As already stated, Greek "influence" on Jesus consisted in his making use of the Greek language and the Hellenized culture of Roman Palestine. — Apollodorus

Your claims go far beyond that. It is not a matter of language or art.

In any case, it is clear from the NT text that, in Christianity, Jesus had the external appearance of a human, but in reality he was the Son of God manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit. — Apollodorus

This is what you have been doing your best to avoid. First, either this claim can be found in the Jewish literature or it is pagan. Either it is found in Judaism or it is foreign. Second, either Jesus claimed this about himself or it is foreign to his teachings. Third, either Paul claimed this about Christ or it is foreign to his teaching.

Much rests on how the term 'son of God' is to be understood. If it is to be understood in the sense in which it is used in the Hebrew Bible, then claims about a man becoming God or God becoming a man are foreign and pagan. It remains to be seen how it is used in the NT. I addressed this already:
son of God

What about your claim that Jesus only had the appearance of man? If Jesus was not a man then he did not suffer on the cross, did not die, and was not resurrected.

It is well documented that Koine Greek was popular in his day. Aramaic just so happened to be his native tongue. So yes I do believe Jesus gave his lectures in Aramaic. — Dermot Griffin

The linguistic and cultural milieu in which Jesus operated was Hellenistic.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.

An important element of Greek culture was philosophy.

The convenient term "Hellenistic" employed here signifies complex amalgamations in the Near East in which the Greek ingredient was a conspicuous presence rather than a monopoly.
“’Judaism,’ it need hardly be said, is at least as complex and elastic a term. The institution defies uniform definition. And changes over time, as in all religions, render any effort to capture its essence at a particular moment highly problematic. "Hellenistic Judaism" must have experienced considerable diversity, quite distinct in Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, Ephesus, and Jerusalem-also a feature common to most or all religions. Simplistic formulations once in favor are now obsolete.
We can no longer contrast "Palestinian Judaism" as the unadulterated form of the ancestral faith with "Hellenistic Judaism" as the Diaspora variety that diluted antique practices with alien imports.

- Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition

The real life of ‘philosophy’… had left the schools and gone into the marketplace and onto the streets of the big cities … In the imperial period the army of wandering missionaries or philosophers had become legion. All of them competed with each other, advertising their art in order to attract disciples, and outdid each other in demonstrations of their power … Such missionaries competed even within the same religious or philosophical school … pagan, Christian and Jewish philosophers of this sort did not address the educated establishment but the common people, that is anybody they could meet in the streets….

- H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament

That Greek was the lingua franca of the Graeco-Roman world and the predominant language of the Roman Empire is acknowledged by virtually everyone who has considered this issue, although the full significance of this factor has not been fully appreciated by all New Testament scholars … Although Nazareth was a small village of only 1600 to 2000 in population, and it relied upon agriculture for its economic base (see Jn. 1:46, which might well be supported by what we know of the physical remains), it is not legitimate to think of Jesus as growing up in linguistic and cultural isolation … All of these factors are consistent with what we know of Jesus' own life and that of his followers … Jesus' being a carpenter or craftsman (Mk. 6:3), economically a middle level vocation, is consistent with the economic and cultural climate of the region, in which reciprocal trade was widespread.
This means that for Jesus to have conversed with inhabitants of cities in the Galilee, and especially of cities of the Decapolis and the Phoenician region, he would have had to have known Greek, certainly at the conversational level … It can be firmly established that Jesus did speak Greek and that we do indeed have some of his actual words. Once this has been established, then it can be seen that there are several other passages that may well record the words of Jesus, including the scene in Caesarea Philippi, when Jesus endorses Peter's confession that he is the Christ. In several of these contexts Jesus is recorded as speaking to others who plausibly did not speak a Semitic language, and where no translator or interpreter is indicated (see also Mt. 8:28-34; Mk. 5:1-20; Lk. 8:26-39).
The evidence regarding what is known about the use of Greek in ancient Palestine, including the cosmopolitan hellenistic character of lower Galilee, the epigraphic and literary evidence, including coins, papyri, literary writers, inscriptions and funerary texts, but most of all several significant contexts in the Gospels, all points in one direction: whereas it is not always known how much and on which occasions Jesus spoke Greek, it is virtually certain that he used Greek at various times in his itinerant ministry. It is probable that we have his actual words in Mark 15:2 and parallels, and may well have a passage of his teaching originally delivered in Greek recorded in Matthew 16:17-19 …

- Stanley Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. — Apollodorus

In support of this you cite Gruen, but things are not so simple and straightforward.

- Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition — Apollodorus

From the publisher:

How did the Jews accommodate themselves to the larger cultural world of the Mediterranean while at the same time reasserting the character of their own heritage within it? Erich Gruen's work highlights Jewish creativity, ingenuity, and inventiveness, as the Jews engaged actively with the traditions of Hellas, adapting genres and transforming legends to articulate their own legacy in modes congenial to a Hellenistic setting.

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520235069/heritage-and-hellenism)

In Gruen's own words:

How did ancient societies come to articulate their own identities? The question presents numerous difficulties and stumbling blocks. One topic of inquiry, however, may bring some useful results. I refer to the manipulation of myths, the reshaping of traditions, the elaboration of legends, fictions, and inventions, the recasting of ostensibly alien cultural legacies with the aim of defining or reinforcing a distinctive cultural character.

(https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/b7e85690-e10d-49f4-9127-698f80b7c1fe/1001727.pdf)

Gruen does not show that Hellenistic Judaism simply combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. His claim, as quoted above, is that the aim was to define or reinforce a distinctive cultural character. This is quite different than combining elements.

[Added: note the manipulation of (Greek) myths, the reshaping of (Greek) traditions, the elaboration of (Greek) legends, fictions, and inventions, the recasting of ostensibly alien cultural legacies .

As to Porter:

... it is likely that Jesus' primary language was Aramaic ...

This evidence clearly points to the presumption that Jesus' productive bilingual capacity included the ability to speak and possibly to teach in Greek ...

(file:///home/chronos/u-99af47985f8715d9d2e97f4e9de2f1803413812c/MyFiles/Downloads/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf)

If we grant that Jesus could speak Greek this does not address the question of whether he was and to what extent and in what way he might have been influenced by Greek thought. Although Porter suggests he "possibly" taught in Greek, it is not a question of a possibility that he taught in Aramaic. There is widespread agreement on this, including Porter's agreement.

Once again, what is at issue is not language or art but thought, or more specifically, theology. Christian theology as it developed misunderstood and altered the meaning of 'son of God' and created a pagan religion in the name of a Jewish man, a teacher, a rabbi who would have been outraged if he knew what would be done in his name.

If you asked someone like Heinrich Rommen, a Catholic political philosopher, he would agree that there is a lot of similarity between Christian teaching and Greek philosophy. An important point he would make, though, is that truth is objective, not relative. This being the case, and truth stemming from God, who is the Truth (John 14:6), even truth that comes from a non-Christian source is still from God. Since the Church was designated as the mouthpiece of God (symbolism of the keys given to St Peter), the Church then becomes the heir to all truth previously known through reason. To put it simply, all things that are true, having been discovered by Greeks, Asians, Celts, etc, belongs to the Church. He discusses this in depth in an earlier chapter of his book,The State in Catholic Thought

As stated by Plato, knowledge and truth are of divine origin. So, I think it makes sense to assume that divine truth is universal and that different aspects of it are revealed at different points in time and space, and under consideration of the prevalent culture.

At the time of Moses, the dominant culture was Egyptian. Which is why we are told that “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22).

Similarly, at the time of Jesus, the dominant culture was Hellenistic, i.e., Greek-influenced, and this applies to Judaism itself. Therefore, Jesus must have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic, and the Judaism he was at home in was Hellenistic Judaism. It is also entirely possible that he had knowledge of Greek wisdom in the same way Moses had knowledge of Egyptian wisdom.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.

Hellenistic Judaism – Wikipedia

It has been argued that all Judaism after the conquests of Alexander was Hellenistic Judaism … Although many have seen the Maccabean revolt as opposing Hellenistic culture, this is to be very much doubted.

L. Grabbe, Hellenistic Judaism

Hellenization is used with reference to Judea, Persia, etc. to indicate the penetration of elements of Greek civilization into territories which, though subject to Greco-Macedonian rule for a certain period of time, preserved their national culture with conspicuous success … Confronted with Greek ideas, some attempted to combine Greek intellectual values with Hebrew ones; such efforts were more successful in Egypt than in Judea. However, even in Judea the Hellenizing movement under Antiochus IV came near to prevailing.

Hellenism – Jewish Virtual Library

Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, when the Romans razed the place to the ground and banned all Jews from the city, Jews became focused more on the scriptural texts as that was all they had left.

But before that, in Jesus’ time, Judaism, i.e., Hellenistic Judaism which was the dominant form of the religion, was very similar to Greek and Roman religion, being centered on animal sacrifice. Even the ten commandments (Decalogue) were almost identical to Greek laws and customs, as the Greeks had similar prohibitions against blasphemy, murder, theft, adultery, perjury, injunctions to respect one’s parents and honor the Gods, etc.

So, we can see how Greek ideas disseminated by traveling philosophers and missionaries would have been transmitted to those sections of the Galilean population that were receptive to them in the same way Greek language had become the lingua franca of the whole region.

Unfortunately, attempts were made by later generations of Christians, Jews, and Muslims to claim that truth belongs exclusively to them. But I think at least some aspects of truth must be universal ....

... truth is objective ... truth stemming from God — Blake4508

This is an assertion. The truth of that assertion may not be questioned by Rommen, but it has not been objectively established

Since the Church was designated as the mouthpiece of God — Blake4508

More precisely, the Church designated itself as the mouthpiece.

But before that, in Jesus’ time, Judaism, i.e., Hellenistic Judaism which was the dominant form of the religion, was very similar to Greek and Roman religion, being centered on animal sacrifice. — Apollodorus

Ritualistic sacrifice was a part of Judaism but Judaism was not centered on animal sacrifice. For a general idea of what is involved see: Sacrifices and Offerings

You are still evading the fundamental theological differences between Judaism and Christian paganism.

You quote Jewish Virtual Library but skip this very important point:

Ultimately the Jews organized their culture and their political life on their own terms, as witnessed by the rise of the Essenes and Pharisees. The independence of Jewish intellectual life in the Hellenistic age is partly explained by the fact that while Jews took a great interest in Greek ideas, the outside world took relatively little interest in Hebrew ideas ... The isolation in which the Jews lived, especially in Judea, was conducive to the creation ofa style of thought and life which can be (and was) considered competitive with Hellenistic civilization.

(emphasis added)

Rommen's book seems to be more about political philosophy but he does make some interesting points.

I think what is important to understand is that there is a lot of mythology involved in the mainstream perception of Judaism as an absolutely unique religion that developed in complete isolation from all external influence.

The truth of the matter is that Judaism did not emerge in a cultural vacuum and that the ancient Hebrews often were (consciously or unconsciously) influenced by neighboring cultures.

For example, following their departure from Egypt, they asked their leader Aaron, the elder brother of Moses, to make them a god to lead them. Aaron made the image of a calf from gold and presented it to his people as the God that had brought them out of Egyptian captivity. He also built an altar to it and the next morning a festival was held in honor of the God, with burned sacrifices, and “the people sat down to eat and to drink, and got up to party” (Exodus 32:1-6).

Obviously, they wouldn't have made such a request and held a festival with sacrifices, food, drink, and dance, unless they thought that this was the right thing to do. And they wouldn't have thought it was the right thing to do unless this was established practice.

Indeed, this may have been ancient Hebrew tradition. But it was also the tradition of neighboring peoples like the Egyptians and the Canaanites, among whom images of calves or young bulls represented the sacred or divine.

Similarly, the OT description of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25), a wooden chest decorated with winged deities, which contained the Law Tablets, and which the Israelites carried with them on poles, is virtually identical with the ritual chests or coffers used by the Egyptians.

The ark was constructed using a visual language that everyone knew 3,300 years ago but is mostly lost to us today … the Chest of Anubis, a special canopic chest, was used to carry canopic jars to a tomb. It was covered in gold inside and out (as the ark in Exodus 25:11; 37:2), held sacred objects (as the ark in Deuteronomy 10:2, 5), and had its poles attached to its base. Its lid, which fit over the lip of the chest and was known as the “mercy seat,” bore a statue of Anubis (god who escorted the dead to the afterlife) made in one piece with the lid. These features are markedly similar to the ark …

- The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context – Biblical Archaeology Society

The Covenant itself follows the established pattern of ancient Near East treaties:

There seems to have been something of a standard covenant or treaty Gattung all over the ancient Near East. The Old Testament preserves the particular form of the pattern which was current in Israel.

Moreover,

The writers of the Old Testament were using the literary forms of their own age, and much can be learned by studying other examples of the same forms. Thus the structure and subject-matter of some of the Psalms can be paralleled in the literature of Ugarit; the wisdom literature of the Old Testament has numerous parallels in the ancient Near East; many of the laws of the Pentateuch have parallels in the Hammurabi Code and elsewhere; the Old Testament story of the Flood has certain points of contact with the Babylonian flood stories; indeed, examples could be multiplied …

J. A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties And The Old Testament

Following their return to Canaan, the Israelites requested to be ruled by a king like all other nations:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, now make us a king to judge us like all the nations (1 Samuel 8:4-5).

It may be added that circumcision was widely practiced in Ancient Egypt and thus was not an exclusively “Jewish” custom. Even the prohibition against eating pork is paralleled in an Ancient Egyptian view of pigs as unclean animals and as suitable only for consumption by the poor.

Archaeological evidence shows that, for many centuries, polytheism and idolatry continued to be prevalent in the area inhabited by the Jews. Quite possibly, a religious elite existed that adhered to strict monotheism centered on the God Yahweh. But this doesn’t seem to have been the case in the general population, and monotheism began to gain ground only after the return from Babylon and the construction of the Second Temple in 516 BC (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed).

Between the tenth century BC and the beginning of their Babylonian exile in 586 BC, polytheism was normal throughout Israel. Worship solely of Yahweh became established only after the exile, and possibly, only as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC).

- Asherah - Wikipedia

Even in the Second-Temple period, the region was under Persian rule for two centuries, followed from the 300’s BC, by Greek rule and, finally, in Jesus’ time, by Roman rule.

As in Greek and Roman religion, animal sacrifice formed a central part of Jewish temple service until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD:

The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides believed that the sacrifices were a concession to the common practices in biblical times, when all nations worshiped by means of animal sacrifices … For this reason, God allowed Jews to make sacrifices, but, all elements of idolatry were removed. Instead, limitations were placed on sacrifices. They were confined to one central location (instead of each family having a home altar) – The Times of Israel.

In Judaism, the korban (קָרְבָּן qorbān), also spelled qorban or corban, is any of a variety of sacrificial offerings described and commanded in the Torah.
The object sacrificed was usually an animal that was ritually slaughtered and then transferred from the human to the divine realm by being burned on an altar.
After the destruction of the Second Temple, sacrifices were prohibited because there was no longer a Temple, the only place allowed by halakha for sacrifices. Offering of sacrifices was briefly reinstated during the Jewish–Roman wars of the second century CE and was continued in certain communities thereafter.

Korban – Wikipedia

In any case, by the time of Jesus, Judaism was heavily Hellenized and there is little evidence that all or most Jews rejected Greek influence. This is supported by the NT description of Jesus and his disciples reclining at table in the Greek manner (Mk 14:18), by later synagogue art depicting the Greek Sun God (or God Yahweh as the Sun God), etc.

So, I think the curious hypothesis to the effect that Jews hated Greeks and therefore couldn’t have spoken Greek or adopted elements of Greek culture including philosophy, can be safely dismissed as bogus.

In fact, as clearly pointed out by the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews took a great interest in Greek ideas and this is confirmed by the works of numerous Jewish philosophers from Philo to Maimonides.

While religious fanatics attempt to see (or imagine) irreconcilable differences, true philosophers understand that Greek philosophy is perfectly compatible with Judaism and Christianity alike.

For example, Platonism, Judaism, and Christianity all believe in one supreme reality or God. Even apparently incompatible beliefs such as reincarnation and resurrection can be reconciled when applied to different classes of souls occupying different levels of spiritual evolution and inhabiting different realms of existence in the afterlife.

there is a lot of mythology involved in the mainstream perception of Judaism as an absolutely unique religion that developed in complete isolation from all external influence. — Apollodorus

That is not a mythology that any educated person holds. It is not a mythology that anyone here has supported. Quite the opposite! You have given a lot of effort, however, to minimize or negate what is unique about Judaism and its ineliminable influence on Jesus, an influence that far exceeds whatever "possible" influence of Hellenism you might conjure out of you own Platonism.

This may have been ancient Hebrew tradition. But it was also the tradition of neighboring peoples like the Egyptians and the Canaanites. — Apollodorus

You completely miss the point:

Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.’ ” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell.

(Exodus 32:26–28)

From the time of Moses the worship of idols was expressly forbidden. The story does not show that the people of Israel were like their neighbors. To the contrary, this distinguishes them from their neighbors.

Does Jesus have anything to say about this? In the Sermon on the Mount he says:

"You are the light of the world" (5:14). As you acknowledge, Hellenistic influence was widespread, and yet, it is only the righteous who are the light.

It is also entirely possible that he had knowledge of Greek wisdom — Apollodorus

They are not the light of the world because of Greek wisdom but because of "the law and the prophets". (5:17) In this they stand apart from and against other nations.

In Proverbs the contrast is made between the wisdom of Solomon, that is, fear of the Lord, and the "foreign woman", that is, Sophia. We are told from the start that we must "understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles." (1:6)

"My child, be attentive to my wisdom; incline your ear to my understanding, so that you may hold on to prudence, and your lips may guard knowledge. For the lips of a strange woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.

(5:1-5)

"Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.

(5:15)

So, I think the curious hypothesis to the effect that Jews hated Greeks and therefore couldn’t have spoken Greek or adopted elements of Greek culture including philosophy, can be safely dismissed as bogus. — Apollodorus

When one ignores differences everything appears to be the same.

As stated by Plato, knowledge and truth are of divine origin. So, I think it makes sense to assume that divine truth is universal and that different aspects of it are revealed at different points in time and space, and under consideration of the prevalent culture. — Apollodorus

Elsewhere you point to reincarnation as central to Platonism, but reincarnation and resurrection are incompatible. If divine truth and knowledge is universal then it cannot be true both that the soul is reincarnated and that it is resurrected, either with or without the body.

As shown by Finkelstein and Silberman, the best way to debunk the mythology and propaganda surrounding the origins and nature of Judaism, is to go to the historical and archaeological sources.

According to the OT, the God of Moses states:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them (Exodus 20:3-5).

Though this is often interpreted in a monotheistic sense, the existence of more than one god is implied in the very words “other gods”: if no other gods existed, the question of “having other gods” would not arise. The sentence “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” makes sense only in a polytheistic context. The same applies to phrases like “the God of Israel”, “the God of Abraham”, “the God of Moses”, etc., which are clearly intended to differentiate between the God of the Jews and the God(s) of other nations.

However, even supposing that what is described at Exodus 20 is a form of monotheism, as observed by Freud (Moses and Monotheism), this still has close parallels in the Egyptian cult of Aten/Aton (the Orb of the Sun), introduced by Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Interestingly, Akhenaten also built a new capital city with a large temple to Aten/Aton and prohibited the cult of other gods and the use of religious statues.

Moreover, the word for “lord” or “master” in Hebrew is “adon” and in Jewish tradition the name of the God of Israel is read as “Adonai” (plural of “Adon-i”,“my Lord”).

As Freud concludes,

If Moses gave to the Jews not only a new religion, but also the law of circumcision [which was an Egyptian custom], he was no Jew but an Egyptian, and then the Mosaic religion was probably an Egyptian one, namely – because of its contrast to the popular religion – that of Aton with which the Jewish one shows agreement in some remarkable points (p.46).

Indeed, if as the OT tells, Moses (whose name is Egyptian, as noted by Philo and Josephus) was raised as an Egyptian prince (Exodus 2:1-10) then he must have been familiar with Egyptian religion and, as suggested by Freud and others he may have been Egyptian.

In any case, what is certain is that Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following:

Henotheism or monotheism.
God equated to the Sun and described as having war chariots.
Creation myth.
Psalms.
Prayers.
Covenant.
Code of moral conduct inscribed on stone or clay.
Ark.
Kings.
Prophets.
Temple.
Spring and fall festivals.
Animal sacrifices.
Male circumcision.
Prohibition against eating pork.

The equation or comparison of the supreme being to the Sun, which as we have seen is common to the traditions of Greece, Egypt-Israel, and Christianity, is of particular importance on account of the philosophical message it conveys, namely that just as there is only one Sun, there is only one Truth or Ultimate Reality, which however, is perceived differently by different individuals and cultures in the same way the light of the Sun is reflected differently in different objects or at different points in time and space.

This is why true philosophers at the time of Jesus, whether Jewish, Pagan, or Christian, would have had no problem discerning that all truth has one source and that it makes no sense to reject truth just because it is spoken by someone from a different religion or culture.

For the close links between Israel and Egypt see also:

J. Assmann, Moses the Egyptian
F. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

I think you raise some very great points. And I absolutely agree with many of them. Although I think there was a bit of misunderstanding as I absolutely believe that almost all other religions do, indeed, have many elements of universal truth. Those elements, from a Catholic perspective at least, are good. That means that the things objectively true in Judaism, Islam, Paganism, etc are GOOD things precisely because all truth stems from God. So yes, there almost certainly were foreign elements involved in Judaism (which I appreciate the history lesson as I was unaware of the extent of Hellenistic influence in Judaism. So thank you for that) but that, as long as it doesn't change the core doctrines of BC Judaism are not necessarily bad.

This is a concept that live on in the Church to this day. Much of the Catholic philosophy has been influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas had a deep respect for Aristotle and the Scholastics were very keen on studying the Hellenistic philosophers. But the fact that the philosophy does not contradict revealed dogma means that it can certainly influence Catholic thought and be a good thing to incorporate. At the end of the day, ALL TRUTH is good, no matter what religion or philosophy discovers it.

Not everything needs to be empirically established to be true. If Empiricist-positivism was the arbiter of truth, than many things we take for granted could not be used. Even concepts such as "mental" could not be used as there is no empirical evidence for such things. Its actually a very interesting issue in the problem of consciousness. I can link an article if you would like.

Not everything needs to be empirically established to be true. — Blake4508

You quote Rommen regarding objective truth. How are we to determine that what you claim to be objectively true is? Simply asserting something is true does not make it true. This has nothing to do with "Empiricist-positivism".

God equated to the Sun — Apollodorus

Where do we find God equated to the "Sun" or the sun in any way that goes further than metaphor? In Genesis 1 God does not create the sun until the fourth day. The sun gives light to the earth (1:17) but on day one God says: "Let there be light". This is clearly a rejection of any religion that worships the sun.

You continue to avoid addressing the crucial issues that on the one hand separate Judaism and paganism and on the other Jesus' Jewish teachings from pagan Christianity.

But the fact that the philosophy does not contradict revealed dogma means that it can certainly influence Catholic thought and be a good thing to incorporate. At the end of the day, ALL TRUTH is good, no matter what religion or philosophy discovers it. — Blake4508

Correct. Truth is perceived as “bad” only by those who are afraid of it and seek to impose their own mythology on reality. :smile:

I was unaware of the extent of Hellenistic influence in Judaism. — Blake4508

As pointed out by many scholars, some of whom I have mentioned here, archaeology doesn’t lie. History is a different story given that it can be, and often is, distorted for political and ideological reasons.

As shown by M. Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism), J. Scott Gleaves (Did Jesus Speek Greek?), S. Porter (Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?), and many others, Judaism and Early Christianity were heavily influenced by Greek culture. Hengel, in any case, is an absolute must-read.

The way I see it, the discovery of truth can only happen through the elimination of untruth.

Like the Sun, truth is a self-luminous force that reveals (a) itself and (b) things other than itself by casting its light on them. As sunlight can be obscured by clouds when seen from the earth, so the light of truth can be obscured by layers of ignorance arising from conditioned existence.

Truth then, can be unearthed only by chiseling away at the layers of untruth that have sedimented around it.

Most Christians I know are surprised, or even shocked, to learn that Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper did not sit on chairs as medieval or modern Europeans might have done, but were reclining in the Greek fashion – which was to lean on the left elbow on a dining couch and take food from the table in front with the right hand.

And yet the Greek NT says very clearly, “And it came to pass, that, as Jesus reclined (katakeisthai) [at table] in his house …” (Mark 2:15). The Latin translation of the Greek original naturally has accumberet (“reclined”) because the Romans ate in the same way as the Greeks from whom they had adopted the custom (as had the Jews).

The Gothic translation from the Greek similarly has:

“Jah warþ, biþe is anakumbida in garda is …” (Wulfila Bible, c. 350 AD).

However, later translations into English changed “reclined” to “sat”.

Middle English:

“And it was doon, whanne he sat at the mete in his hous …” (Wycliffe's Bible, 1383).

Modern English:

“And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house …” (King James Bible, 1611).

The same occurred with other passages like “While they were reclining (anakeimenon) and eating, he said, “I tell you the truth …” (Mark 14:18). The Latin has discumbentibus (“reclining”), which as we have seen is preserved in Gothic (anakumbjan from Latin accumbere). But later translations into English change this to “sat”.

Middle English:

“And whanne thei saten `at the mete, and eeten, Jhesus seide, Treuli Y seie to you …” (Wycliffe's Bible, 1383).

Modern English:

“And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you …” (King James Bible, 1611).

Another “surprise” or “shock” is to learn that Greek was widely spoken in Galilee (and other parts of Roman Palestine) and that Jesus most likely spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic, and that, as some scholars have argued, he probably even taught in Greek.

As stated earlier, there are three basic possibilities: (1) Jesus was the Son of God, (2) he was a man, (3) he never existed. If we take the mainstream Christian position (1) that he was the Son of God, then it stands to reason (a) that he knew Greek and (b) that he taught in Greek as Greek at the time was the ideal medium of disseminating what was intended to be an universal message to the whole Roman Empire – which is precisely why the NT Gospels were written in Greek.

Even on the hypothesis that Jesus was not the Son of God, it is generally accepted that his message was very powerful and universally applicable and, therefore, it made sense for him to use a universal language like Greek to convey that message to the masses.

Indeed, it is absolutely clear from the NT text that Jesus’ message was for Jews and non-Jews alike. For example, he says that one day non-Jews will dine in heaven with the Jewish patriarchs:

And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down (lit. recline) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11).

(It should be noted that the original Greek text consistently uses "will recline (at table)" (anaklithesontai) even in reference to eating in heaven.)

And

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19).

Likewise, Paul says:

The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).

Obviously, if Jesus knew Greek like most inhabitants of Roman Palestine did, it would have made sense for him to use Greek in his sermons which were addressed to a population that was ethnically mixed and bilingual.

Now, according to the NT, Jesus made some important statements such as “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12) and “I am the truth and the life” (John 14:6).

If we go back to the historical roots of such statements, we arrive, as Freud says, at the Ancient Egyptian solar cult of Aten/Aton whose founder Pharaoh Akhenaten not only regarded the Sun (or its power) as the supreme divine source, but also regarded himself (as all Egyptian kings did) as the son of the deity.

Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible we find statements like “God is the Sun”:

For the Lord God [is a/the] Sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee. (Psalm 84:11-12).

And:

I have set my king upon my holy mountain of Zion. I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me [King David], ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten [i.e., created or appointed] You” (Psalm 2:6-7).

Psalm 84:11 literally reads “Lord Yahweh [is a/the] Sun [and] shield” (Shemesh Yahweh Elohim). However, we must recall that “Yahweh” (YHWH) is articulated as “Adon-ai” out of respect:

Yahweh: but when being read aloud the title Adonai (‘My great Lord’) was substituted out of reverence. When vowels were added to the Hebrew text, the vowels of Adonai were combined with YHWH to jog the reader's memory to use Adonai (Oxford Reference).

As observed by numerous scholars, this is a very curious practice. In any case, if "Adon(ai)" is substituted for "Yahweh", the text reads “Shemesh Adon(ai)”, “the Sun (Shemesh) is the Lord God” or, in the Egyptian context, “the Sun is God Aten/Aton [and the shield or protection of those who take refuge in him]”.

Here we find all the elements of the NT text: Truth = Light of the World = life-giving Sun = Way of Uprightness or Righteousness that brings protection or salvation.

The same idea occurs in Plato's Republic where the divine Form or Idea of the Good which is the source of truth, knowledge, and justice, is compared to the Sun which is the source of life on earth.

Of course, if we look at it from a modern Western perspective, we may find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Hebrew Bible could have equated the God of Israel with the Sun in any other way than metaphorically. However, the perspective changes if we consider that this was written many centuries ago in a totally different cultural environment and that even Plato equates the source of truth with the Sun which in Greek religion was a deity. If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero.

This is not to say that no Hebrews saw the Sun as the “light of God” instead of as a deity in its own right. But for the Hebrew masses, as for their neighboring nations, the Sun, Moon, and other heavenly bodies most certainly were divine. And this is entirely consistent with truth, though being one, being perceived differently by different beholders depending on each individual’s cultural and intellectual development.

What remains to be considered is the relation between universal and particular realities (or experience of them), or between Father (universal) and Son (particular). Here, again, we can turn to the NT where Jesus says “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34). The OT itself says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:6).

Indeed, particular realities are creations of universal reality, and humans being creations of the deity, are its “children” and, by implication, divine. The problem is that the “children” or creatures are not consciously aware of the fact that they hold within themselves the divinity or truth of the “Father” or Creator, and as a result of this they think and act in ways that are contrary to the divine or truth.

The task of both religion and philosophy, then, is to make man “divine” or “perfect”, i.e., to bring him into harmony with reality or truth, as far as humanly possible. Becoming or making oneself as godlike or perfect as possible is the central aim of both Platonism (Theaetetus 176b) and Christianity: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

This necessity of the individual to strive for moral perfection is also acknowledged by Jewish thinkers, as observed by Kavka in his discussion of philosophers like Maimonides, Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig, and Emmanuel Levinas:

In a radical sense, human agency has messianic force. I trace this idea back to Cohen, to a lesser extent to Rosenzweig, and further back into the rabbinic tradition. As Levinas formulates the view in one of his first Talmudic readings, “to be myself is to be the Messiah”. This “myself” [[i]moi[/i]] is not the ego who lords power over others, but the ethical subject who gives up that power and takes responsibility for the suffering of others. In Levinas and Cohen, being the Messiah is synonymous with human moral perfection

Maimonides certainly used Greek philosophy, in particular Aristotle, to address issues related to religion and ethics. As he put it:

The true human perfection consists in the acquisition of the rational virtues… Through it man is man (Guide of the Perplexed).

The true philosophical position then, as Kavka concludes, is that “there is no gap between Athens and Jerusalem”.

This doesn’t mean that one needs to renounce Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Platonism, Judaism, or whatever tradition one happens to belong to. Only that one must overcome one’s psychological and cultural resistance to truth, and allow truth, or the light of reality, to illumine our mind and act as a force for good in our life.

Unfortunately, the unphilosophical lovers of darkness and untruth prefer to stay trapped within Tertullian’s polemical distinction which is the only place where they feel at home ….

PS Despite baseless claims to the contrary made by some here, Kavka states very clearly:

This book vigorously rejects the Athens-Jerusalem problem that has been our pet mosquito, sucking our lifeblood since the third century C.E. In its infancy, it was a problem for Christianity. It is first mentioned in the seventh chapter of the early Church father Tertullian’s de Praescriptione Haereticorum (On the Prescription against Heresies).
Thus begins a long history of the fear of miscegenation, paralleled by rabbinic texts from the same time period that proscribe the learning of Greek wisdom. But the Athens-Jerusalem problem is not only about the relationship between faith and the heresy of philosophy. In the modern period, it is about the relationship between Jewish faith and Western culture, which are perceived to be in necessary conflict.
The either/or of the Athens-Jerusalem problem insidiously perseveres to this day. There is no reason why this either/or is necessary. In spite of the uneasy relationship with Athens displayed by the rabbis, some medieval Jewish philosophers refused to admit that there was any Athens-Jerusalem split …. (pp. 2-3).

Truth is perceived as “bad” only by those who are afraid of it and seek to impose their own mythology on reality. — Apollodorus

And yet you ignore it when the untruth of your own mythology that you seek to impose on reality is pointed out to you.

The way I see it, the discovery of truth can only happen through the elimination of untruth. — Apollodorus

If you really saw it that way you would eliminate the untruth of your own untrue claims.

As pointed out by many scholars, some of whom I have mentioned here, archaeology doesn’t lie. — Apollodorus

Once again you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Archaeological evidence must be interpreted. That interpretation is not free of historical and other assumptions.

udaism and Early Christianity were heavily influenced by Greek culture — Apollodorus

And what do you point to in order to show this influence? That they ate the Passover dinner while reclining! Unlike most Christian you know this does not come as a shock to Jews who celebrate the Passover. Does it come as a shock to you that Jesus ate with his right hand because he wiped his ass with his left hand? Or do you think he did not shit? Or that what came out of his ass was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit?

And what is the other thing you point to in order to show this influence? That Greek was spoken in Galilee! The language that may have been used tells us nothing about what was said in that language. or how religious beliefs were influenced.

If we take the mainstream Christian position (1) that he was the Son of God, then it stands to reason (a) that he knew Greek and (b) that he taught in Greek ... — Apollodorus

But it does not stand to reason that he was the Son of God. That is an article of faith not reason.

Psalm 84:11 literally reads “Lord Yahweh [is the] Sun” (Shemesh Yahweh Elohim). — Apollodorus

You left out the rest of the statement: "and shield". Now if we take this literally then just as God is literally the sun he is also literally a shield. God is then literally a physical entity both a sun and a shield.

But if we recall that “Yahweh” (YHWH) is articulated as “Adon-ai”, — Apollodorus

Another fabrication. Adonai is not an articulation of YHWH. It is articulated as "Yahweh" or some variant, although many Jews regard the name as too sacred to articulate. Adonai means lord. Often Adonai is combined with Elohim, another name for God, as it is in the Psalm - Lord God.

The same idea occurs in Plato's Republic where the divine Form or Idea of the Good which is the source of truth, knowledge, and justice, is compared to the Sun which is the source of life on earth. — Apollodorus

In the Republic it is explicitly stated that:

The good is not the source of everything; rather it is the cause of things that are in a good way, while it is not responsible for the bad things.

(379b)

It is also explicitly stated that the sun is an image of the Good.

Whatever similarities there are between the God of the Hebrew Bible and Plato's Good, they are not the same.

Of course, if we look at it from a modern Western perspective, we may find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Hebrew Bible could have equated the God of Israel with the Sun in any other way than metaphorically. — Apollodorus

Again you ignore what was pointed out. In Genesis 1 the sun is created on the 4th day. It did not create itself and it is not the main source of light.

Why do you ignore this? It is because you are afraid of the truth?

The OT itself says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:6). — Apollodorus

Things take on a very different meaning when taken out of context. Who are the assembly of gods who know nothing and understand nothing and walk about in the darkness? (82:5) What kind of gods die like mortals? (82:7)

Name dropping should not substitute for understanding. Kavka is not denying the difference between Athens and Jerusalem. His is a project for the future, for what is not-yet. This not to be done by denying differences or an attempt to make what is different appear to be the same.

From the introduction to Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy

1. What is not? Everything that has not yet actualized its potential. Most viscerally, me.

2. What is meontology? The study of unmediated experiences of lack and privation. This study inaugurates self-critique and the realization that I live in a moment best described as not-yet. I thereby begin my path toward human perfection and toward God.

3. How do I live in this not-yet? In manic desire for what appears to me to be stable, for what displays a comfort in its own skin that I have never experienced. For you.

4. What is the effect of this desire? In the hope against hope that my desire will come to fulfillment, I keep you in mind, near me. I take care of you and work to engender political reforms that allow our conversation and relationship to perdure. I act to delay your death – even, perhaps, if this contributes to the skyrocketing proportion of the GDP taken up by the cost of medical care – and the death of your friends, and their friends, ad infinitum. In these brief moments when I break free of my narcissistic chains, I act messianically and redeem the world that is responsible for your suffering and your death, which will always be premature for me. I engender a world that my tradition (and perhaps yours) says God engenders, and I articulate my resemblance to God.


This argument makes a long journey from Athens to Jerusalem. It moves from a philosophy of nonbeing to the passionate faith in a redeemer still to come ... whom I represent. Indeed, the notion of a redeemer to come – the difference between Judaism and Christianity – cannot be defended without turning back to the analysis of nonbeing in the Greek philosophical tradition. Without Athens, Jerusalem (Judaism) risks being unable to articulate the meaning of its own religious practices, becoming no more than a set of customs divorced from their ultimate source, a sedimented series of
rote actions that can create an identity for its practitioners only through the profane category of “culture.”

His project is not what you claim "remains to be considered":

What remains to be considered is the relation between universal and particular realities (or experience of them), or between Father (universal) and Son (particular). — Apollodorus

It is not about a universal and particular reality, but rather about “a meontology which affirms a meaning beyond Being, a mode of non-Being (m¯e on)". What it shares with Plato is indeterminacy, open-endedness. This was discussed in my thread Plato's Metaphysics

Your own negative comments there show that you do not understand what is at issue either for Plato or for contemporary thinkers like Kavka.

You are quite right. What I was getting at is that something doesn’t necessarily have to be PROVEN to be true for it to actually be true. If that makes sense.

Of course, if we look at it from a modern Western perspective, we may find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Hebrew Bible could have equated the God of Israel with the Sun in any other way than metaphorically. However, the perspective changes if we consider that this was written many centuries ago in a totally different cultural environment and that even Plato equates the source of truth with the Sun which in Greek religion was a deity. If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero. — Apollodorus

I think you make some very good points! I would however, disagree in a certain sense with regard to the idea that the sun was literally seen as a deity, or rather, THE deity. In a certain sense I’m sure there were mixtures of cultural practices where many Jews did have these notions, that being said, God being the sun as a deity in and of itself seems like a stretch. The fact that many times in the OT where God talked to prophets like Abraham at night I think would be sufficient to at least put a roadblock in that idea. If the sun is down, and it’s opposite is all that is visible, why would God speak at night? Now one could argue that maybe God is NOT the sun but can simply work through it instead, but that is traditionally how God was seen as operating anyway. There’s always been the idea that certain natural object have divine qualities, but I think the point of disagreement we have is whether or not those are intrinsic or external. Is the sun divine intrinsically, or does it simply have divine qualities from the Creator working through it?

In any case, what is certain is that Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following:

Henotheism or monotheism.
God equated to the Sun and described as having war chariots.
Creation myth.
Psalms.
Prayers.
Covenant.
Code of moral conduct inscribed on stone or clay.
Ark.
Kings.
Prophets.
Temple.
Spring and fall festivals.
Animal sacrifices.
Male circumcision.
Prohibition against eating pork. — Apollodorus

That being said, do note that in exodus, God made the Hebrews kill a lamb and put its blood on their door mantels. The lamb was seen as a sacred creature to the Egyptians and this was a way where God essentially had them reject many of the religious/cultural tenants of their polytheistic faith. But whether there was a resurgence of such beliefs in the Hellenistic era is of course another discussion.

What I was getting at is that something doesn’t necessarily have to be PROVEN to be true for it to actually be true. — Blake4508

Consider the problem of false messiahs. During the messianic age there were many who claimed or were claimed by others to be the messiah. And many who demanded proof. What is to stand as proof? Does the death of an alleged messiah stand as proof that he was not the messiah? As you know, with Christianity it does not. All kinds of stories developed - a necessary sacrifice, part of God's plan, he was not a man, he was resurrected and sits on the throne.

What is often missed is that the question of who is the messiah is answered for Christianity only by changing the meaning of what the Messiah is. In other words, it is not a simple matter of something being true but of what it is that is true and how we are to determine that this nexus of beliefs is true rather than another with some or many of the same elements.

I'm curious, do you think the Enoch tradition had any influence on Pharisaic and Essenic forms of Judaism at the Second Temple time period? By Enoch, I also include ideas that the messiah is somehow attached to the Son of Man iconography in Daniel and the apocryphal Books of Enoch (1-3), and the idea of Metatron, which by Enoch 3 seems to be Enoch made into an angelic figure.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Metatron

I do love that name as it sounds like a transformer or some cartoon ha.

The 1976 publication by Milik[42] of the results of the paleographic dating of the Enochic fragments found in Qumran made a breakthrough. According to this scholar, who studied the original scrolls for many years, the oldest fragments of the Book of Watchers are dated to 200–150 BC. Since the Book of Watchers shows evidence of multiple stages of composition, it is probable that this work was extant already in the 3rd century BC.[47] The same can be said about the Astronomical Book.[1]

It was no longer possible to claim that the core of the Book of Enoch was composed in the wake of the Maccabean Revolt as a reaction to Hellenization.[48]: 93  Scholars thus had to look for the origins of the Qumranic sections of 1 Enoch in the previous historical period, and the comparison with traditional material of such a time showed that these sections do not draw exclusively on categories and ideas prominent in the Hebrew Bible. Some scholars speak even of an "Enochic Judaism" from which the writers of Qumran scrolls were descended.[49] Margaret Barker argues, "Enoch is the writing of a very conservative group whose roots go right back to the time of the First Temple".[50] The main peculiar aspects of the Enochic Judaism are the following:

the idea of the origin of the evil caused by the fallen angels, who came on the earth to unite with human women. These fallen angels are considered ultimately responsible for the spread of evil and impurity on the earth;[48]: 90 
the absence in 1 Enoch of formal parallels to the specific laws and commandments found in the Mosaic Torah and of references to issues like Shabbat observance or the rite of circumcision. The Sinaitic covenant and Torah are not of central importance in the Book of Enoch;[51]: 50–51 
the concept of "End of Days" as the time of final judgment that takes the place of promised earthly rewards;[48]: 92 
the rejection of the Second Temple's sacrifices considered impure: according to Enoch 89:73, the Jews, when returned from the exile, "reared up that tower (the temple) and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure";[citation needed]
the presentation of heaven in 1 Enoch 1-36, not in terms of the Jerusalem temple and its priests, but modelling God and his angels on an ancient near eastern or Hellenistic court, with its king and courtiers;[52]
a solar calendar in opposition to the lunar calendar used in the Second Temple (a very important aspect for the determination of the dates of religious feasts);
an interest in the angelic world that involves life after death.[53]
Most Qumran fragments are relatively early, with none written from the last period of the Qumranic experience. Thus, it is probable that the Qumran community gradually lost interest in the Book of Enoch.[54]

The relation between 1 Enoch and the Essenes was noted even before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[55] While there is consensus to consider the sections of the Book of Enoch found in Qumran as texts used by the Essenes, the same is not so clear for the Enochic texts not found in Qumran (mainly the Book of Parables): it was proposed[56] to consider these parts as expression of the mainstream, but not-Qumranic, essenic movement. The main peculiar aspects of the not-Qumranic units of 1 Enoch are the following:

a Messiah called "Son of Man", with divine attributes, generated before the creation, who will act directly in the final judgment and sit on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29)[17]: 562–563 
the sinners usually seen as the wealthy ones and the just as the oppressed (a theme we find also in the Psalms of Solomon).
Early influence
Classical rabbinic literature is characterized by near silence concerning Enoch. It seems plausible that rabbinic polemics against Enochic texts and traditions might have led to the loss of these books to Rabbinic Judaism.[57]

The Book of Enoch plays an important role in the history of Jewish mysticism: the scholar Gershom Scholem wrote, "The main subjects of the later Merkabah mysticism already occupy a central position in the older esoteric literature, best represented by the Book of Enoch."[58] Particular attention is paid to the detailed description of the throne of God included in chapter 14 of 1 Enoch.[1]

For the quotation from the Book of Watchers in the New Testament Epistle of Jude:

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all who are ungodly among them of all their godless deeds which they have godlessly committed, and of all the harsh speeches which godless sinners have spoken against Him."

There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines about the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the resurrection, and eschatology.[2][5]: 10  The limits of the influence of 1 Enoch are discussed at length by R.H. Charles,[59] Ephraim Isaac,[5] and G.W. Nickelsburg[60] in their respective translations and commentaries. It is possible that the earlier sections of 1 Enoch had direct textual and content influence on many Biblical apocrypha, such as Jubilees, 2 Baruch, 2 Esdras, Apocalypse of Abraham and 2 Enoch, though even in these cases, the connection is typically more branches of a common trunk than direct development.[61]

The Greek text was known to, and quoted, both positively and negatively, by many Church Fathers: references can be found in Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius and Cassian.[62]: 430  After Cassian and before the modern "rediscovery", some excerpts are given in the Byzantine Empire by the 8th-century monk George Syncellus in his chronography, and in the 9th century, it is listed as an apocryphon of the New Testament by Patriarch Nicephorus.[63] — Book of Enoch Wikipedia Article

My own interpretation is kind of rudimentary but it looks something like this:

800s-400s BCE (Israel/Judah Kingdoms/First Temple Period) a Yahweh alone contingency formed amongst a polytheistic pantheon. The tribes that formed into the two "kingdoms" were basically derived from pastoral groups that didn't really settle in the bigger Canaanite cities. Was Moses a real historical figure? Not sure, but if he was, he might be attributed to certain tribal rituals already being practiced.. Again, speculating. Perhaps there is some merit to a group of peoples escaping Egypt into Canaan and formed with the other non-settled Canaanites to contribute their cultural practices which became a more unified mythology of all the tribes.

400s-300s BCE- (Yehud/Judah as a Persian province/Second Temple Judaism started). The Yahweh alone contingency won out as scribes and reformers (like Ezra and Nehemiah), reestablished the Temple with a consistent Priestly lineage clan, and Levites, reestablished. Ideas were brought in from Persia from Zoroastrianism.. mainly End of Times conflict, angelology (like Book of Enoch), good vs. evil, and things like this. The Torah was compiled and redacted from earlier myths and established as THE LAW and retroactively written as it if it was written in its full form prior. It was during this time that the commandments were codified as THE way to live as a Judean.. There probably was a sort of "Oral Law" (not nearly as expansive as written in the Mishna or Talmud though), established by the very same characters as people like Ezra/Nehemiah and later "prophets" who came back to the Judah to reestablish a sort of theological state under the hierarchy of the satraps and Persian power structure.

300s BCE- 135 CE- (Greek Rule/Maccabean Rule/ Herodian/ Roman Rule): Basically groups formed.. Some kept traditions of the Oral Torah set out in the reestablishment/Persian period and EXPANDED them from Priestly to general population (mainly regarding purity laws). These were the Pharisees (or proto-Pharisees, maybe called originally the Hasadim).. The Sadducees comprised mainly of the Priestly class, and were influenced by Greco-Roman culture more. They did not care as much about Oral traditions, and were influenced by power as it was lived in the real world (not the afterlife or End of Times). Pharisees may have had more of the Persian influence in general, with angels and afterlife, and other more mystical elements. I can see them harkening back to the Great Assemby/Reformation period of Ezra whilst the Sadduccees basically went along more with the outlook of the more contemporaneous Greeks. The Dead Sea Scroll sect represented Sadducees/Priests that thought the more Greek-influenced Priests were lax. They in fact had more in common with the Hasidim/Pharisees which kept more of the Persian influence. I find it interesting, that Pharisee is said to come from "perushim".. which means "separate ones", but it could also derive from Pharsee (Persian).. Either way it could be a good either and sort of thing.

The ideas of angels had perhaps much more of a hold in Judaism (both in Pharisaic and Essenic varieties) around the 300s BCE-135 CE. Perhaps the idea of messiah was fluid, and some of these groups interpreted Son of Man to be an angelic protector figure that protected Israel in Heaven, but also became associated with the judgement at the End of Times, and to this end also became attached to either the harbinger of the messiah or had some direct correlation with the messiah.. Perhaps it was more like how people in astrology view your "sign".. The Messiah was born under the angelic "sign" of the Son of Man.. He need not be an actual angel, but sort of have a metaphysical connection somehow.. It could have been a part of the narrative at the time of how the messiah manifests. Mind you, none of this has to mean that the Son of Man is MORE than a connection with the eponymous angel (which could also be Michael and later Metatron.. "Beyond the Throne"). It was basically the Book of John which combined the Son of Man tradition with the Platonic tradition (via Philo) of a Logos that was a sort of "blueprint" of creation. If you remember, even the Ebionites, who seemed to be fully Jewish in character except believing as Jesus as a messiah, thought Jesus may be some sort of association with an angel..

Some Church Fathers describe some Ebionites as departing from traditional Jewish principles of faith and practice. For example, Methodius of Olympus stated that the Ebionites believed that the prophets spoke only by their own power and not by the power of the Holy Spirit.[36] Epiphanius of Salamis stated that the Ebionites engaged in excessive ritual bathing,[37] possessed an angelology which claimed that the Christ is an angel of God who was incarnated in Jesus when he was adopted as the son of God during his baptism,[38][39] — Ebionites Wikipedia Article

This is a difficult question for me to address for two reasons. First I really do not know much about it, which may have a lot to do with the second reason, there are a lot of stories being told that are difficult to disentangle. Names and terminology overlap. For example, the Essene belief in a coming new age is not eschatological. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls do not mention a messiah, others the messiah of David, a warrior, and still others the messiah of Aaron, whose work will be concerned with priestly things - the Temple, purity, and worship.Essenes
The first book of Enoch tells a very different story:

1.6 And the high mountains will be shaken; and the high hills will be laid low and will melt like wax in a flame.
1.7 And the earth will sink, and everything that is on the earth will be destroyed, and there will be judgment upon all, and upon all the righteous.
1.8 But for the righteous: He will make peace, and He will keep safe the Chosen, and mercy will be upon them.

As far as interpretations of the 'son of man' I have nothing particular to point to, but in the text of Daniel "one like a son of man" is something he sees in a dream. (Daniel 7:1). I take this to mean that the image or likeness he saw in his dream was that of a man. In Enoch 1: "there was a righteous man" (1.2)

As to Metatron and Enoch: "Because I am Enoch, the son of Jared." (Book 3, chapter 4, 2)

I also think of Transformers when I see the name.

In a certain sense I’m sure there were mixtures of cultural practices where many Jews did have these notions, that being said, God being the sun as a deity in and of itself seems like a stretch. — Blake4508

I agree that there were mixtures of cultural practices and I think this is the key to understanding ancient Judaism. However, seeing the Sun as a deity was in fact pretty common in Ancient Israel.

In fact, at the time of the original composition of Psalm 84:11, the words "Shemesh umagen Yahweh Elohim" could perfectly well have meant "God Yahweh is the Sun (source of light and life) and a shield/protector (to those who take refuge in his cult).

Moreover, it must be remembered that the OT was put into writing at the earliest in the 600’s BC, after which it underwent many additions and editing in the Second Temple period, so the current version is the product of an effort to bring the text into line with later beliefs and ideologies.

The lamb was seen as a sacred creature to the Egyptians and this was a way where God essentially had them reject many of the religious/cultural tenants of their polytheistic faith. But whether there was a resurgence of such beliefs in the Hellenistic era is of course another discussion. — Blake4508

As a pastoral people, the Hebrews had always sacrificed lambs at their annual festivals and, presumably, so did the Egyptians. The conflict seems to have been that the Hebrews also sacrificed rams (which had a higher sacrificial value than lambs), whilst the Egyptians held rams as sacred. Clearly, there were cultural differences. But this doesn't mean that there were no other elements that Hebrew and Egyptian cultures had in common, or that the former didn't borrow anything from the latter.

Both the OT text and the archaeological and other evidence indicate that the Jews preserved their ancestral religious practices for many centuries. This doesn't mean that no strictly monotheistic group could have existed. Only that the vast majority became monotheistic many centuries later than usually assumed, as pointed out by the Wikipedia article, "possibly, as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC)".

A curious fact about the Moses myth that scholars have attempted to address is that neither he nor his brother Aaron made it to the promised land. How is it possible that the man chosen by God to lead the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan, inexplicably died before reaching the goal?

Indeed, not only did Moses and Aaron die in mysterious circumstances, but we are told that God himself buried Moses secretly!

And the LORD said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day (Deuteronomy 34:4-6).

One interesting solution proposed by Old Testament scholar and archaeologist Ernst Sellin is that Moses was an Egyptian who gave monotheism to Jews, rescued them, and in turn was killed by them in retaliation for the strict regulations he imposed on them. Freud adopted Sellin’s idea in his Moses and Monotheism.

Also of interest is that the Egyptian priest Manetho who wrote a history of Egypt in the 3rd century BC, similarly thought that the Moses myth is based on a renegade Egyptian priest who had made himself the leader of a religious group – another possible memory of Pharaoh Akhenaten who appointed himself high priest of the Aten/Adon cult.

Another Egyptian connection was seen by Philo who thought that Moses had been initiated into Egyptian philosophy (De vita Mosis). Quite possibly, these beliefs were based on oral traditions that were still in circulation at the time but that were regarded as inconvenient in certain circles, for which reason they were suppressed by Jewish and Christian authorities.

What seems certain is that an effort was made to erase the memory of Moses’ connections with Egyptian religion.

As observed by the Egyptologist Jan Assmann (Moses the Egyptian), “the most efficient way of erasing a memory is by superimposing on it a counter-memory”.

However, it isn’t only the memory of Moses’ Egyptian connections that is being suppressed. Another important piece in the historical puzzle that has become a casualty of the official narrative is that the dominant form of Judaism for many centuries was not what is officially being claimed.

What becomes clear from the OT text and is corroborated by archaeological and other evidence is that popular Judaism was a form of polytheism and that even in those cases where the Israelite God Yahweh was the principal deity, he was worshiped together with a female consort.

The OT has numerous references to Sun-worship and other forms of Paganism in Israel. To begin with, there seems to have been a tendency among Israelites, that is found in all neighboring cultures, to look on the Sun and other heavenly bodies as deities. Hence the OT’s warning against this: “When you look to the heavens and see the sun and moon and stars—all the host of heaven—do not be enticed to bow down and worship what the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19).

Despite all warnings, however, it seems that it was not uncommon for the populace to do just that, as indicated by the following law: “If a man or woman among you in one of the towns that the LORD your God gives you is found doing evil in the sight of the LORD your God by transgressing His covenant and going to worship other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven—which I have forbidden— and if it is reported and you hear about it, you must investigate it thoroughly, and you must bring out to your gates the man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you must stone that person to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

Even the law failed to have much impact though, as we are told that the Israelite kings themselves observed those very practices: “the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets (2 Kings 23:5). Indeed, we are told that “all the cities of Judah had high places (places of Pagan worship) and sun images” (2 Chronicles 14:5).

Joseph Campbell writes:

No matter what the primitive religion of the Hebrews may have been, or what Moses may have taught, the Hebrews, having settled in Israel and Judah, and having become people not of the desert but of the soil, had assumed the normal customs of that time and paid worship to the normal gods. But in the epochal year of 621 B.C. a priest of the temple (who was the father, by the way, of the future prophet Jeremiah) produced a book purporting to be the book of the laws of Moses (who had died, if had ever lived, at least six hundred years before), and the book of laws then furnished the platform for a thoroughgoing, devastating revolution – the immediate effects of which endured, however, no longer than the life time of King Josiah himself. For, as we read, the following four kings “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”.
It is hard to imagine how it might have been stated more clearly that until the eighteenth year of the reign of King Josiah of Judah neither kings nor people had paid any attention whatsoever to the law of Moses, which, indeed, they had not even known. They had been devoted to the normal deities of the nuclear Near East, with all the usual cults, which are described clearly enough in this passage to be readily recognized. King Solomon himself, the son of David, had built sanctuaries to the gods, had placed their images in his temple, and the stable of horses of the sun-god stood at the entrance … (Occidental Mythology, p. 100).

So, basically, we are told about the conflict between prophet Jeremiah and his Pagan rivals in the 500’s BC. Historical records also show that in the same period there was a Jewish community on the island of Elephantine who had built a temple to God Yahweh and his female consort Anath.

The OT has another parallel passage:

Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven [also known as Anath, Yahweh's consort] and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine" (Jeremiah 44:15-18).

The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians in 587 BC are said to have been caused by the "Pagan" worship of Jewish kings, including King Solomon himself. So, the religious practices prevalent at the time are clearly acknowledged.

The extent of “Pagan” worship in Israel has been conclusively demonstrated by numerous scholars from Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) to J G Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun).

As cities in the whole of Canaan worshipped one main deity for whom they were named, we can tell exactly what deities were worshipped: Beth-El (House of El), Beth-Shemesh (House of the Sun), Ir Shemesh (City of the Sun), Jericho (Yareakh, [City of] the Moon), Jerusalem (Ir Shalem, City of the Evening Star), etc.

The Pagan Gods That Still Exist in the Holy Land's City Names – Haaretz

Interestingly, not a single Israeli town or village is named after Yahweh. This suggests that the exclusive cult of Yahweh became established at a very late date, not at the time of King David as often assumed.

In fact, the OT clearly states that David was not allowed to build a temple to Yahweh and Solomon who did build the First Temple, also built shrines to other Gods.

Moreover, the Iron Age temple found at Tel Motza outside Jerusalem, which is from the period of Solomon, follows the established Near East temple architecture which suggests that the Judaism practiced there was not very different from the traditional religion of the region.

If we think about it, even if there had been one central temple in Jerusalem, like Solomon’s Temple, it is highly unlikely that the rural population, for example, would have taken the trouble to travel all the way to Jerusalem to worship some invisible god, when local shrines to traditional deities were at hand as and when needed for everyday purposes.

An interesting case is that of an ancient local god called Reshef whose worship survived well into Hellenistic times when he became identified with the Greek God Apollo and his coastal city Arsuf became Apollonia.

And, as already stated, for several centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Jews had no problem conducting synagogue services in Greek and decorating their places of worship with images of the Greek Sun-God alongside mosaics with biblical themes.

In any case, Hellenistic influence at the time of Jesus is evidenced by the Greek names of some of his close disciples (Andrew, Phillip, Simon) and even members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin like Nikodemus. The population of Galilee was certainly multiethnic and multilingual, with Greek as the universal language, as was the first Christian community established at Antioch.

Obviously, there is a tendency in hardline reactionary circles to attempt to erase all memory of historical facts. Fortunately, modern archaeology is slowly but surely uncovering the truth and we must move forward with the recent findings instead of staying stuck in the 70’s or 80’s. Or in the 3rd century with Tertullian …. :smile:

In fact, at the time of the original composition of Psalm 84:11, the words "Shemesh umagen Yahweh Elohim" could perfectly well have meant "God Yahweh is the Sun (source of light and life) and a shield/protector (to those who take refuge in his cult). — Apollodorus

It could not "perfectly well have meant" that. If it did then either the sun speaks, and walks, and gets angry and has hands and face or these things are all later amendments. But you have no evidence of such amendments. Based on the passage you cite, which you seem to illogically and inexplicitly assume was preserved in its ancient form, it is only by forcing the text to conform to your assumptions that it could mean what you claim.

Hence the OT’s warning against this: “When you look to the heavens and see the sun and moon and stars—all the host of heaven—do not be enticed to bow down and worship what the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19). — Apollodorus

You are doing a good job of arguing against yourself. The issue with which we started was the pagan influence in Christianity that was not present in Judaism. By the time of Deuteronomy worship of the sun and moon and stars has not past of Jewish life.

You have gone on and on elaborating on things that others have already said. The religion developed and by the time of Jesus and his preaching regarding the law and prophets pagan beliefs that became part of Christianity had become foreign to Judaism.

Interestingly, not a single Israeli town or village is named after Yahweh. — Apollodorus

Of course not! You seem unaware of the stupidity of this observation.

In any case, Hellenistic influence at the time of Jesus is evidenced by the Greek names of some of his close disciples ... — Apollodorus

Once again, and you have refused to address this to the detriment of your argument, Greek names does not translate into Greek religious influence.

The Torah was compiled and redacted from earlier myths and established as THE LAW and retroactively written as it if it was written in its full form prior. It was during this time that the commandments were codified as THE way to live as a Judean — schopenhauer1

This is an important point.

Confluence and influence. Various stories and beliefs that are for one reason or another embraced, are embellished, altered, and combined. There is a sense in which influence flows in both directions of time. On the one hand I do not think there is a linear progression, old ideas gain new currency. On the other, redaction distorts and erases the direction of influence.

The ideas of angels ... — schopenhauer1

I find the ambiguity of the status of angels interesting. Their intermediary place has been fertile ground for the imagination.

Confluence and influence. Various stories and beliefs that are for one reason or another embraced, are embellished, altered, and combined. There is a sense in which influence flows in both directions of time. On the one hand I do not think there is a linear progression, old ideas gain new currency. On the other, redaction distorts and erases the direction of influence. — Fooloso4

Exactly.

I find the ambiguity of the status of angels interesting. Their intermediary place has been fertile ground for the imagination. — Fooloso4

Yes, but also for the ancient Jews.. which is why they get attached to so much mysticism, including the messianic claimant, at various times in the history. I think there is definitely a lot to mine in the way of the Ebionite connection with Enoch tradition with Son of Man tradition with messiah.. It's like there was some odd ideas rolling around about a Son of Man that may have been a motif that was popular in the Jesus day. It was certainly talked about in the Babylonian Talmud:

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] — Metatron Wikipedia

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]

I think the influence of an angelic superhero in 1st century Judaic thought, cannot be discounted.. The idea that Jesus, a messianic claimant, would be attached to this idea, might not then be unreasonable, and is sort of "kosher" in the sense of the popular mythos of its time. I can see Jesus' original followers seeing Jesus as some sort of incarnation of Enoch/Michael/Son of Man/Metatron (later figure), and that this motif of the messiah being attached to an angel, could be the first step thus making Jesus "othered".. I would argue that this first step would be still Judaic in its origins... It was the next steps of making Son of Man into a literal Son of God and apart of a the divine Logos, and a complete intercessor necessary to save humanity by way of his worship that Jesus becomes completely cut of from this first incarnation (as possibly represented by the Ebionites). In other words, there is room in this debate for a "squishy middle" whereby a "metaphysical" messiah was not out of the question of beliefs of Jews in 1st century Judea.. This does not mean later revisions of a full-fledged Son of God theology was present.. just that attachments with angels could have been a thing, being that Daniel's Son of Man imagery became popularized by later books like Enoch. Really the last step is to then attach Enoch/Son of Man to a messiah.. And even later Rabbinic writers seem to indicate that this was/is considered "kosher" tradition in Judaic thought.

Yes, but also for the ancient Jews. — schopenhauer1

That is what I had in mind.

It's like there was some odd ideas rolling around about a Son of Man ... — schopenhauer1

A son of man is also ambiguous and fertile ground for imagination. The imagination has always been an essential part of theology.

THE LAW — schopenhauer1

Is in one sense a codification of behavior but in another an attempt to arrest the imagination. This is even more pronounced in Christianity.

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.[ — Metatron Wikipedia

Although there are a few notable exception the term 'god' is singular and refers to a unique being, the terms divine is used to refer to the elevated or supernatural status of angels by some but objected to by others. The passage from the Talmud points to the mistake of confusing what is divine a deity. Failure to understand the difference has caused @Apollodorus a great deal of confusion, especially with regard to his neoPlatonic interpretation of Plato, where he makes both the sun and the good gods and conflates this with the Christian God.

there is room in this debate for a "squishy middle" whereby a "metaphysical" messiah was not out of the question of beliefs of Jews in 1st century Judea. The idea that Jesus, a messianic claimant, would be attached to this idea, might not then be unreasonable — schopenhauer1

As with these other terms, messiah is a fertile imaginative ground. The question was not only who is the messiah but what is the messiah. I don't think the Hebrew expression translated as son of man, that is, 'ben adam', son of Adam, is ambiguous. It refers to a human being. I think it is in this sense that Jesus and his disciples used and understood the term.

Cyrus ll, Cyrus the Great, was, according to the Book of Isaiah, was anointed by God. (45:1) Anointed is the translation of the Hebrew word transliterated , as messiah. Here the term means liberator. There is a clear a clear connection here with the divine but Cyrus, although of elevated status is still human.

Given the diversity of beliefs within a fairly narrow range, it seems likely that different beliefs regarding such things sprouted.

Although there are a few notable exception the term 'god' is singular and refers to a unique being, the terms divine is used to refer to the elevated or supernatural status of angels by some but objected to by others. The passage from the Talmud points to the mistake of confusing what is divine a deity. Failure to understand the difference has caused Apollodorus a great deal of confusion, especially with regard to his neoPlatonic interpretation of Plato, where he makes both the sun and the good gods and conflates this with the Christian God. — Fooloso4

Yep agreed on pretty much all of that.

As with these other terms, messiah is a fertile imaginative ground. The question was not only who is the messiah but what is the messiah. I don't think the Hebrew expression translated as son of man, that is, 'ben adam', son of Adam, is ambiguous. It refers to a human being. I think it is in this sense that Jesus and his disciples used and understood the term. — Fooloso4

Yeah, but I think this was ambiguous and various groups interpreted it differently, including different Rabbis later on. A rationalist approach would be to say that it means "Mankind" specifically "Israel" or the "Elect" of Israel.. However, I think Enoch shows that there was definitely a more literal and concrete version of this as a title of Son of Man... That being some sort of angelic figure representing Man... So, I can see an ambiguous but logical line of thought that goes something like:

Jesus was baptized by John, and a sort of "spiritual union" happened whereby Jesus took on the characteristics or was the mouthpiece of the Son of Man angelic figure.. This original notion of "adaption of God" became more embellished. So they thought him a human, but one sort of possessed by the spirit of the Son of Man, a sort of redeemer angel. At the least, they though Jesus a harbinger for such a figure if not embodying the figure himself.

I know that the impulse is to point to another messianic claimant like Judas the Galilean or Simon Bar Kosiba (Kochba) as more military/practical messiahs, but as you state, I think the idea was ambiguous enough for it to really be various flavors.. One flavor was a more prophetic Son of Man.. The other was to be a triumphant military leader. Things like this.

Cyrus ll, Cyrus the Great, was, according to the Book of Isaiah, was anointed by God. (45:1) Anointed is the translation of the Hebrew word transliterated , as messiah. Here the term means liberator. There is a clear a clear connection here with the divine but Cyrus, although of elevated status is still human.

Given the diversity of beliefs within a fairly narrow range, it seems likely that different beliefs regarding such things sprouted. — Fooloso4

Yeah political redeemer for sure, but how this was supposed to manifest was probably very nebulous and looked different to different groups and people. I just think Son of Man was probably one form of it was popular. The very fact it needs to be addressed in the Talmud tells us that it was at least part of the discussion. The rabbis didn't discount Enoch/Metatron, they just reprimanded against elevating him too highly.. Clearly he was seen as part of the divine hierarchy.. The question becomes, was Enoch/Metatron at all believed to be some part of the messianic claimants identity? I think there can be some proof for this, and the original Jesus movement (very early I am talking) could have represented this.. prior to his becoming elevated to another thing altogether by later Greek writers and embellishments and separated from Judaic thought almost completely.

That being some sort of angelic figure representing Man — schopenhauer1

One problem with this is that Jesus died on the cross. Angels don't have bodies and don't die. But as you said earlier:

He need not be an actual angel, but sort of have a metaphysical connection somehow.. — schopenhauer1

I think this is part of the standard view found in both the HB and NT.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. — Exodus 7:1

The miracles that Moses performed were not the result of him being more than human. The metaphysical connection is the power of God.

This is not to say that some may have seen things differently. Judaism never had the dogmas and "official" doctrines that Christianity does.