I think this has probably got to the point at which we’ll have to agree to disagree. You highlight a crucial distinction between your particular theological approach and the historical approach. I think that the New Testament has to be understood on the premise of a predominantly Jewish worldview. Paul is heartbroken in Romans that his people have rejected Jesus as the Christ, but his argument from beginning to end, in my view, is a thoroughly Jewish one. I see nothing amiss with the view that John drew on Hellenistic-Jewish traditions to communicate to a Hellenistic audience the significance of the Jewish Jesus.
The issue is not whether Jewish wisdom literature was authoritative or not. It is whether it is indicative of a shared language, worldview and conceptuality.
You continue to use a secondary translation, once removed from the MT (Hebrew) in order to prop up your view.
If the LXX was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me.
I’m sure you will let me know at some point why you think calling Christ the “anti-Caesar” is so outrageous.
How do I understand Colossians 1:13-20? It says that Jesus was the image of the invisible God, that he was firstborn of every creature, that all things were created by God through him and for him, etc. It is said similarly of Wisdom:
For she is a reflection of eternal light and a spotless mirror of the activity of God and an image (eikōn) of his goodness…. She orders all things well…. she is the fashioner of the things that exist. (Wis. 7:26; 8:1, 6)