That’s covered in Hannah (he includes a scripture index).

But be aware, all angels are Sons of God, so that by itself is not distinctive. And the “voice” can refer to the Metatron, which was a role rather than a person, and thus could theoretically be moved around (though it was usually Michael). But Hannah covers that too.

• 1 At that time, Michael the great leader who guards your people will take his stand. It will be a difficult time—nothing like it has ever happened since nations first appeared. But at that time every one of your people who is found written in the scroll will be rescued.
• 2 Many of those who sleep in the dusty land will wake up—some to eternal life, others to shame and eternal disgrace.
• 3 Those skilled in wisdom will shine like the sky. Those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and always.

• 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
• 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord.

 
Thoughts?  If Michael is the archangel who Daniel and 1 Enoch identify as the protector of Israel, and Philo says “the archangel of many names” and “he who sees Israel” was the son of God, and Jesus is the son of God and was given that name after he humbled himself (Phil. 2:9), and when he comes he will do so with the “voice” (authority?) of the archangel…that would seem to point to Jesus indeed being the archangel Michael post resurrection, right? 

Thank you. The link was correct, but the text not. Corrected.

Thank you. I was aware of that—and I do think Hannah covers it; he discusses the fact that other scholars have argued this before. But I appreciate your thinking to link to an example here.

https://imgur.com/a/okcsuQT

Source: “Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism”, by John J. Collins, pp. 101-102

I think that’s a reasonable inference. It’s just too weak to do much with (the evidence is late, reconstructive, and inferential rather than direct). In short, it evinces the possibility, but does not prove it was in place in the early first century.

It seemed sensible to me. 🙂

So you may be overly self-criticizing here.

I will just clarify one question I had, please disregard the rest.

You establish (in Element 42 and Chapter 11.5) that there are two possible interpretations of the Melchizedek passages in Hebrews: either Jesus replaces him, or always was him. I thought that the Melchizedek tractate (Codex IX, 1) from Nag Hammadi (which I could not find mention of in OHJ) supports the latter interpretation. I also mistakenly called it a scroll instead of a codex.

According to Birger A. Pearson, “…if our reconstruction of the fragmentary text is correct – Melchizedek is given to understand that the spiritual triumph of Christ over his enemies will be that of Melchizedek himself!”

Pearson, B.A. & Giversen, S., “Melchizedek (IX, 1),” in Robinson, J.M. (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, Third Edition, (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 439.

Since we have a later tradition (Pearson dates it around the third-century) possibly supporting the view that Melchizedek always was Jesus, I assumed that this constitutes evidence for that interpretation of Hebrews. It could be either a mystery teaching that has survived into the third-century, or at the very least, evidence that some Christians also came to that same conclusion.

Is my reasoning is correct on this point?

Thank you. I realize that my post was not totally coherent, and I missed the point I was trying to make. I will try to be more careful in the future (and avoid posting when I have sleep deprivation).