Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
There may be a few problems here.The apocalypse of Abraham only exists in the Slavonic. One must bear in mind the divergences of Slavonic manuscripts like Josephus war.Also - 2 Enoch in the slavonic:-And I will give you, Enoch, my intercessor, the archistratege Michael, for the handwritings of your fathers Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahaleleel, and Jared your father.
True, we havew Apoc Abr and 2 Enoch in Slavonic, but that does not subvert the main point about Michael. Furthermore, we know that Apoc Abr had Jewish origins, possibly from the 1st-2nd century just like 3 Enoch, which although written later, is still likely a reflection of older ideas in Judaism. Furthermore, Rainbow cites the Qumran documents.
One document does not justify another.
1) I don't see how 2 Enoch undermines Michael being portrayed as archangel.2) My point is not that 3 Enoch justifies Apoc Abr or 2 Enoch, but that although documents appear later in time, that doesn't mean the ideas weren't existent prior to the literature's appearance. Furthermore, even if we only have a work in Slavonic, that does nothing to diminish its Jewishness.Andrei Orlov has done plenty of work on the Slavonic materials. He is at Marquette, I believe.
As for CD, is he not able to list anything from 4Q266-273 5Q12 6Q15 4Q266 ?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/129763015/Alan-F-Segal-Two-Powers-in-HeavenSelect page 272 on & move Poimandres ideas to first century.
Duncan, this probably goes without saying, but I will say it anyway. We cannot generalize from a text by Josephus that's come down in Slavonic to most Slavonic works. Each one must stand on its own merit.Rainbow has extensive notes in his thesis, but he included them as endnotes, which is somewhat frustrating. I have not checked the endnotes to see if he added other Qumranic references. We also have to consider when his thesis was written: 1987.
Thank you Edgar, this subject is infinitely fascinating.Thank you also for the http://www.andreiorlov.com/ link, with its beautiful book covers and titles and resources at the bottom.
You're welcome, Jim. I appreciate Orlov's efforts with respect to the Metatron subject and I think he's generously provided much of his scholarship at no cost. That website is also impressive.I just read your blog entry here: http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2018/02/reading-genesis.htmlThe comments you made regarding faunal predation within the context of Gen. 1:28 made sense to me. This is not an invitation to discuss/hash out the subject here, but I just wanted to offer thanks for the information.
You’re welcome, and I’m glad my article “Reading Genesis” made sense. Awesome. I was massaging the text a few times during the day, but I believe it’s now crystallized. :-)
Interesting read at the link above, Duncan. The only thing I'll add to this conversation is more words from Orlov, who has spent so much time with the Slavonic materials. See http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/pseudepigrapha.htmlHe writes: The Apocalypse of Abraham, another text preserved solely in its Slavonic translation, represents a Jewish work probably composed in Palestine in the first centuries C.E. Some features of the text hint to the Semitic Vorlage, although the Greek stage of transmission should not be excluded. The Slavonic text of the apocalypse can be divided into two parts. The first part represents an aggadic elaboration of the story of Abraham's rejection of the idols. The second, apocalyptic, part depicts the patriarch's ascension to heaven where he is accompanied by his angelic guide, Yahoel, and becomes initiated into the heavenly and eschatological mysteries. According to some scholars the two parts might have originally existed independently, yet in the pseudepigraphon they appear synthesized into a coherent unity, sharing common theological themes.On questions pertaining to the textual reliability of Apoc Abr and related issues, see https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27194248/PAULSEN-REED-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf?sequence=1Especially see the first 9 pages or so.
I would like to get a translation of both recentions of "the Struggle of the Archangel Michael with Satanail/Satanism".
These tablet spell checkers are really frustrating.last word should have been sataniel.
One more thing, Duncan. When you mentioned those Qumranic passages that Rainbow might not have quoted in his thesis--I just wonder what difference you think those omissions make respecting his overall argument. How do they overthrow his comments about Michael?
Don't know without reading it.
My last post pertained to the 2 shots I posted from Rainbow's thesis. My question is how the Qumranic passages you referenced overthrow/subvert what's contained in the screenshots of Rainbow's thesis, wherein he argues that Michael was thought to be an archangel by the Qumranites, etc. But maybe you have not gotten to read both screenshots yet. Thanks.
I meant that I have not read the fragments I referenced in detail.https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1983-3/1983-3-04.pdf"Inclusive reckoning does not apply here, since these three weeks were each filled out with a full seven days. This adds up to a total of 21 days for those three full weeks, and that was the same period of time during which Gabriel and Michael were opposed by the prince of Persia (Dan 10:13). Since Daniel was concerned over a problem for the same period of time that Gabriel and Michael were wrestling with this problem, it is likely that the two periods men-tioned were identical and that the problem of concern was one and the same." Pg229
Post a Comment