Here’s a link to an interesting article about Metatron as a member of the Jewish godhead (viewed as heretical, of course):
Daniel Abrams, “The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion of Metatron in the Godhead,” HTR 87:3 (1994): 291-321
Here’s a link to an interesting article about Metatron as a member of the Jewish godhead (viewed as heretical, of course):
Daniel Abrams, “The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion of Metatron in the Godhead,” HTR 87:3 (1994): 291-321
Margaret Barker, as many of you know, has contributed to the discussion of the divine council and the two powers in heaven theology. Her contributions have come from various articles, but also several books, namely the two below:
The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God
You probably also know that I’m a fan of Barker, but a critical one at that. A review of her recent book Temple Themes in Christian Worship was psoted today on the SBL book reviews site. Click here for the review. Some readers and scholars, particularly Mormons, seem to consider Barker’s work above criticism. It isn’t, and I have tried to explain that on other blogs and discussion boards. I mention this because a couple of excerpts from the review express exactly how I (and many other scholars) feel about Barker’s work:
“I have only briefly described the chapters in this book because, while there are many rich insights into temple worship in Israel, overall I found myself quite dissatisfied with this work. Barker’s process lacks solid argumentation, evidence, and a clear methodology. The work progresses by inference and an accumulation of text references without establishing the necessity that these texts be read intertextually. Statements are simply made without providing sufficient, and sometimes any, evidence in support. The accumulation of texts certainly suggests what Barker is proposing, but suggestion is not the same as evidence.”
“While I find Barker’s conclusions questionable due to lack of methodological argument and evidence, nonetheless this work would provide a fascinating starting point for any potential doctoral student in Old or New Testament studies or early Christian writings. In particular, her chapter entitled “Cup and Covenant” is worthy of more critical study. Barker’s suggestions about temple themes open up possible lines of further research to test the validity of her claims. It may be that her insights are well-founded, but this book leads me to describe these as intuitions rather than solid conclusions.”
Enjoy!
This article just appeared:
Adiel Schremer, “Midrash, theology, and history: two powers in heaven revisited,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, 39 no 2 (2008): 230-254.
If you are a student or faculty (or have a college or university library card) your library should enable you to get this article in PDF. Some public libraries also give access to the ATLA Religion database or JSTOR, through which you can get this. I haven’t read it yet, but I will be downloading it soon.
Daniel Boyarin is a professor of Jewish Studies at the University of California-Berkeley. Like Alan Segal before him, he is a Jewish scholar with a special interest in the two powers “heresy”. I’ve attached a PDF of his important Harvard Theological Reivew article, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John” (John 1:1-14). It’s a terrific piece of scholarship that demonstrates that John primarily got his doctrine of the Logos from the Old Testament and his own Jewish context, not pagan Greco-Roman thinking.
It’s scholarship like this that makes me (and others) groan when people like Bart Ehrman want to argue that the idea of Jesus being God was a late invention of the early church.