I recently found an article on the Orthodox website Pravoslavie.ru ( http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/ ) at the following address - http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/barker.htm
The article is by Margaret Barker, who has written a most interesting book, The Great Angel, A Study of Israel's Second God. The basic ideas put forward in that book are reflected in this article, which primarily deals with the issue of the corruption of the Hebrew Old Testament.
While Ms.Barker is certainly not an Orthodox Christian (and in many cases her views are contrary to Orthodox Christianity), she raises some really important issues pertaining to the history of the Old Testament texts, and just what "Israelitic Orthodoxy" in fact was.
In short, she views what we now know as "rabbinic Judaism" to have little in common with the ancient Israelitic religion, in particular the royal-Davidic cult of the First Temple period. Indeed, Rabbinic Judaism (in her view) was an innovation and opponent of this older Israelitic cult, which she believes survived only in remnant form by the time of Christ's advent (one well known example being the Qumran communities.) It is her conclusion that the first Christians viewed themselves as being the inheritors of this legitimate Israelitic legacy, and that a great deal of what they wrote is only understandable when keeping this in mind.
Many of her more "ground breaking" conclusions will not be too much of a shock to Orthodox ears. The following, which appear in the article I linked to, immediately come to mind...
that the older Israelitic view, reflected in the Septuagint and very conspicuously in the Qumran texts, is that YHWH is a second, if united person, not to be confounded with El Elyon (God Most High; He Who Orthodox Christians call "God the Father"). Thus the first Christians understood YHWH to have incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, and that the theophanies of the Old Testament Prophets were in fact visions of the pre-Incarnate Christ. This is not a surprising thing really, as it's made clear in the first epistle to the Corinthians and other places - but this is something not made quite as clear in the latter western tradition, particularly when it started to insist upon created grace and had un-Orthodox views about just what it was the Prophets were seeing when they had their visions.
The assumption that the Masoretic text is to be deemed superior in it's renderings and accuracy than the Septuagint and other older Old Testament versions is entirely unwarranted, and in fact, is dead wrong. The Orthdox Church has always insisted upon the Septuagint, and ignored higher critics who preferred the Masoretic texts. Unfortunately in the west, beginning with St.Jerome, a preference developed for the Masoretic and proto-Masoretic texts of the Jews (something which St.Augustine in fact objected to, and became the source of arguments in the heated letters these two western Fathers exchanged.)
It doesn't take much of a stretch to see the continuity between the actualy ancient Israelitic religion and early Christianity. While the modern west has been quite apologetic in it's scriptural interpretation, feeling rather comprimised and almost embarassed by claims that the Church is a direct continuation of the Israel of old, the Orthodox Church has been down right "antiquarian" and "unenlightened" it's simplicity on this subject; as far as the Fathers and our liturgy has always been concerned, it was Christ and even the Blessed Virgin which the Old Testament Prophets beheld in their experiences of revelation, as well as other mysteries on made explicit later on with the coming of Christ.
One interesting point dealt with in the article, regards the Holy Eucharist and it's connection with pre-second Temple Yom Kippur ("Day of Atonement") ritual. There is evidence (cited in the article) that while blood drinking was normally prohibited in the Jewish cult, that the consumption of blood by the High Priest was a part of the ancient ceremonies of Yom Kippur; thus the claim by modern Judaist apologists (and sadly some Christians, typically fundamentalst Protestants) that the sacrament of the Eucharist (where Christ's body and blood are really and truly received by the communicant) is a totally "non, even anti-Jewish" thing, totally beyond the pale of the Old Testament faith, is nonsense.
Of course there are some conclusions in the article which no Orthodox believer should accept - and not simply on the basis of faith (which is sufficient), but because the conclusions are not (imho) warranted. For example, the claim appears in the article that the origins of Christian Gnosticism are found in a strain of this Old Testament religion surviving; however everything we actually know about early gnosticism, in principle, runs contrary to some of the more startling conclusions Ms.Barker makes about the ancient Hebrew cult (for example, the role of ressurection, heaven and hell, and in particular sacrifice and atonement, play no role in Christian gnosticism, and are contrary to it's most basic principles.) I also believe her conclusions about Holy Wisdom are not correct; they are I believe, the unfortunate result of this author (while be astute and well learned) being outside of the Orthodox tradition, and not yet familiar enough with the Church's teachings on this subject (and the pre-Christian theophanies in which the Theotokos played a part in; for example, note traditiona ikons of the "burning bush" and Moses.)
That said, the article is certainly a good read, and what it has to say is quite important (the same can be said of Ms.Barker's book, which I recommend.) However neither should be read with uncritical eyes.
Seraphim
