Logos obviously has meaning in the narrative as a Greek word but how it is used as a source of creation is evident in Judaic literature in many different roles as well.

There is the whole dialogue of creation where God says for beings to be and they emerge within certain conditions.
Proverb 16:1 is "The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord."
In Job, the test is if the righteous man will admit to a sin which he knows he has not committed. He does not admit it.
Peter is said to betray Jesus by what he does not say.
In the conversation Pilate is purported to have had with Jesus, Pilate asks, 'are you the king of the Jews?" the reply is "Thou sayest."

This observation is not to claim one set of references takes precedence over others. It is only to note that translating the word "word" is going to be a tough rugby ball to grab in the ensuing scrum.

Logos obviously has meaning in the narrative as a Greek word but how it is used as a source of creation is evident in Judaic literature in many different roles as well. — Paine

I think you are misplacing Logos.. How it is used in John seems very much akin to Philo of Alexandria's usage.. It was more influenced from that variation of a broader Greek concept that may have been mixed with a bit of Gnosticism from Alexandria which I wouldn't doubt influenced Philo's Hellenistic Judaism...

Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term logos to mean an intermediary divine being or demiurge.[8] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[31] The logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God".[31] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated".[32]

Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the logos, but the logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[31] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the logos by Philo, who also said that the logos was God's instrument in the creation of the Universe.[31] — Philo of Alexandria Wikipedia Article

I meant to give the word its due as a Hellenistic concept. I question that it is the only reference to the importance of speaking words in the different traditions.

he could have been one of them — Apollodorus

Not if he had no business with the Kittim. You learn a language for a reason. Jews in the diaspora had very good reasons to learn Greek, but not those in Palestine.

Logos obviously has meaning in the narrative as a Greek word but how it is used as a source of creation is evident in Judaic literature in many different roles as well. — Paine

Yes. I suppose the Jews were familiar with the notion of the "word" (dabar) of God, referring to spoken creative power. But the implication of Greek "Logos" was probably intended to suggest that Jesus had existed eternally as a disembodied spirit. Which was the emerging explanation for the disappointing demise of their long awaited Jewish revolutionary leader & king, who died before completing his mission : to drive-out the Roman colonizers.

"Messiah" was always described as a flesh & blood sword-wielding descendant of David, not a wizard casting spells with magic words. But "Christ" was a new spiritualized concept, that allowed the mission to be completed at some unspecified later date. Thus, Jews & Christians are still waiting for deliverance, 2000 years later. That's the illogical theological advantage of an eternal spiritual savior : time has no meaning for him. So, the exegetical scrum goes on. :meh:

Your account discounts the role of the Essenes and Enoch groups in viewing the matter beyond the sweaty business of winning wars. The notion expressed in Isaiah that the 'rivers would reverse flow' to Zion is not simply a claim upon real estate but concerned the rest of the world.

Your account discounts the role of the Essenes and Enoch groups in viewing the matter beyond the sweaty business of winning wars. The notion expressed in Isaiah that the 'rivers would reverse flow' to Zion is not simply a claim upon real estate but concerned the rest of the world. — Paine

I mentioned that Jesus seemed to be influenced by the Essenes, who were mystics, Instead of physically fighting the Romans, they withdrew to the desert. And their main occupation was preserving the written word of God. Ironically, "unlike the Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body". https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene

However, the recorded words of Jesus were somewhat ambiguous on his role. He may have hinted that his mission was mystical & spiritual, but it's obvious that his followers were expecting a real flesh & blood Messiah. So, they waited for him to come forth from the grave, like Lazarus, and continue the good fight, to show his power over both Romans and Death. Not to retreat into the safety of Heaven; leaving his followers leaderless.

Upon any interpretation, it's clear that Satan (or Rome, or Babylon, or Death) won that round of the cosmic battle. So, Donald Trump --- held by some to be a Conservative Messiah, and by others to be the AntiChrist --- would probably privately call Jesus a "loser". :joke:

Enoch is an interesting odd insertion in that era. It probably shouldn't be diminished that this aspect had influence on certain Jewish groups like the Essenes. It can be argued that Son of Man = Enoch = Metatron = Angel of Judgement = Angel of the Lord = Head of the Archangels, etc. etc. etc.

Even Rabbinic Judaism, in early Mystical (but not quite Kabblah proper) place a lot of emphasis on Metatron/Enoch.

The Babylonian Talmud mentions Metatron by name in three places: Hagigah 15a, Sanhedrin 38b and Avodah Zarah 3b.

Hagigah 15a describes Elisha ben Abuyah in Paradise seeing Metatron sitting down (an action that is not done in the presence of God). Elishah ben Abuyah therefore looks to Metatron as a deity and says heretically: "There are indeed two powers in Heaven!"[34] The rabbis explain that Metatron had permission to sit because of his function as the Heavenly Scribe, writing down the deeds of Israel.[35] The Talmud states, it was proved to Elisha that Metatron could not be a second deity by the fact that Metatron received 60 "strokes with fiery rods" to demonstrate that Metatron was not a god, but an angel, and could be punished.[36]

In Sanhedrin 38b one of the minim tells Rabbi Idith that Metatron should be worshiped because he has a name like his master. Rabbi Idith uses the same passage Exodus 23:21 to show that Metatron was an angel and not a deity and thus should not be worshiped. Furthermore, as an angel Metatron has no power to pardon transgressions nor was he to be received even as a messenger of forgiveness.[36][37][38]

In Avodah Zarah 3b, the Talmud hypothesizes as to how God spends His day. It is suggested that in the fourth quarter of the day God sits and instructs the school children, while in the preceding three quarters Metatron may take God's place or God may do this among other tasks.[39]

Yevamot 16b records an utterance, "I have been young; also I have been old" found in Psalm 37:25. The Talmud here attributes this utterance to the Chief Angel and Prince of the World, whom the rabbinic tradition identifies as Metatron.[40] — Wikipedia Metatron

Metatron also appears in the Pseudepigrapha including Shi'ur Qomah, and most prominently in the Hebrew Merkabah Book of Enoch, also called 3 Enoch or Sefer Hekhalot (Book of [the Heavenly] Palaces). The book describes the link between Enoch, son of Jared (great grandfather of Noah) and his transformation into the angel Metatron. His grand title "the lesser YHVH" resurfaces here. The word Metatron is numerically equivalent to Shaddai (God) in Hebrew gematria; therefore, he is said to have a "Name like his Master".

Metatron says, "He [the Holy One]... called me, 'The lesser YHVH' in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, 'my name is in him.'" (12:5, Alexander's translation.) The narrator of this book, supposedly Rabbi Ishmael, tells how Metatron guided him through Heaven and explained its wonders. 3 Enoch presents Metatron in two ways: as a primordial angel (9:2–13:2) and as the transformation of Enoch after he was assumed into Heaven.[44][45]

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. [Genesis 5:24 KJV.]

This Enoch, whose flesh was turned to flame, his veins to fire, his eye-lashes to flashes of lightning, his eye-balls to flaming torches, and whom God placed on a throne next to the throne of glory, received after this heavenly transformation the name Metatron.[46]

Metatron "the Youth", a title previously used in 3 Enoch, where it appears to mean "servant".[45] It identifies him as the angel that led the people of Israel through the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt (again referring to Exodus 23:21, see above), and describes him as a heavenly priest.

In the later Ecstatic Kabbalah, Metatron is a messianic figure.[47]

The Zohar describes Metatron as the "King of the angels."[48] and associates the concept of Metatron with that of the divine name Shadday.[49] Zohar commentaries such as the "Ohr Yakar" by Moses ben Jacob Cordovero explain the Zohar as meaning that Metatron as the head of Yetzira[50] This corresponds closely with Maimonides' description of the Talmudic "Prince of the World",[51] traditionally associated with Metatron,[52] as the core "Active Intellect."[53][54]

The Zohar describes several biblical figures as metaphors for Metatron. Examples are Enoch,[55][56] Joseph,[57][58] Eliezer,[59] Joshua,[60] and others. The Zohar finds the word "youth" used to describe Joseph and Joshua a hint that the figures are a metaphor to Metatron, and also the concept of "servant" by Eliezer as a reference to Metatron.[61] The Staff of Moses is also described by the Zohar[56] as a reference to Metatron. The Zohar also states that the two tets in "totaphot" of the phylacteries are a reference to Metatron.[62] The Zohar draws distinction between Metatron and Michael.[63] While Michael is described repeatedly in the Zohar as the figure represented by the High Priest, Metatron is represented by the structure of the tabernacle itself.[63]

Not if he had no business with the Kittim. You learn a language for a reason. Jews in the diaspora had very good reasons to learn Greek, but not those in Palestine. — Olivier5

What? You did say that there were Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews, didn't you?

Of course there were. — Olivier5

Plus, if there was Persian influence on Judaism, why not Greek? Why do scholars speak of Hellenistic Judaism? And what about Jewish texts like the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, 4 that were composed in Greek and show clear Greek influence?

IMO we shouldn't ignore the fact that NT Greek is NOT Alexandrian Greek, but Palestinian Greek, i.e., Koine Greek with Palestinian characteristics. It is the very existence of a distinct Palestinian Jewish dialect of Koine Greek that enables us to know that Greek was spoken in Roman Palestine by local Jews.

Plus, if there was Persian influence on Judaism, why not Greek? Why do scholars speak of Hellenistic Judaism? And what about Jewish texts like the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, 4 that were composed in Greek and show clear Greek influence? — Apollodorus

No one is denying Hellenistic forms of Judaism existed, only the influence it had on Judea and Galilee regions as opposed to the diaspora. No one disputes the kind of Hellenistic influences on Alexandrian, Antochian, Ionian, and Greek Jews. Another region with less Hellenistic influence was Babylonian region under Parthians.

Sure. But if we start from the fact that Jews in 1st century Roman Palestine spoke a distinctive dialect of Koine Greek, then it is legitimate to look into other Greek influences on Palestinian Jews.

For example, Scott Greaves writes:

That the GNT (Greek NT) is saturated with Semitisms is not disputed. The Semitic elements of structure, style, and grammar in the GNT are noteworthy. Such Semitic impregnation is characteristic of Greek-speaking Jews whose biblical knowledge and spiritual formation most likely grew out of the LXX. Additionally, in a bilingual culture, languages often intertwine, particularly during a period of transition as one might move from predominantly speaking in one’s native language to communicating in a second language more often.
Greek-speaking Jews during the transition from Aramaic to Greek in the first century CE would naturally have a pronounced Semitic quality and, of course, such a Semitic quality would reveal itself in the GNT

And Alexander Roberts:

Palestine alone can be said to be the country in which the dialect exhibited in the New Testament flourished. In their native land did the apostles learn the style of Greek in which their writings are composed …

That people could write Greek that region is not disputed either. It is not if this then cannot be that kind of thinking. What we do know is the first gospel was written at least 30-40 years after Jesus' death.. Obviously it would have to be someone with a good deal of education in Greek. Doesn't mean gentiles or Hellenistic Jews didn't contribute to the New Testament's writings.. They clearly did from Mark up to John..John clearly being the most Greek in style.

From Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted:

What we learn stands completely at odds with what we know about the disciples of Jesus. The authors of the Gospels were highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians who probably lived outside Palestine.

That they were highly educated Greek speaker goes virtually without saying. Although there have been scholars from time to time who thought the Gospels may originally have been written in Aramaic, the overwhelming consensus today, for lots of technical linguistic reasons, is that Gospels were all written in Greek. As I've indicated, only about 10 percent of the people in teh Roman Empire, at best, could read, even fewer could write out sentences, far fewer still could actually compose narratives in a rudimentary level, and very few indeed could compose extended literary works like the Gospels. To be sure, the Gospels are not the most refined books to appear in the empire- far from it. Still, they are coherent narratives written by highly trained authors who knew how to construct a story and carry out their literary aims with finesse.

Whoever these authors were, they were unusually gifted Christians of a later generation. Scholars debate where they lived and worked, but their ignorance of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs suggests they composed their works somewhere else in the empire- presumably in a large urban area where they could have received a decent education and where there would have been a relatively large community of Christians.

These authors were not lower-class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee. But isn't it possible that, say John wrote the Gospel as an old man? That as a young man he was an illiterate, Aramaic-speaking day laborer- a fisherman from the time he was old enough to help haul a net- but that as an old man he wrote a Gospel?

I suppose it's possible. It would mean that after Jesus' resurrection, John decided to go to school and become literate. he learned the basics of reading, picked up the rudiments of writing, and learned Greek, well enough to become completely fluent. by the time he was an old man he had mastered composition and was able to write a Gospel. Is this likely? It hardly seems so. John and the other followers of Jesus had other things on their minds after experiencing Jesus' resurrection. For one thing, they though they had to convert the world and run the church.

I realized how easy it was for me to mistype words that I was reading from a book (not copy/pasting). Imagine how many more errors would be created from a scribe transcribing a book by hand! Ehrman writes a whole book about this kind of thing in Misquoting Jesus :lol:.

Modern scholarship has enough knowledge of 1st-century Koine Greek dialects to tell the difference between, say the LXX which is Alexandrian Greek, and the NT which is Palestinian Greek.

And Greek linguistic and even cultural influence on Palestinian Jews was considerable. Many Jews even gave their children Greek names, e.g., Nicodemus of the Jewish Council at Jerusalem. The Council itself had a name derived from Greek: Sanhedrin from synedrion, etc.

What I find particularly interesting is the Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion and mythology that were built in the region into the 600's, i.e., until the time of the Muslim conquests. Clearly, these mosaics are not mere decoration but seem to have a religious content that illustrates the cultural syncretism of the time.

The question is when exactly did this syncretism begin. I tend to believe that it must have begun prior to finding expression in art and architecture, e.g., in the 1st century if not earlier.

Modern scholarship has enough knowledge of 1st-century Koine Greek dialects to tell the difference between, say the LXX which is Alexandrian Greek, and the NT which is Palestinian Greek.

And Greek linguistic and even cultural influence on Palestinian Jews was considerable. Many Jews even gave their children Greek names, e.g., Nicodemus of the Jewish Council at Jerusalem. The Council itself had a name derived from Greek: Sanhedrin from synedrion, etc. — Apollodorus

Dude, slow your roll. Everyone who studies this knows that.

What I find particularly interesting is the Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion and mythology that were built in the region into the 600's, i.e., until the time of the Muslim conquests. Clearly, these mosaics are not mere decoration but seem to have a religious content that illustrates the cultural syncretism of the time.

The question is when exactly did this syncretism begin. I tend to believe that it must have begun prior to finding expression in art and architecture, e.g., in the 1st century if not earlier. — Apollodorus

Yes, already know that. Again, it was not common for religious-minded Jew to speak Greek unless certain mitigating circumstances or from the diaspora. Aramaic was the lingua franca. Did ancient Jews borrow from Greek motifs. Absolutely, since the time of Alexander's conquest and Hellenization.

Again, it was not common for religious-minded Jew to speak Greek unless certain mitigating circumstances or from the diaspora. — schopenhauer1

Well, I don't know what their "mitigating circumstances" might have been, but I think the guys that wrote the NT were (a) religious-minded Jews and (b) spoke Greek .... :wink:

Well, I don't know what their "mitigating circumstances" might have been, but I think the guys that wrote the NT were (a) religious-minded Jews and (b) spoke Greek .... :wink: — Apollodorus

We actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were! That's Ehrman's point! His (many people's) conjecture is they were urbane members somewhere in the Empire.. Who can say.. Maybe Antioch.. maybe Alexandria, etc. Most likely not Palestine itself. All we know is they were highly literate (actually writing in Greek) . precisely the people Jesus was not supposed to be hanging out with or came from. Paul is the only person with perhaps the most substantiated authorship, and by his own account he was a thoroughly Hellenized diasporan Jew with Roman citizenship even (something most Jews in Judea did not have the status of).

We actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were! — schopenhauer1

Yes, perhaps little green men from Mars. If you put NT parchments under the microscope, I believe you can still make out a subtle green tinge. If you wear green lenses, that is. And especially if you stare at them for long enough while focusing on the word "green", and slowly and attentively repeat it in your mind.

Or, perhaps, it woz Greeks pretending to be Jews, or Jews pretending to speak Greek. Or Romans pretending to be Greek-speaking Jews. I think I'm beginning to like that idea ....

On a lighter note, and having regard to the fact that even scholars like yourself admittedly "actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were", it would be premature to conclude that it is known that they weren't Greek-speaking Jews from Palestine. In which case, they could have been Greek-speaking Jews from Palestine, as Scott Greaves says. Not that it makes any difference to me, to be quite honest .... :smile:

Is it possible yes, just not probable. And what are we calling Palestine? Decapolis, Caesarea, Perea? Gentile Palestine if you will.

"Gentile Palestine" is not Palestine? Places like Nazareth were close to Greek cities like Sepphoris. And carpenters and other "peasants" traveled to where the customers and the markets were. Bilingual Jews cannot have been that uncommon.

Anyway, Ehrman argues that there were writers who composed Christian texts under false names, including the Gospels, in order to “influence” or “shape” Christianity. If this is the case, the NT cannot be used as reliable testimony. Some may claim that a particular NT statement is more “probable” than another, but this does not constitute hard evidence.

Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels

IMO if we go down Ehrman's path, the whole discussion becomes pointless. This is why I prefer scholars like Scott Greaves who seem to make more sense.

Not if he had no business with the Kittim. You learn a language for a reason. Jews in the diaspora had very good reasons to learn Greek, but not those in Palestine.
— Olivier5

What? You did say that there were Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews, didn't you? — Apollodorus

No, I did not say any such thing. But I suppose those Palestinian Jews who needed to learn Greek for their dealing with the Greeks might gave gone through the trouble of learning it.

People don't learn languages for no reason, you see? How many languages have you learnt just because you could?

I think a very good reason for Jews to have learned Greek is that the area was under Greek control for two centuries following Alexander the Great's conquests. At Maresha (Marisi) in Judea 60 tombs from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC were excavated with paintings of animals and mythical figures from the Hellenistic world. All inscriptions are in Greek and indicate that Jewish children were given Greek names.

This is why there were members of the Jerusalem Council (Sanhedrin) with Greek names, e.g. Nicodemus at the time of Jesus.

And, of course, Greek language and culture experienced a revival under Roman rule. People, including Jews, communicate and share ideas, beliefs, and customs. A Jewish artisan from Nazareth could perfectly well have discussed things with his Greek patrons in the nearby town of Sepphoris, the farmer with his customers at the market, etc. And the same goes for people with an interest in philosophical or spiritual matters ....

People, including Jews, communicate and share ideas, beliefs, and customs. A Jewish artisan from Nazareth could perfectly well have discussed things with his Greek patrons in the nearby town of Sepphoris — Apollodorus

This assumes quite a lot, for instance that Greeks were likely to patronize Jewish carpenters at the time, in spite of all the hatred and prejudice on both sides.

And what is the advantage of this hypothesis? What does it explain better than the "zero hypothesis" that our favorite Galilean carpenter spoke only his mother tongue? What does a polyglot Jesus bring to the table?

This assumes quite a lot, for instance that Greeks were likely to patronize Jewish carpenters at the time, in spite of all the hatred and prejudice on both sides. — Olivier5

Well, it may look like assuming a lot superficially. But the value of assumptions lies in their explanatory function, as you say. And that’s where I think the root of the problem lies, i.e. in the belief that there was this universal “hatred and prejudice” all over the country, which not only fails to explain the cultural syncretism brought to light by archaeology, but is unsupported by the evidence.

There is no doubt that animosity existed but it was not as universal as assumed. Essentially, Jews were more religious-minded while Greeks were more culture-oriented and tended to promote literature, philosophy, theatre, gymnasiums, etc., i.e., things that were appealing to many Jews, especially in the cities.

These differences divided Jewish society into two factions, one traditionalist that rejected Greek culture, and one progressive that sought to achieve various degrees of cultural assimilation or reform. This tension between traditionalists and reformists can also be seen in the OT books and in some members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin siding with Jesus (and his “Christian” group) and others opposing him.

And what is the advantage of this hypothesis? What does it explain better than the "zero hypothesis" that our favorite Galilean carpenter spoke only his mother tongue? What does a polyglot Jesus bring to the table? — Olivier5

For starters, if it turns out to be supported by the evidence, it will be more historically accurate. Second, it will afford us greater insight into early Christianity and it might even open the door to the possibility of greater influence of Greek thought on the new religion. This, of course, does not exclude the possibility of Persian, Egyptian, and other influences.

Speaking of table, I think an interesting example is the Greco-Roman custom of eating in a reclined position, especially at triclinia. The Greek triklinion (Latin triclinium) was a dining room with three couches (triclinia) arranged alongside the walls, on which diners reclined during meals.

Triclinium - Wikipedia

The custom was probably introduced from Persia from where it was adopted by the Greeks in the early 7th century BC, after which it reached the Etruscans and Romans, and became widespread in the areas of the Roman Empire that were at the time under Greek influence, including Roman Palestine.

Apparently, "Jews followed many of the customs found in other associations [Greek and Roman], including meals in communal halls, eating sacrifices, and reclining at triclinia"

Jewish Associations in Roman Palestine: First Century Evidence from the Mishnah – Academia Edu.

This raises the possibility or probability that the participants in Jesus’ last supper, for example, took their meal in a “Greek-style”, reclining position rather than sitting on chairs.

It doesn’t mean that Jesus was a “Greek philosopher”, only that Greek influence had penetrated Jewish society and culture in Roman Palestine deeper than sometimes assumed, which makes it legitimate to look for other forms of influence - so far as the evidence allows.

I think it should be noted what general Hellenistic diffusion was part of Roman Palestine already in Jesus’ time versus what came part of Christianity after Jesus’ death when more urbane, literate, and well-travelled Jews and gentiles would write about it, and subsequently added layers of Greek, gnostic, and mystery cult inspired theology.

For example, it is well known the Herodians and Hasmoneans before them were highly intertwined with the broader Greek world. Architecture and gymnasiums and theaters were established. It is also well known of the ancient Jewish practice of reclining like the Greeks. It’s mentioned in modern day Passover seders. It’s in the Haggadahs.

Logos, the significance of a resurrecting god, substance, rhetorical styled epistles vs rabbinic styled midrash or strict halachic rules of Dead Sea Scroll sect, or essence and substance, virtues, matter and form, even the idea of communion, etc. can be considered added as part and parcel of later layers of Christianity that developed when it spread to the greater Near East, and Mediterranean world.

This raises the possibility or probability that the participants in Jesus’ last supper, for example, took their meal in a “Greek-style”, reclining position rather than sitting on chairs. — Apollodorus

So it's important in terms of the history of furniture?

For example, it is well known the Herodians and Hasmoneans before them were highly intertwined with the broader Greek world. Architecture and gymnasiums and theaters were established. It is also well known of the ancient Jewish practice of reclining like the Greeks. It’s mentioned in modern day Passover seders. It’s in the Haggadahs. — schopenhauer1

Well, Olivier for one seems to find the idea "amusing". :smile:

BTW the question of (compulsory) reclining at Passover is an interesting one as (1) the custom of reclining at table seems to have been widespread, and (2) it may not be quite as old as it is thought in its compulsory Passover form.

The Mishnah says:

Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat.

And according to Instone-Brewer & Harland:

Although reclining was regarded as a decadent practice in Israel in the time of Amos [c. 760–755 BCE] (cf. Amos 3.12; 6.4) the many references to it in the Gospels indicate that it had been accepted as a Jewish custom. Indeed, it became so much part of the Jewish traditions that it was later regarded as a compulsory part of the celebration of Passover …
The earliest evidence in m.Pes. [Mishnah Pesachim] 10.1, which is difficult to date but is probably late 1st Century ... In later rabbinic literature we only find references to reclining at Passover, but Philo records that the Therapeutae reclined at a non-Passover meal (Contemplative Life 9, 69)

- Jewish Associations, above

Logos, the significance of a resurrecting god, substance, rhetorical styled epistles vs rabbinic styled midrash or strict halachic rules of Dead Sea Scroll sect, or essence and substance, virtues, matter and form, even the idea of communion, etc. can be considered added as part and parcel of later layers of Christianity that developed when it spread to the greater Near East, and Mediterranean world. — schopenhauer1

That’s the big question, isn’t it? Here is one way of looking at it:

The Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible were not the only books people of ancient times were reading and hearing at their religious communal readings. They were also exposed to a wide variety of Jewish texts that people thought of as spiritually profitable and many times also sacred. (Remember during this time the Canon (both Jewish and Christian) was not yet firmly established, the rough idea of what would become the Canon was already emerging).
In the Jewish treatises of Philo and others, authored in Greek, a very similar, if not the same, concept is also present. It is referred to by the use of the Greek word Logos just as in the Gospels, while in the Aramaic/Syriaic/Hebrew Jewish materials the same (or a very similar) idea is very often, though not always, signified by the word Memra (Targum Neofiti in Gen.3.13). Once a student of history of religion begins surveying Jewish pre-Christian ideas about the Word of God in para-biblical literature, pre-dating or contemporary with John’s Gospel, that student is quickly beginning to realize that up to this point (John 1:3) the author of the Gospel has not yet introduced any new ideas (and surely nothing foreign) to the Jewish first century thought-world as it existed at the time.

Logos Theology In pre-Christian Judaism – Israel Institute of Biblical Studies

BTW the question of (compulsory) reclining at Passover is an interesting one as (1) the custom of reclining at table seems to have been widespread, and (2) it may not be quite as old as it is thought in its compulsory Passover form. — Apollodorus

So you are basically just restating what I just said. Okay. Now I'm beginning to think you just like arguing for arguing's sake as you are now seeing disagreements where there aren't any.

That’s the big question, isn’t it? Here is one way of looking at it: — Apollodorus

Yeah you aren't paying attention to what I wrote earlier about similar matters, so not going to speak much on this. I am familiar on Boyarin's ideas on this. There is also the idea of the shekinah, etc. etc. One can try to connect it, and this is very much up for debate.

It is definitely something that was discussed previously by Philo. But to what extent this is traditional Judaism is more tenuous. It seems more a product from Plato via Philo (or someone of similar schools of thought) than anything directly in mainstream Palestinian sects (who were not studying Hellenistic Judaism or concepts).

Also, if you want to bring up the Enoch connection of a sort of "head of angels" and that is fair game, but you didn't really connect it. I do know Boyrain is very much involved in that kind of connection of Enoch-Metatron and possible Early Christian connections. He is also considered very extreme and out of the mainstream with a lot of scholars. His popular book is called Jewish Christ and that should tell you something of the connections he's trying to make. There was also an author before him, Alan Segal who wrote about similar matters about certain "minim" discussed in the Talmud, and the book's name was Two Powers in Heaven. That tells you right there, what the heretical belief was.

What I wonder is how these disputes about Hellenization relate to theological views on the Christan side. There are many texts in early Christianity that see the new world as the replacement of the old in regard to what was practiced and believed by the Jews.

Against that background, is the desire to amplify the importance of Hellenization reinforce the replacement idea or under-cut it?