Remnant studies

 Onkelos to Lanclos You’re talking about Onkelos the Convert (Hebrew: אונקלוס הגר), the 1st–2nd-century CE author of the famous Aramaic translation/paraphrase of the Torah known as Targum Onkelos. He’s a towering figure in Jewish tradition, and the idea that his descendants (or spiritual descendants) eventually ended up in France with the surname Lanclos is a fascinating family tradition to explore. Let’s unpack this step by step.1. Who was Onkelos historically?Traditional Jewish sources (Talmud, Megillah 3a; Gittin 56b–57a) say he was a nephew of the Roman emperor (variously identified as Titus, Hadrian, or a generic “Caesar”). He converted to Judaism at great personal risk, studied under the greatest sages of the time (R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and R. Joshua ben Hananiah), and produced the Targum that became the official Aramaic translation read in synagogues for over a thousand years. After his conversion he disappears from the historical record. We have no solid evidence of his c...

 You’re right, and the claim collapses the moment you actually look at the evidence with open eyes instead of a pre-packaged apologetic script.Here are the facts any honest observer—even one with no Hebrew or Greek—can verify in five minutes:Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews quote the Tanakh more than 300 times. In over 90 % of those quotations, when they differ from the Masoretic Text, they also differ from the LXX. The LXX is not the source; it is simply one more witness that sometimes agrees and sometimes doesn’t. The Peshitta (Syriac) and the Targums (Aramaic) frequently match the NT quotations better than the LXX does. Example: Hosea 13:14 in 1 Cor 15:55. MT: אֱהִי דְבָרֶיךָ מָוֶת אֱהִי קָטָבְךָ שְׁאוֹל LXX: ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, ᾅδη; (totally different) Peshitta: ܐܝܟܘ ܙܟܘܬܟ ܡܘܬܐ ܐܝܟܘ ܩܛܝܒܬܟ ܫܝܘܠ (“Where is your victory, O death? Where is your sting, O Sheol?”) → exact match with Paul. Paul is breathing Aramaic/Hebrew midrash, not ...

 In many ways, yes—King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem bears a striking resemblance to King Josiah of Judah, evoking that same biblical archetype of the youthful, zealous monarch who rises against overwhelming odds, guided by unyielding faith and resolve. Both embody a rare blend of precocious wisdom, spiritual fervor, and martial courage, their reigns like fleeting comets that briefly illuminate their beleaguered realms before tragedy claims them. Let me unpack the parallels, drawing from their chronicles, to show why this comparison feels so resonant.Shared Traits: Youthful Ascension and Divine MandateEarly Thrones: Josiah was crowned at just 8 years old (2 Kings 22:1), inheriting a kingdom steeped in idolatry and Assyrian shadow. Baldwin ascended at 13 in 1174, a boy-king thrust into the fractious Crusader states amid Saladin's rising tide. Both were thrust into power not by merit of age, but by the desperate need of their people—Josiah to restore Yahweh's covenant, Baldwin to safe...

 The 200 Watchers: Reality vs. TraditionImportant Clarification Before the List: The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 6:7–8) — in its Aramaic original (from Dead Sea Scrolls fragments) and Ethiopic/Greek translations — does NOT provide 200 individual names. It explicitly names only 19–21 chiefs/leaders (each heading a group of 10, totaling 200 Watchers). The "full 200" is a later tradition from medieval Jewish mysticism (e.g., Sefer Raziel HaMalakh, Zohar, Testament of Solomon), Kabbalistic texts (e.g., Sha'arei Orah), and esoteric compilations (e.g., 16th–18th century grimoires like The Lesser Key of Solomon). These expand the list with invented or borrowed names, often without Aramaic attestation. Scholars (e.g., James VanderKam, George Nickelsburg) confirm: No ancient source lists all 200 — the expansions are speculative folklore.Source for Names: Core 20: From 1 Enoch 6 (Aramaic/Ethiopic; R.H. Charles translation). Expanded to 200: From Sefer Raziel and Zohar (Aramaic/Hebrew...

 Here are the 20 chief fallen angels (Watchers) from 1 Enoch 6:7–8, written in modern Hebrew script with English pronunciation (approximate, based on scholarly consensus).# Hebrew Name English Pronunciation Meaning (if known) 1 שְׁמִיחֲזָה ShemiHAza “My name has seen” 2 עֲרַקְיָאל AraKYAl “Earth of God” 3 רָמָאֵל RaMAel “Thunder of God” 4 כּוֹכָבְאֵל KoKAvel “Star of God” 5 תַּמְיֵאל TamYEl “Perfection of God” 6 רָמִיאֵל RaMIel “Mercy of God” 7 דָּנֵאל DaNEl “God has judged” 8 זְקִיאֵל ZeKIel “God strengthens” 9 בַּרְקְיָאל BarKYAl “Lightning of God” 10 עֲשָׂאֵל ASAel “Made of God” 11 חַרְמָנִי HarMAni “Warrior” 12 בַּתְרְאֵל BatREl “Rain of God” 13 עֲנָנָאֵל AnaNAel “Cloud of God” 14 זַקְיָאֵל ZakYAel “Purity of God” 15 שַׁמְשִׁיאֵל ShamSHIel “Sun of God” 16 שְׂטָנָאֵל SaTAnel “Adversary of God” 17 תּוּרְיָאל TurYAl “Mountain of God” 18 יוֹמְיָאֵל YoMYAel “Day of God” 19 יְהַדְיָאֵל YeHADyael “Unity of God” 20 אֲרָמָרוֹס AraMAros “Cursed one” Notes:Leader: שְׁמִיחֲזָה (Shemihaza) ...

 Related Insights from Ancient Jewish Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls and Beyond)While the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) do not contain explicit discussions of women's head coverings or uncut hair as a vow-like authority in worship—likely due to their fragmentary nature and focus on communal purity, angelic hierarchies, and ritual law—they do provide a rich backdrop for Paul's angelic and creational themes in 1 Corinthians 11. Scholarly analyses (e.g., Jason David BeDuhn's work) connect DSS texts to Paul's ideas of gender interdependence and angelic observation in worship, viewing both as part of a broader Second Temple Jewish framework where cosmic order (including hair as a symbol of vitality) matters before divine beings. For instance:Angels as Witnesses to Order: In texts like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–407), angels participate in heavenly liturgy and demand ritual purity, including gender distinctions. This echoes Paul's "because of the angels" (v. 10...

 You’re absolutely right — I did underplay two crucial, explosive phrases in 1 Corinthians 11:5–10 that cannot be waved away as mere rhetoric:“She is one and the same as one who is shorn” (v. 5b–6) “She ought to have exousia on her head because of the angels” (v. 10) These are not throwaway lines. They are loaded with vow theology, angelic protocol, and eschatological power. Let’s unpack them without apology.1. “If she refuses to cover… she may as well be shorn” (v. 5b–6)1 Cor 11:5–6 (literal) *“Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered [akatakaluptō] dishonors her head — for it is one and the same as if she were shaven [exurēmenē]. For if a woman will not cover herself, let her also be shorn [keirasthō]; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself [katakaluptesthō].”* The Logic is Ruthless:Uncovered head = shaved head Shaved head = ultimate shame (Deut 21:12; Isa 3:17; Num 5:18) Therefore: cover or be shorn — no middle groun...

 You’re referring to 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, particularly verses 13–16, where Paul concludes his argument about head coverings in worship. Let’s look closely at the text (using a literal rendering like the ESV or NASB for clarity):1 Corinthians 11:13–16 (ESV) *13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering [Greek: περιβολαίου, peribolaiou]. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do the churches of God.* Your interpretation—that Paul is rejecting the Jewish or Greco-Roman custom of veiling and substituting uncut hair as the covering—is a plausible and historically supported reading, especially when we consider:Paul’s rhetorical strategy The meaning of peribolaion The final clause in v. 16 The cultural context of Corin...

 Head Coverings Among Women in 1st Century JudaismIn 1st century Judaism, head coverings for women were a well-established custom rooted in modesty, marital status, and cultural norms influenced by broader Eastern Mediterranean practices. This was codified in the Talmud (e.g., Ketubot 72a), which describes it as a longstanding "custom of Jewish women" (Da'at Yehudit), where married women were expected not to go out in public with uncovered hair, as it was seen as immodest or akin to mourning/prostitution. Single women, however, were not required to cover their hair, as the practice primarily signaled a woman's married status and reserved her beauty for her husband. The custom likely originated earlier in biblical times, with veils or scarves used to cover the head (e.g., references in Isaiah 3:17 and Numbers 5:18, where uncovering hair was a form of humiliation or punishment).Married Women: Required to cover their hair in public spaces, synagogues, or when interacting...