarly description of this tradition as binatarian).

The early Christians were not 'Trinitarian' - as with later Nicene Christianity - but rather 'binatarian' as representatives of a preceding tradition of such theology (or 'heresy' depending on one's POV) in Second Temple Jewish thought, as reflected in the Qumran texts cited and in the Similtudes of Enoch (and other extra-canonical Jewish literature from the time).
Metatron is an Angel, so that doesn't count. If Jesus claims to be an Angel in the Book of John, then maybe it would be a good example. Regarding the others who are seated next to God, that's not a gate.

But zooming out, yes there are Jewish principles, concepts, what have you, which logically lead to this idea of their being gates or intermediaries between mortals and the divine. But to claim "No one goes to the father except through me", in other words, "there is only 1 gate, 1 door, 1 route, 1 path, just me...", that's not what's described in the examples above. In Judaism there are many paths, many ways, not just 1 gate.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Metatron is an Angel, so that doesn't count. If Jesus calims to be an Angel in the Book of John, then maybe it would be a good example. Regarding the others whoa re seated next to God, that's not a gate.

In some of the early Christian literature, Jesus is described as being a kind of exalted 'angel' prior to his birth who bears the imprint of God's divine being, because he carries his name and manifests Him. Jude 5, for example, in its most commonly rendered version associates Jesus typologically with the "angel of the Lord" in Exodus: "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe" (Jude 5).

This is the variant attested in the majority of ancient manuscripts (rather than "the Lord"). (I would also note that many of the Metatron texts conjoin Enoch with him into one person, meaning that this composite "Metatron" is at once human and angelic and the manifestation of God).

Like the 'Self-Glorification Hymn from Qumran, however, Jesus is exalted 'above' the other divine beings in all these texts - just as the anonymous deified messianic figure in the SGH and the Melchizedek in 11Q13 who is uniquely described as "your Elohim".

Note that the figure in the SGH is described as having an unparalleled, unique and matchless relationship with God:


[the other divine beings] shall not be like my glory (kevodi), and none shall
be exalted save me...

who shall be my equal, and be like (me) in my judgment?


This is a divinised human who has no 'equal' in divine judgment, no one else comparable to him in glory and he is 'exlated' in a way that 'none shall be exalted' save himself. His glory is 'incomparable' to anyone or anything else, as the Dead Sea Scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis notes in his study on this figure's role in 'divine - human mediation' in this text (as he titles his discussion of the Qumran hymn):


All the Glory of Adam

"The hymnist declares himself exalted and enthroned in the heavenly realm with an incomparable Glory...The speaker claims that he is now with the gods and that he is incomparable in a way which reminds us of Biblical language for Israel's God (Exodus 15:11: "Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?")..."


That is making a very bold claim to uniqueness for the figure so described, equating himself effectively with God as scholars like Fletcher-Louis and Schafer note.

The text is explicit that there is 'no comparison' between his exalted station and that of any other figure, including angels, biblical patriarchs and Davidic kings.

Metatron, in the Sefer Hekhalot traditions I cited, assumes a similar intermediary function for this particular group of Jews: “the Holy One, blessed be he, fashioned for me a majestic robe…and he called me, ‘The Lesser YHWH’ in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, ‘My name is in him.’"

That is surely a level of uniqueness and exaltation that is comparable to anything one finds in John or the rest of the New Testament concerning Jesus. He is indeed portrayed by the author of Enoch as "second manifestation of the Deity in the name YHWH", as one scholar notes.

The 'mediator' tradition I'm referring to, encompassed both 'angelic mediators' and human ones such as Enoch and Melchizedek.

Also, in John, Jesus is described as being ajdacent to God in heaven (i.e. close to his heart/bosom):

"It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known" (John 1:18)

Outside of John, the other NT texts make this explicit:

"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55)

"Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64)

Here, Jesus is assuming this same 'heavenly mediator' role that other Jews of this particular strain of thought in the Second Temple era attributed to Enoch, Melchizedek, Metatron and Michael (among others) as I've described above.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
John 10:7 and John 14:6 both insert Jesus before G-d in violation Exodus 20:10. Jesus says in the Book of John, "I am the gate" and "No one goes to the father except through me." However God says in the Book of Exodus to the Jewish people: "You shall have no other gods before me."

Conclusion: Christianity which accepts Jesus as the gate from the Book of John is not compatible with Judaism. It seems irreconcilable.
I see a possibility but not one that will please everybody, and its a bit difficult to explain. What if he's not talking about himself or any person? In that case he's not putting himself before G-d. (Using hyphen for politeness.) There is a precedent for this in my thinking, one that I have posted about previously several times. There is more than one instance in gospels in which the person being spoken to or about is not the object of the sentence. The famous naming of Peter comes to mind where Jesus says "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build...," but I have always contended the speech does not intend to mean the man Peter the church will be built on. Its entirely possible Jesus isn't talking about himself.

Still I do see your point, and I don't think many people other than me would consider Jesus talking this way.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I see a possibility but not one that will please everybody, and its a bit difficult to explain. What if he's not talking about himself or any person? In that case he's not putting himself before G-d. (Using hyphen for politeness.) There is a precedent for this in my thinking, one that I have posted about previously several times. There is more than one instance in gospels in which the person being spoken to or about is not the object of the sentence. The famous naming of Peter comes to mind where Jesus says "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build...," but I have always contended the speech does not intend to mean the man Peter the church will be built on. Its entirely possible Jesus isn't talking about himself.

Still I do see your point, and I don't think many people other than me would consider Jesus talking this way.
It's a fascinating perspective, Brick.

So, how would the narrative read if Jesus is not talking about himself or any person? Can you elaborate a little more on this?
 
Top