.
>> “Your arguments from 92 would better serve to “prove” that the author of Hebrews (who I hold, with tradition is Paul) is a Cohen” <<
No, Paul was a self confessed Pharisee, which compares to a Cohen in education, but is, like the catholic church, directed to ward the false authority of men, rather than that of Yehova.
But Hebrews, like the gospel of Matthew, demonstrates that Yeshua’s Gospel was that of Moses before him.
Yeshua was indeed “That Prophet” called for in Deuteronomy, presenting the same faith that Moses did.
.
Yeshua was indeed “That Prophet” called for in Deuteronomy, presenting the same faith that Moses did.
That said, there is ample evidence from Hebrews and other places, that the Prophet is to present a completion—a fulfillment—of Moses, which is the same faith only in a qualified sense.
As far as Cohen being automatically educated, it is abundantly evident from a read of the Old Testament that many priests had a level of knowledge of the law that was about on par with the residents of Nineveh, who, in the words of God to Jonah, did not know their right hands from there left.
If a Benjaminite could be educated, a non-Cohen Levite could also be educated.
Given your absolute crickets on what Hebrew you are using (which is really funny coming from someone accusing the Catholic Church of preventing people of getting hold of scripture), I’ll assume that whatever you have is equal to or inferior Howard’s edition, and your silence indicates embarrassment and a lack of anything more substantial than what I have. All you seem to have is bluff, your bluff is called. If you have something to contribute in terms of a better text, I’m all ears, but so long as your silence persists, I am reminded of “waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars .. ..”