Angels and Orthodoxy: A Study in their Development in Syria and Palestine from the Qumran Texts to Ephrem the Syrian 9783161513398, 9783161491795

Citation preview

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity Herausgeber / Editor: Christoph Markschies (Berlin) Beirat / Advisory Board Hubert Cancik (Berlin) · Giovanni Casadio (Salerno) Susanna Elm (Berkeley) · Johannes Hahn (Münster) Jörg Rüpke (Erfurt)

40

R. M. M. Tuschling

Angels and Orthodoxy A Study in their Development in Syria and Palestine from the Qumran Texts to Ephrem the Syrian

Mohr Siebeck

R. M. M. Tuschling: Born 1965; 1994 MA in classics (Freiburg im Breisgau); 1997 BA in theology (Cambridge); 2004 PhD (Cambridge); from 2004 novice of Burford Priory (Anglican Benedictine religious community).

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151339-8 ISBN 978-3-16-149179-5 ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2007 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Times typeface, printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

“Stuff,” said Jack. “Subordination is the natural order: there is subordination in Heaven – Thrones and Dominions take precedence over Powers and Principalities, Archangels and ordinary foremast angels; and so it is in the Navy. You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother.” Patrick O’Brian, The Ionian Mission

Preface The present work represents the unrevised text of my doctoral dissertation, submitted to the Faculty of Divinity in the University of Cambridge in March 2004. I would like to thank my examiners, Dr James Carleton Paget and Dr Alison Salvesen, for recommending its publication, despite the fact that my personal circumstances made it impossible for me to rework and update the thesis for publication. I would also like to thank Professor Christoph Markschies for accepting it for the series Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity, and Dr Henning Ziebritzki and Frau Ilse König of Mohr Siebeck, for their help with the editorial process; also Daniele Pevarello for kindly compiling the indices. Above all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor William Horbury, whose immense learning is matched only by his kindness towards his students. As well as spending time to an extent that can only be described as sacrificial giving, for instance teaching me Syriac, Professor Horbury’s encouragement has, bear-like, formed my ideas into something more resembling coherent thought. He has been extremely generous with time and effort, in a busy life, in working to bring the thesis to publication, and doing most of the work that is usually done by the author. I remain deeply grateful for his guidance and example of true scholarship. As an insufficient mark of my gratitude, I would like to dedicate this book to him. Dr Andrew Chester read an early draft of Chapter 3 and offered valuable comments, as did the members of the New Testament Seminar of the Faculty of Divinity, particularly Dr James Carleton Paget, Dr John Proctor and Dr Markus Bockmuehl. I would like to thank my colleagues from Corpus Christi College Chapel, the Revds James Lawson, Mark Pryce and the late Geoffrey Styler, for sharing in the daily office and Sunday worship, and keeping alive the awareness of a world beyond the thesis; also the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College for extending their hospitality to me as honorary assistant chaplain. I am most grateful for the generosity of the Purvis Fund of Corpus Christi College and the Bethune-Baker Fund of the Faculty of Divinity, for enabling my research to proceed. The Master of Corpus Christi College very generously provided a grant towards the publication costs.

VIII

Preface

I would like to thank the staff of the Rare Books Room of Cambridge University Library, for persistence in tracking down a lost edition of the Liber graduum; also Professor Wolfgang Kullmann of Freiburg, who supervised my first foray into research, on Herodotus, twelve years ago. Finally, I would like to thank Abbot Stuart and the brothers and sisters of the Anglican Benedictine community of Burford Priory, for bending the rules about outside engagements so that I might proofread this book. Secondary literature is cited by author’s name and short title, primary sources by editor’s name; full details will be found in the bibliography. Abbreviations follow the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Burford, August 2006

R. M. M. Tuschling

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1. Orthodoxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Trends in the study of angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 5

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology . . . . 13 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.1 Angels and pagan religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 The pagan roots of the concept, pre-2nd century BC . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Cherubim and seraphim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 From the second century to the beginning of the Christian era . .

14 14 16 21

1.2 The first century and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.1 Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.2 Sadducees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.3 Essenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.4 Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.5 Samaritans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.6 Judaism after 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Paganism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.1 Jewish Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.2 Palestinian and Syrian Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.3 Syriac-speaking Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 28 30 32 34 36 39 42 49 53 53 59 70

1.3 Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Messengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Holy ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 Spirits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 81 84 87 88

X

Table of Contents

1.3.5 Watchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 1.3.6 Standing ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 1.4 The angel of the Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Hypostases or divine agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1.1 The Great Glory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 The Angel of the Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.3 Principal angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.4 Archangels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 96 99 102 106

1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 2.1 Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Fellowship with angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Melchizedek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Qumran and later liturgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115 117 124 131 133 136

2.2 Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Christ suffering in heaven? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 The substance of angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Angels as guardians and educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Angelic classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137 139 141 145 148 151

2.3 Ephrem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 The substance of angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Angels and humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Angels and Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Angelic rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.6.1 Jewish influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.6.2 Theological function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 154 156 163 167 169 171 171 172

2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 3.1 Qedushah and sanctus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 3.1.1 The Jewish Qedushah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 3.1.2 “Heaven and earth are full of your glory” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Table of Contents

XI

3.1.3 The Christian sanctus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 3.1.4 benedictus or stand-alone sanctus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 3.1.5 The Trishagion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 3.2 Sacred time, sacred space, sacred beings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 3.2.1 The sanctification of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 3.2.2 Priests and angels as sacred persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Introduction Sans l’angélologie, ce qu’on appelle si facilement le monothéisme périt dans un triomphe illusoire. Henry Corbin

Henry Corbin has spoken of the paradoxical necessity of angelology within monotheism, if the purely transcendent God is to reveal himself to humankind.1 For example, subordinate divine beings can express different attributes of God (e. g. justice and mercy, as in Philo), indicating his manifold qualities. Texts which speak of angels coming to mortals or speeding about the cosmos to do God’s bidding emphasize the omnipresence of the divine power. The heavenly functions of angels, praise and worship, serve to underscore God’s majesty. The present work sets out to explore the following questions: What are angels? What function do they exercise within a monotheistic framework? At some points angels will be seen to be safeguarding monotheism, at others threatening it.2 What role is left for them when Christianity introduces the person of Christ to the Jewish cosmos, a person which (like the Holy Spirit) in some ways competes with angels? These questions will be asked in the context of a broader enquiry into the role of angels within systems of thought and practice which we may reasonably, though anachronistically, label systems of orthodoxy. A working definition of the term will be offered presently. The beliefs of the Qumran community may be regarded as such a system; early Christian examples for the concept are Irenaeus and Justin Martyr (e. g. Dial. 35, contrasting supposed Christians and those who “are disciples of the true and pure doctrine”). Believers, considering themselves orthodox, have offered different answers as to the nature and function of angels, thus shedding light on their understanding of orthodoxy. This investigation into angel beliefs will be given pointedness and specificity by restricting the study to the geographical sphere of Palestine and Syria. This has the advantage of enabling us to compare the Jewish and Christian material 1

Corbin, Nécessité, 100. Also Stolz, Wesen, 184 f. Vollenweider, Monotheismus, 23: “Engel tragen beides in sich: die Verherrlichung des einen Gottes und die Bestreitung seiner Einzigkeit.” Mach, Concepts, discusses different types of Jewish monotheism. 2

2

Introduction

with indigenous pagan evidence for belief in angels and their veneration; angels predate the development of Judaism. The time limit is the fourth century; Nicaea and Constantine together represent the victory of the “orthodox” party in most of the Roman Empire, but Syriac-speaking Christianity remains an exception till the end of the century. This limit means that a good deal of the evidence which is often drawn into the discussion of angels falls to one side, e. g. almost all amulets and magic bowls, even though some amulets may go back to the 3rd century, and the practice of magic involving angel invocation is probably older than the extant evidence.3 Pre-Christian evidence for the belief that the fallen angels instructed humankind in magical practices points in this direction.4

1. Orthodoxy Bauer’s seminal study of 1934 suggested that in wide parts of the Christian world, principally Edessa, Egypt and eastern Asia Minor, forms of Christianity which were later defined as heretical were original and formed the majority opinion.5 On his view, the later orthodox standpoint originates with the Roman church, and the ultimate victory of orthodoxy is due to its intervention in cities where the orthodox position was weak, for example Antioch. Strecker and Kraft, in their second appendix to the English translation of 1972, crucially note the difference between two meanings of orthodoxy (312). 6 The first, a self-evaluation by Christians of themselves as true followers of Jesus, while others are false, is clearly evident from Paul onwards. The other is orthodoxy in the fourth-century sense, implying institutionalised Christianity; it is not helpful to read this back into the second century, as Bauer’s portrait of the Roman church does. Although Bauer mostly uses the term orthodoxy to indicate “the position of the Roman church”, in the last two chapters he names three criteria for orthodoxy in the first sense: the use of the Old Testament, the use of traditions about the earthly 3 Naveh, Amulets; Shaked, Peace; Alexander, Incantations; Thee, Africanus, 316–448. Angel invocation: e. g. the exorcism of Asmodeus in Tobit 8.1–3; note Raphael’s involvement. A 3rd–5th century Sicilian amulet is Noy no. 159, vol. 1, 212–215. This is written in Greek and transliterated Hebrew and invokes Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel among other angels, also divine names and what appear to be Jewish names of heavens. Kotansky, Two, does not attempt to date two amulets (gold and silver) found in Syria. The silver amulet invokes 31 angels, beginning with Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and ‘Anael; Uriel and Suriel also occur. Levene, Jesus, and Shaked, Jesus, discuss a bowl invoking Jesus. Note also Tjäder, Christ, refuting earlier assumptions that the very common inscription stood for . Rather, is the most likely reading. 4 1 Enoch 7.1; 1 Enoch 8; Ps.-Philo LAB 34.3; also Justin, 2 Apol 5; Tertullian, De cultu fem. 1.2; 1 Sib 89–100. 5 Bauer, Orthodoxy. Cf. Murray, Symbols, 6, citing the Aberkios inscription for evidence of Syrian Christians related to the “Great Church” as early as the mid-2nd century. 6 Similarly Simonetti, Ortodossia, 12 f.

1. Orthodoxy

3

life of Christ, and the authority of the twelve apostles as eyewitnesses to this. Many scholars have agreed with Bauer on the diversity of earliest Christianity; however, Bauer did not discuss whether there was such a thing as orthodoxy in first-century Judaism, a subject necessarily bound up with that of Christian orthodoxy. Issues of orthodoxy in first-century Judaism have been the focus of debate between McEleney and others; Sanders has coined the term “common Judaism” to express something similar to McEleney’s “minimal orthodoxy”, although with a greater focus on practice, e. g. pilgrimage to the Temple. McEleney argues that a minimal Jewish orthodoxy existed in the first Christian century, which he defines as comprising belief in the one God, in Israel’s status as God’s chosen people, and acceptance of the Mosaic law.7 Presumably this latter criterion is intended to include acceptance of the normative force of the scriptures, however demarcated. The difficulty is that issues of practice, or halakah, are more prominent than doctrinal issues in the disagreements between the principal Jewish sects. However, orthodoxy must underlie orthopraxy (although this may not be articulated in theological reflection).8 The concept, if not the term, is visible in the OT, in Hezekiah’s, Josiah’s and Ezra’s reforms. One object of the present study will be to show that a reasonably consistent angelology formed an element of the orthodox “package”, however differently understood by the different Jewish parties, and was taken over into Christianity. It is proposed here to take up the distinction made by Strecker and Kraft and use as a working definition of orthodoxy “a self-evaluation by Jews or Christians of themselves as true followers of the Law / of Jesus, and of others as false”. This definition implies in the holders of such attitudes a belief that the content of the Law / of the following of Jesus is agreed among members of the group characterizing themselves as orthodox and excluding others. In other words, it is proposed to adopt McEleney’s position that some kind of minimal “doctrinal” content is logically prior to the definition of an orthopraxy, even if in fact no such content is clearly defined and hence doctrine is an inappropriate label. The difficulty with Sanders’ “common Judaism” is that this minimal content is not necessarily common. Although belief in the one God, Israel as God’s chosen people, and acceptance of the Mosaic law are held by all three major Jewish groupings, there are clearly divergences over who constitutes Israel and the content of the law. Agreement as to content is only secured within the group. Thus, for example, both Pharisees and Sadducees would agree to the proposition, “A Jew must observe the Law”; but a Pharisee would include the oral law in this definition, and a Sadducee would exclude it. This minimal orthodoxy therefore does not represent an orthodoxy in the wider sense, an agreed body of doctrine, adher7 8

McEleney, Orthodoxy, 29. McEleney, Replies; Dexinger, Limits, 112.

4

Introduction

ence to which is necessary for a right following of the Law. The development of Christianity in the first four centuries represents a development from orthodoxy in the present sense to the achievement of a consensus as to the doctrinal content of the “minimal orthodoxy” so as to produce a party within Christianity which forms an actual system of orthodoxy.9 Despite the greater emphasis on praxis in Judaism, the victory of rabbinic Judaism represents the achievement of a similar consensus. In order to move from the narrower definition of orthodoxy (selfevaluation as true followers) to the wider (a system of agreed doctrine / practice), a group must choose from a pool of possible beliefs or observances those which will constitute right following. For example, no Jew or Christian could choose to worship Jupiter. Some Jews or Christians could choose to venerate angels or use 1 Enoch. All Christians, but no non-Christian Jews, could call Jesus Lord and thus imply a comparable or higher status than that of exalted angels. It is within this proto-doctrinal source material that angel beliefs are situated. Therefore, first-century Judaism may be characterised as comprising at least three competing systems of orthodoxy, which are held together by the fact that they share the same orthodoxy in the narrow sense. The competing systems represent a discussion within a tradition. First- and second-century Christianity, on the other hand, is better characterized as the formation of a tradition, although in some respects it could be classed as a further competing system within Judaism. An equivalent to the Jewish “minimal orthodoxy”, agreed parameters whose varied definitions form positions within the tradition, might be seen in Bauer’s three criteria (the Old Testament, the earthly life of Christ, and the twelve apostles). But although Marcion or Gnostics find it necessary to take up a position on these three points, the situation is still comparatively fluid.10 Moreover, for Bauer Paul fails the second and third criteria, which is why he labels him a heresiarch (236). This, however, hardly does justice to the fact that Paul’s writings are central to the orthodox system once it develops. Le Boulluec’s analysis of the origins of the idea of heresy in Christianity shows that the development of one system of orthodoxy within Christianity began very early. The centrality of doctrine is visible already in Ignatius, who attacks his opponents’ docetism (Smyrn. 4–5; Trall. 10).11 Justin takes the model of teacher-disciple successions from Greek philosophy to characterise Christian 9 Compare Le Boulluec, Notions, 359 f.: “La perception première de l’hérésie fonde l’altérité, non pas d’un organisme effectivement hétérogène, dont les propriétés distinctes seraient immédiatement assignables et dont l’extériorité serait évidente, mais d’un courant dont seule l’absence partielle de conformité aux règles intérieures de comportement du groupe définit la nature.” 10 Le Boulluec, Notions, 547: “L’absence d’un schème commun d’exclusion atteste que les églises n’ont pas toutes la même conscience de leur identité et que les normes d’appartenance changent d’un milieu à un autre”. 11 This is not to say that practice is unimportant; see Carpenter, Popular, 296, for the importance of moral exhortation in early writers.

2. Trends in the study of angels

5

heresies; Hegesippus sets up the idea of a diadoche of true doctrine as a contrast, probably borrowing the idea of succession linked to lists of bishops from Justin’s Syntagma, but stressing particularly the succession of relatives of the Lord in the bishopric of Jerusalem as a guarantee of doctrinal purity.12 Irenaeus contributes the concept of a “rule of truth”, a minimal orthodoxy (e. g. Adv. Haer. 1.22, cf. 1.10).13 But significant areas of theology remained uncovered by the “rule of truth”, see Valentinus, below. There is thus more latitude in the choice of criteria for orthodoxy in Christianity, as compared to Judaism. Indeed Williams defines the struggle over orthodoxy in the pre-Nicene period as the struggle over which kinds of criteria will prevail.14 Markschies describes Valentinus as attempting a reconciliation between Greek philosophy and Biblical theology; the failure of this attempt led to his followers’ inventing their mythology. On this reading Valentinus himself cannot be characterised as a heretic, but rather as a Logos theologian working in areas where a “rule of truth” had not yet been agreed. Valentinus is interesting from our perspective because Markschies associates key problems in his teaching with angelology. Firstly, Valentinus taught that angels created humankind (probably following Philo). Secondly, Markschies interprets his concept of aeons as an attempt to Christianize the Platonic Ideas. Valentinus took the Ideas to be the thoughts of God; but his followers hypostatised them to independent beings. The fall of the angels provided the model for the fall of the aeons.15 If Markschies is correct, then Valentinus represents a link between angel beliefs and issues of orthodoxy at a very early date. As Le Boulluec shows, heterodox evidence can throw light on the beliefs of those who consider themselves orthodox, though our focus is on the latter.

2. Trends in the study of angels Study of angels has followed two or three distinct tendencies. The question of how Jewish angelological ideas serve to illustrate early Christian theology is one such. Scholars who stress the novelty represented by worship of Christ include Bauckham and Hurtado. Those who emphasize the Jewish matrix of complex monotheism out of which Christology developed include Rowland, Chester, Horbury and Segal. Hurtado (1988, rev. 1998) notes that a belief in intermediary figures can serve to underscore belief in one God, by emphasising God’s majesty; he identifies cultic worship as the criterion which distinguishes the 12

Le Boulluec, Notions, 36 f. (Justin), 108 f. (Hegesippus). Ritter, Glaubensbekenntnisse, 405: “eine substantielle Bekenntniseinheit ohne Bekenntnisformel ”, i. e. allowing a certain latitude. 14 Williams, Orthodoxy, 8. 15 Markschies, Krise, 26–8. 13

6

Introduction

person of Jesus from angelic mediators.16 Worship offered to Christ represents a mutation which has no direct precedent.17 Hurtado argues that the very variety of intermediary figures found in Jewish texts represents an important difference from Christianity, and counters Fossum’s suggestion that Judaism was already significantly binitarian. He divides the Jewish precedents into three classes of divine agent: exalted patriarchs, personified divine attributes, and principal angels. We will discuss the latter two in the thematic section of chapter 1: exalted patriarchs are only of interest insofar as they are transformed into angels as Enoch is.18 However, to characterise Judaism as “defiantly monotheistic” is to beg the question of what kind of monotheism is held.19 Jews could be defiant towards encroaching pagans and yet believe in angelic deliverance, as in 2 Maccabees. Hurtado seeks to appropriate Stuckenbruck’s argument for veneration for his own contention that Judaism was monotheistic in an exclusive sense.20 However, although Hurtado is probably right to stress the degree, early beginning and liturgical expression of worship of Jesus, no threat to Christianity’s status as a genuinely new phenomenon is implied by accepting that even some cultic veneration was extended to angels in some Jewish contexts (see Chapter 2). Stuckenbruck (1995) takes issue with Hurtado’s lumping together of cultic worship of angels and mediator figures with the possibility of a certain veneration: e. g. invocation of angels for assistance, reverence of angels because of their exemplary worship, and expressions of thanksgiving.21 He identifies traditions that perceive angel veneration as dangerous: rabbinic prohibitions against sacrificing to angels or making images of them, also warnings against “two powers” heresy; second-century accusations of angelolatry among Jews; and the “refusal tradition”.22 These will be discussed in Chapter 1. Stuckenbruck elsewhere identifies angel veneration as permissible within narrow limits.23 The relation between angels and Christology has been much studied recently; I mention only Gieschen’s extremely clear methodology.24 Traditions about 16 Hurtado, One, 90. Cf. Casey, Pauline, 233, arguing that worship of Jesus played a small role in Pauline churches. 17 For Chester, the point at issue is not the fact of worship, but the worship of a contemporary human being. 18 Davila, Methodology, studies the transformed Enoch as a pattern for the worship of the exalted Jesus. 19 Hurtado, Lord, 29. Extraordinarily, he discusses the Johannine Jesus as a second divine figure sharing God’s glory without reference to Fossum’s theory of the Glory as a great angel: Lord, 379–80. 20 Lord, 34. 21 Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 200. 22 ibid., 270. The term is Bauckham’s: Climax, 118–149. Davila, Methodology, 17 f., suggests a possible (late) cult of Metatron. 23 Stuckenbruck, Worship, 87 f. 24 Gieschen, Christology; Hannah, Michael; Stuckenbruck, Veneration. Vollenweider, Monotheismus, 17–20, gives thematic links between angels and Christ, e. g. the resurrection appearances borrowing the typological language of epiphanies of (previously unrecognised) angels.

2. Trends in the study of angels

7

angels were used by Christians in their attempt to express the significance of Christ; but our present concern is with evidence for early Christian beliefs about angels qua angels, not with Christology. Gieschen identifies the importance of God’s invisibility in Jewish tradition, and the tension set up by portraying him as visible. The visibility of God as man is present in the panorama of angelomorphic traditions which depict God, or his visible manifestation, as a man enthroned in heaven or even walking on earth. This evidence is an important, although often unappreciated, precursor for the early Christian belief in the incarnation.25

This tension is an aspect of the problem of transcendence and immanence, posed in its extreme form by mystical experience, which angelology attempts to answer, as Corbin says. Moving away from Christology in particular, Bietenhard, Himmlische (1951), compares Jewish material with the New Testament, but not later writings. The thematic arrangement of Daniélou, Anges (21953), makes it difficult to identify developments. Daniélou, Origène (1948), and Théologie (1958), also cover a good deal of angelological material; his assessment of Jewish Christianity will be reviewed here. Tavard, Engel (1968), a collection of material with little theological assessment, does not sufficiently distinguish the Jewish antecedents of Christian angel beliefs. The special case of Syriac-speaking Christianity will be considered in depth; angels in Ephrem are the subject of Cramer, Engelvorstellungen (1965), to be discussed in Chapter 2. A second tendency is that studying Jewish mysticism in the wake of Gershom Scholem, represented by Schäfer, Mach, Halperin and Morray-Jones. Mach (1992) notes that “von einem systematisierten Logos de angelis kann man … sicher nicht in der vorrabbinischen Zeit sprechen”.26 This is certainly true, but Chapter 2 will conclude that there appears to be at least a rudimentary body of angel beliefs that forms common ground. Mach’s work is useful for its analysis of categories of angels such as angels of the nations or the heavenly court. He observes that the duty of praise of cherubim and seraphim is simply given in the Bible, and is the source for the idea of humans joining in the angelic praises, and for the song of the divine court, since cherubim and seraphim are eventually understood as angels in postbiblical writings.27 This is fruitful for the present work in that we will observe that interest in angels shifts from their role as messengers to earth to their heavenly praises. It seems likely that the understanding of cherubim and seraphim as angels furthered this shift. Schäfer’s earlier study (1977) concentrates on rabbinic writings. He finds that the majority of rabbinic mentions of angels have to do with the relationship 25 26 27

Gieschen, Christology, 351. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, ix. ibid., 219.

8

Introduction

between angels and human beings, which is one of rivalry, in particular of the liturgical angels, whose duty is to praise God, against Israel, whose praises (in the Qedushah) are given priority, which effectively makes the angels redundant.28 This observation explains why rabbinic theology never developed a systematic angelology. The angels as such are of no particular interest; but the jealousy of the angels is a result of God’s choice of Israel as his people and his love for them. According to Schäfer, this anthropocentric Weltbild distinguishes rabbinic angel ideas from earlier concepts of a mirroring of heavenly and earthly realities; however, we will see examples where these persist. Halperin (1988) begins from the link of Ezek 1 with the revelation on Sinai in the readings for Shavuot, and argues that a “troubling ambiguity in the being of the Jewish God” is thus revealed, in that the idolatry of calf-worship is located in the divine chariot.29 For this reason, some rabbis attempted to suppress esoteric, mystical trends within Judaism. Halperin argues against continuity between early apocalyptic material and the Hekhalot texts, saying that the authors of Hekhalot texts borrowed the ascension theme from the synagogue and made it a paradigm for their own struggle with the rabbis, symbolically represented by the angels from whom Moses wrests the Torah. This begs many questions which cannot be discussed here; but we note that for Halperin, the “mystical collection” of texts associated particularly with Johanan b. Zakkai emerges from a “merkabah scare” in the early third century, no earlier.30 Morray-Jones (1988, 1992) argues for the existence of an esoteric tradition within first- and second-century rabbinism, against Schäfer and Halperin. He distinguishes between Merkabah mysticism, a “visionary-mystical tradition centred upon the vision of God” seated upon the Merkabah, and the Hekhalot literature, which represents one development of that tradition; he identifies others in the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.31 Crucial to his argument is the suggestion that originally independent mystical interpretations of Ezek 1 were associated with the story of the Mount Sinai theophany, and hence legitimized and controlled. A consequence of this was the adoption of Ezek 1 as the haftarah for Shavuot.32 I accept his argument for identifying at least inchoate mystical and visionary interests at an early date, and would thus emphasize the similarities of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice with the later mystical literature, rather than the undoubted differences. 1 Enoch 14, a merkabah vision, is a key text in this regard (see 1.4.1.1 below); Morray-Jones also claims Paul as a representative of

28 29 30 31 32

Schäfer, Rivalität, 232. Halperin, Faces, 449. Halperin, Faces, 28. Morray-Jones, Transformational, 2. See Hamacher, Streit. Morray-Jones, Merkabah, 26.

2. Trends in the study of angels

9

this tradition.33 The literary evidence for widespread interest in (heavendwelling) angels from the second century BC further supports Morray-Jones’ position. Related to the issue of Jewish mysticism is the complex of angelic ideas represented in the Qumran texts. Fletcher-Louis, Glory (2002), has recently offered a new interpretation of the language of “holy ones” used at Qumran. He rejects references to angels in favour of exalted, angelomorphic priestly figures, i. e. exalted human beings rather than transcendental angels. His argument will be considered in Chapter 2; while it offers useful observations, overall the older understanding (Newsom, Schwemer) that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice focus on angels rather than humans will be retained. A third tendency is study of issues relating to monotheism, among which may be reckoned Segal’s study of the so-called “Two Powers” heretics (1977), and Fossum’s study of the divine Name and the Angel of the Lord (1985). Monotheism is closely linked to orthodoxy, since belief in the One God of Israel is non-negotiable for all Jewish parties, and the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians is associated with orthodoxy on this point.34 Segal, Powers, begins from the two middoth of justice and mercy, linking them to the two names of God, and , and suggests that they were understood as two divine manifestations. Segal suggests that the “two powers” heretics can be Christians, gnostics or other groups, and distinguishes heresies of two complementary powers (God and an angelic helper) and two opposing powers (a good God and a bad Demiurge – the Gnostic model), the former being the earlier variant. He convincingly demonstrates that Justin’s OT exegesis makes use of “two powers” traditions.35 Fossum criticizes Segal for not producing evidence that the second power was thought to be the demiurge.36 He presents Samaritan and late sectarian Jewish material suggesting belief in a high god and a lesser creator, similar to the Gnostic demiurge. He identifies this figure with the Angel of the Lord, the manlike appearance of God, who possesses the divine Name. It is here proposed to reassess Fossum’s identification of the Glory of the Lord, as seen in Ezek 1, with an angel. The question turns on whether this manlike appearance of God is understood as God himself in visible form, or the manifestation of some partial attribute of God (hypostasis), or a principal angel figure. Section 1.4.1.1 will offer an alternative proposal to Fossum’s treatment of this figure as an exalted angel.

33

Morray-Jones, Paradise I and II. Also Segal, Convert, 11, 36; Scott, Triumph. See the volumes on Jewish and Christian self-definition, ed. Sanders, also Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways, ed. Dunn; Lieu, Parting, Impregnable. Barker, Angel, derives worship of Jesus from a thoroughly binitarian Judaism. 35 Segal, Powers, 220–225. 36 Fossum, Name, 17 f. 34

10

Introduction

A further tendency which is fruitful for consideration of angels is liturgy, especially study of the angelic song used in the liturgy, the Qedushah or sanctus. The field of Jewish liturgy has undergone development since Heinemann’s innovative form-critical work, Prayer (1977). Reif, Judaism (1993), is cautious as to whether the Qumran evidence for liturgical prayer can be useful for study of rabbinic Judaism. Falk (1998) contends that the Qumran liturgical practices stem from Temple practice, and hence may be used as witnesses to the early development of mainstream Jewish liturgy.37 Spinks (1991) and Winkler (2002) have devoted monographs to the sanctus, and both consider that it originates in our area of Syria-Palestine.38 Spinks’ admirably thorough book includes a treatment of the Jewish Qedushah. Winkler is more specialized, linking 1 Enoch with Ethiopic anaphoral tradition, and thence to Syrian and Armenian Christianity. The present Chapter 3 seeks to offer new observations on Jewish and Christian liturgical use of the angelic Qedushah / sanctus. The aim of the present study is therefore to arrive at a theological assessment of the significance of Jewish and Christian beliefs about angels, with special reference to the emergence of orthodoxy and the geographical region of Syria and Palestine. I have sought to build on what I believe to be a broader basis of types of texts than has been brought together previously in this connection: apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, Qumran texts, Samaritan texts, rabbinic writings, Christian theologians both Greek and Syriac-speaking, and liturgical texts. Most of the literature tends to discuss angels as illustrative of something else, for example mysticism; the intention here is to weigh their theological import in their own right, and the role of this element within the context of its theological system as a whole, however implicit and unexamined this may in practice be. For example, Winkler remarks that Qedushah and sanctus make clear “den numinosen wie epiphanischen Charakter aller Liturgie”.39 She goes on to say that the sanctus stresses God’s immanence when it is interpreted christologically. However, this must be a secondary development: Qedushah and sanctus are revelatory in that they show God’s transcendent majesty by expressing the worship of heaven. God becomes present to the worshipper in that the worshipper enters God’s sphere, not vice versa. Our question must be, if the angelic song is used in worship, what can this tell us about angels’ role in supporting the transcendence or maintaining the immanence of God? It is of course impossible to become an instant expert in the specialist debate of so many areas. I have selected issues that were immediately relevant to my theme, rather than attempting to describe the state of scholarship in general. Robert Murray expresses the difficulty well: 37

Falk, Daily, 9; 253–5. Spinks, Sanctus; Winkler, Sanctus. For the rival Egyptian theory, see Taft, Interpolation I and II; Johnson, Origins. 39 Winkler, Sanctus, 170. 38

2. Trends in the study of angels

11

In these fields … I have often had to work at the boundaries of my competence, relying on the studies of others and trying, as an amateur may, to bridge gaps between the fields of the various professionals.40

In the conclusion to the work we will hope to answer some of the questions posed at the outset, and identify the theological function of angels and their relation to right belief about the one God; perhaps even their necessity.

40

Murray, Symbols, 3.

Chapter 1

Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology And I created for him an open heaven, so that he might look upon the angels. 2 En 31.2

Introduction At the beginning of the Christian era, Judaism is a monotheistic religion set within a polytheistic pagan culture of both Graeco-Roman and Semitic patterns. Romanized cities could incorporate ancient indigenous worship sites, as at Baalbek. The population distribution is radically altered by the wars of 66–70 and 132–135, with Jews retreating to the Galilee area. Towards the end of our period, although Jews were still in the majority of the population of Palestine, pagans were not far behind, with Samaritans and Christians significantly smaller groups.1 Subordinate divine beings, who can be known as angels, exist in the contemporary pagan culture of our period (section 1.2.2). Angels are also a “given” for Judaism, a relic of the pre-monotheistic early Israelite past; they represent a continuing tension within monotheism from the beginning. Nevertheless, angels are sufficiently domesticated in the Bible not to cause offence, by contrast to the worship of the sun observed by Ezekiel in Jerusalem (Ezek 8.16). In fact the canonical status of the Law and the Prophets serves to support the legitimacy of angels, since they are taken for granted there.2 During the Second Temple period of Judaism, angels become more prominent, carrying increasing theological significance within a structure that remains monotheistic. In the earliest period of Christianity, angelic language is borrowed to speak of Christ. Christ does not, however, displace the angels, which continue to appear in both mainstream (Hermas) and subsequently rejected works (Ascension of Isaiah). This chapter is structured as follows: Parts 1 and 2 form a historical overview. Part 1 considers elements in pagan religions that may have had an influence on 1

Stemberger, Jews, 20 f. The development of a canon is complex; certainly the division into Law, Prophets and the other books is attested by Sirach, prologue (ca. 130 BC); cf. CD vii 15–20. It seems safe to assume that the Law and the older prophetic books at least were recognised as normative in the second century BC. 2

14

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

the developing Jewish concept of angels before the beginning of the period under review. Part 2 then considers the three religious communities of Syria / Palestine during the first to fourth centuries of the Christian era, and the beliefs in angels held by each. Parts 3 and 4 are thematic, considering angelic vocabulary and the typology of angels.

1.1 Angels and pagan religions 1.1.1 The pagan roots of the concept, pre-2nd century BC Angels were originally gods in Canaanite religion. Where the expression “sons of God” occurs in the Jewish Bible, it is traditionally interpreted as an angelic title. This shows angels being used to safeguard monotheism; similarly, Biblical statements about God which were later held to be theologically unacceptable in Ps. 29.1 probably origiwere attributed to angels.3 However, the title nally indicated full divinities. In Canaanite mythology there are seventy “sons of El”, bn ilm, a sub-group of gods who rank above the messenger gods. Similarly, the Biblical “council of God” (Ps. 82.1) parallels ‘dt ilm in Ugaritic. Day links the seventy sons of El with the story of the apportioning of the nations in Deut 32.8.4 The traditional number of the angels of the nations was seventy (Tg Ps.-Jonathan ad loc.,5 1 En 89.59). The existence of a heavenly court associated with the God of Israel may be due to an identification of YHWH with El in the patriarchal period.6 The Canaanite messenger gods, mlakm, often appear in pairs: Baal’s messengers are named Gupn and Ugar.7 The naming of messenger divinities is of interest in the light of the Talmudic assertion that angels’ names stem from Babylon (j R. H. 1.4).8 There are other traces of Canaanite beliefs within the Bible. Day argues persuasively that the references to a primordial conflict between God and a seamonster, sometimes named Leviathan, found especially in the Psalms, go back to Ugaritic myth. Emerton sees a Canaanite origin for the Son of Man imagery in 3

E. g. in Jub 17.16 it is Prince Mastema who suggests the testing of Abraham, and Jub 48.2 he who wishes to kill Moses (cf. Ex 4.24); in TJudah 10.2 an angel kills Er, whereas in Gen 38.7 it is God. 4 Day, Conflict, 174f; reading bene ’el, against MT but with a Qumran MS, LXX and others. 5 Clarke, 249. 6 Curtis, Ugarit, 117. 7 Gibson, e. g. p. 50 (CTA 3 D 33), p. 68 (CTA 5 i 12). 8 This is a curious statement. The names of angels tend to be theophoric compounds with -el, and certainly not Babylonian. Presumably we may gloss: “The practice of naming individual angels is something we brought back from the Babylonian exile”. The statement is an aside in a discussion of the (Babylonian) origin of the names of the months. Cf. GenR. 48.9, where the names Michael, Raphael, Gabriel are specified: Theodor / Albeck, vol. 2, 485.

1.1 Angels and pagan religions

15

Dan 7 and 1 Enoch 37–71.9 It has been suggested that the Ancient of Days shows similarities with the Iranian god Zervan.10 Widengren makes the same point with regard to the “Head of days”, re’sa mawa‘el, in the Similitudes of Enoch.11 Notwithstanding Widengren’s wider argument for Zoroastrian ideas in the books of Enoch, with regard to the Ancient of Days the Canaanite explanation seems preferable. Emerton’s explanation fits the title into a conceptual context better than the Zervanite theory. And in fact Hultgård suggests that the picture of the white-haired Zervan is itself influenced by the older Canaanite picture of the white-haired El. A simple dependence of the Bible only on the Ugaritic form of Canaanite mythology is unlikely, however. Rendtorff points out that in eighth-century Canaanite and Aramaic texts from outside Ugarit, El is not the highest God, but rather Hadad or Baalshamem.12 Nor is the form of Canaanite religion described by Philo of Byblos identical to that of Ugarit; his description of a six-winged El suggests the El of Byblos, unsurprisingly.13 (NB in Philo, El is the highest God and not Baal. Other evidence from Byblos suggests that Baal Shamin is their highest God.14) The Ancient of Days / Son of Man theme is relevant in that it exemplifies another way of envisaging a subsidiary divine character, in addition to angels, which was fruitful for later Jewish and Christian thought. These ideas are here seen to be firmly rooted in Canaanite belief, i. e. in some form they have belonged to Judaism from the beginning. The principal Mesopotamian influence on Jewish belief appears to be the cherubim and seraphim (next section). In addition to the šedu15 and lamasu, theriomorphic protecting divinities like cherubim and seraphim, there are also protecting divinities even for the “simple citoyen”, who are called simply ilu, god, if male, and ištar if female.16 These divinities can be temporarily absent: Celui qui a son dieu, ses fautes sont enlevées; celui qui n’a pas son dieu ses péchés sont nombreux.17

9

Emerton, Origin. Hultgård, Judentum, 528. Shaked, Zurvan, rejects the existence of a Zervanite heresy. 11 Widengren, Iran, 156–8. 12 Rendtorff, El, 283. 13 Baumgarten, Philo, 218 f. Philo states that four wings are on the shoulders, two on the head; the coins of Byblos show a six-winged deity from the time of Antiochus IV to Augustus, but all the wings are on the torso (two pairs spread, one pair depressed), and there appears to be a feathered headdress as well. Hill, Catalogue, lxiii–iv, 97–9 with pl. XII.5. 14 Teixidor, Pagan, 26–29; on El of Byblos and his relation to Baal 46. 15 These are possibly related to the , demons, of Deut 32.17 and Ps 106.37, who become troublesome evil demons in rabbinic literature. Their transformation from good to evil entities is probably due to their association in Jewish thought with pagan gods. Fontinoy, Anges, 119. Klener, Démonologie, 179. 16 Finet, Anges, 42. 17 ibid., 47, cited from Ludlul bel nemeqi. 10

16

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

Moreover, a ritual text exists which conjures the great gods to force an ilu and ištar to transfer their protection to another person. Thus the concept of a guardian angel has antecedents in Mesopotamian religion. Other suggested Mesopotamian influences: VanderKam believes Enoch to be modelled on the Mesopotamian flood hero, who is taken to live in the divine community, and the seventh antediluvian king, Enmeduranki.18 Enoch is relevant to the discussion of angelology in that he becomes an angel. The name of the female night demon Lilith (Isa 34.14) is Mesopotamian; but there is no other connection with the Mesopotamian Lilith.19 Hultgård suggests a Babylonian source for the myth of the fallen angels in 1 Enoch: the demon Lamastu, daughter of the god Anu, is thrown out of heaven and then causes trouble on earth.20 However, as will be argued below, the great weighting given to the fall of the angels in 1 Enoch as the origin of evil suggests a strongly dualist context such as Zoroastrianism. Lamastu is a comparatively minor demon. 1.1.2 Cherubim and seraphim Cherubim are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in a number of contexts: 1. in connection with guarding Eden (Gen. 3.24, Ezek 28.14–1621); 2. the tabernacle or Temple, specifically the mercy-seat (Exod 25.18–22, 37.7–9, Num 7.89, 1 Kgs 6.23–28, 8.7, 2 Chr 3.10–13, 2 Chr 5.7–8), the curtains (Exod 26.1, 31, 2 Chr 3.14), the walls and doors (1 Kgs 6.29, Ezek 41.18,25); 3. God riding on cherubim or on a chariot associated with cherubim (2 Sam 22.11, Ps. 18.10, Ezek 9.3, 10.1–22. These are equated in v. 20 with the “living creatures” described in Ezek 1); 4. the place of God’s dwelling or throne (1 Sam 4.4, 2 Sam 6.2, 2 Kgs 19.15, Ps 80.1, Ps 99.1, Isa 37.16). In Babylonian religion there is a class of protecting spirits called kuribi which are associated with doorways and gates.22 These are composite beings with human heads, wings and animal bodies. The cherubim described in Ezekiel 1 and 10 are also composite beings, with wings, human, animal and bird heads, and human hands. Dhorme draws attention to the fact that in Ezek 1.10 the four faces of the living creatures are man, lion, ox, eagle, whereas in 10.14 they are man, lion, cherub, eagle. “Il est clair que … le keroub représente le boeuf. C’est une preuve que le prophète pouvait prêter au chérubin une forme bovine.”23 This is noteworthy since one of the forms taken by protecting door spirits is that of a 18

VanderKam, Enoch, 11–20 and 50 f. Caquot, Anges, 117. Also Leibovici, Génies, 92–96, 101. 20 Hultgård, Judentum, 547. 21 The textual difficulties of this passage are analysed by Barr, Cherub. Barr concludes that the reference is to the fall of an angelic being, not Adam. Also Miller, Mælæk. 22 Pfeiffer, Cherubim; Kapelrud, Gates, 156. 23 Dhorme, Nom, 673. 19

1.1 Angels and pagan religions

17

winged bull with a human face, the šedu and lamasu who guard the gates of palaces and temples and who can play the part of “dieux kâribu” or intercessors.24 The ninth-century reliefs and statues from the north-west palace of Nimrud, now in the British Museum, in fact show all four of the forms associated with the “living creatures” in Ezekiel. There is both a winged bull with a human face and a winged lion with a human face; also winged men and winged men with eagle’s heads. These latter have four wings and are associated with doorways and with a tree of life (see below).25 Heads with four different faces, as the cherubim are described, are unparalleled.26 Nevertheless, the presence of all four types in the same architectural context suggests that the parallelism is greater even than Dhorme allows. Despite the semantic parallels traced by Dhorme, de Vaux prefers to see a West Semitic influence from the neighbours of Israel rather than a direct influence from Mesopotamia.27 He begins from the association of the cherubim with God’s throne, as in the title (Ps. 80.2, 99.1) and draws parallels with the winged sphinx (i. e. winged lion with human face) which is commonly associated with thrones in Egyptian and Canaanite iconography. De Vaux offers three representations of thrones flanked by winged sphinxes from this area: two from Megiddo, both dated between 1350 and 1150 BC, and one from Byblos, which is tenth century. He concludes that this iconographical type is of Phoenician / Canaanite origin. De Vaux supports his identification of the sphinx with the Biblical cherubim with the fact that both are associated as guardians with the “tree of life”: the cherubim of Eden in Gen 3, and also the depictions in the Temple of cherubim between palms (1 Kgs 6). While sacred trees are common in ancient Near Eastern iconography, they are depicted with winged sphinxes as guardians in Syrian and Mitannian cylinder seals from 1500 BC onwards. He cites a seal found in Palestine and also an ivory from Samaria (ninth century (102–3)). Martin Metzger cites sphinx thrones which incorporate the tree of life motif; two of these are 7th century BC and from Phoenicia.28 The cherubim throne, which is both throne and chariot, may represent a fusion of El traditions of an enthroned deity with Baal traditions of the “Driver of the Clouds”.29 The seraphim as angelic beings are only mentioned in the Bible in Isa 6; “fiery serpents”, and in v. 8 however in Num 21.6 God sends commands Moses to make himself a and put it on a pole. Similarly in Deut 24 Dhorme, Nom, 674–77, derives the name from the Akkadian word karâbu meaning “to bless” and “to pray”. 25 Wallis Budge, Assyrian, Pl. 4, 5, 40, 41. 26 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 56. 27 de Vaux, Chérubins. 28 Metzger, Jahwe. 29 Mettinger, Cherubim, 191.

18

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

8.15 the desert is characterised as the abode of . I Isaiah has two references, 14.29 and 30.6 “flying serpent”. This suggests that the angelic seraphim are both fiery and serpentlike, although they also have hands (Isa 6.6) and (human) faces; presumably they are composite beings like the cherubim, since they have six wings.30 There is a resemblance between the seraphim and the Egyptian uraei (erect cobras) associated with royalty. which are sometimes winged and sometimes have human hands and faces.31 Ward argues that the number of four wings for winged uraei is characteristic of Hebrew seals, and that Egyptian uraei normally have two wings.32 Joines mentions two examples of four-winged uraei;33 nevertheless, four-winged serpents would seem to be more common in first-millennium Syria-Palestine than Egypt. Ward notes the coincidence in time between the eighth-century prophet Isaiah who speaks of “flying serpents” and the use of the four-winged uraeus on Hebrew seals of the ninth to seventh centuries. We should now recall the six-winged representation of El of Byblos. The coins of Byblos show a six-winged deity with a feathered headdress, while Philo of Byblos speaks of four wings on the shoulders, two on the head. A bone handle or sceptre from Hazor (north of the Sea of Galilee) portrays a four-winged figure, late ninth or early eighth century34. This would support Ward’s contention that multiple wings are a Syrian / Palestinian feature, although apparently no sixwinged uraei are documented. However, multiple-winged deities are also found farther east: four- and six-winged composite figures from Tell Halaf near Harran in northern Mesopotamia (ninth century), a four-winged demon Pazuzu, fourwinged deities from Nimrud (cited above), a four-winged composite figure with a bird’s head from Karatepe (eighth century).35 It is possible that the seraphim of Isa 6 are distinguished by the number of their wings from the ordinary mentioned elsewhere by Isaiah. Since six wings are associated with divinity in Byblos, this may be a way of stressing their exalted status. Landsberger associates the six-winged figure from Tell Halaf with the seraphim.36 The figure holds a snake in each hand and the lower two pairs of wings cover the legs and feet, which would fit Isa 6. Landsberger’s general contention is that, while cherubim and seraphim began as animal or hybrid beings, they increasingly were portrayed in human form, but winged, while other angel types were wingless and only later borrowed wings from the cherubim and seraphim. However, Mach prefers to see the origin of wings for angels, rather than from 30

Ringgren, Word, 74–78, cites a Ugaritic text (RS 4474) which may refer to angelic beings entitled šrp ’il; however this is conjectural. 31 Joines, Winged; Ward, Serpent; de Savignac, Seraphim. 32 Ward, Serpent, 138. 33 Joines, Winged, 413. 34 Pritchard (supplement), no. 854. 35 Pritchard, nos. 654–659, supplement 855. 36 Landsberger, Origin, 237.

1.1 Angels and pagan religions

19

the cherubim and seraphim, as an import from Greek traditions of angels who accompany the soul at death, which are shown as winged.37 GenR 1.3 says that according to R. Hanina, the angels were created on the fifth day, citing the command to winged creatures.38 Clearly angels were envisaged as winged at this time (GenR was composed after 400).39 Moreover, a class of Babylonian guardian divinity exists, similar to the šedu and lamasu, which has the form of a serpent, the lahmu, created from the sea.40 Although they are monsters they side with the gods against Tiamat; they are benevolent deities. Thus their images are placed at the entrance to temples for protection, like the šedu and lamasu; unlike these, the lahmu have no intercessory function.41 Nevertheless, although there are clearly different kinds of serpent deities in the cultures surrounding Israel, the little information Isaiah gives about the seraphim is hard to parallel. The (apparently two42) seraphim stand above God, singing “holy, holy, holy”; one brings a burning coal from the altar to touch Isaiah’s mouth. These are cultic actions with no apparent connection with the functions of the pagan deities: standing outside the temple as a protecting spirit, symbolising the royalty of the pharaoh, pulling the boat of the sun-god through the underworld.43 While the illustrative material from the surrounding cultures helps to illuminate the Biblical seraphim and cherubim, much remains mysterious. For example, why should these two types of composite heavenly beings be associated with other ranks of angels in lists, e. g. in the books of Enoch? What is the common element with the angels and archangels in human form? There is a clear difference of function compared to angels properly so called (at least as regards their earliest Biblical manifestations), in that cherubim and seraphim firmly belong in the heavenly sphere, whereas messenger angels come and speak on God’s behalf on earth. The cherubim and seraphim seem to have been confused in later periods. The “living creatures” of Rev 4.6–8 are basically cherubim, following Ezek

37

Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 207. Text section 1.2.1.7 below. 39 Tertullian, Apol. 22, “Every spirit [both angel and demon] is possessed of wings”, is an early attestation from N. Africa (c. 197). 40 Dhorme, Traditions, 360 f. 41 Dhorme, Nom, 683. 42 Hayward, Chant, 65–68, notes that LXX indicates two seraphim ( … ), and suggests that the reading of 1QIsa, with only two repetitions of “holy”, indicates the same. The Hebrew of MT, , does not necessarily indicate “one of two”. 3 Enoch 26.9 says there are four seraphim, perhaps another instance of confusion with cherubim. Kretschmar, Studien, 82–85, suggests that the origin of the tradition of two seraphim comes from Philo, in the Armenian fragments of the De Deo, ad Gen. 18.2, where Philo cites Isa 6.1–2 and identifies the seraphim with the two cherubim of the ark of the covenant (text see below). 43 Joines, Winged, 411–13. 38

20

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

1 and 10, but have six wings like seraphim and sing the “Holy, holy, holy”.44 The Prayer of Jacob (1st to 4th century) contains the invocation, “you who sit [upon] the s[er]pen[t] gods”, [ ] [ ] [ ] ,45 which sounds very similar to (Ps. 80.2). Can this possibly also indicate a (con)fusion of the two kinds of composite heavenly beings? LevR 27.3 clearly fuses the two, applying Ezekiel 1.7 (cherub’s foot like calf’s foot) to the seraphim of Isa 6. The passage is attributed to the third-century R. Abbahu. Similarly b Hag 13b, resolving the contradiction implied by the mention of six wings in Isa 6.2 and four wings in Ezek 1.6, by explaining that one pair of wings was lost when the Temple was destroyed. John Chrysostom, Hom. on Eutropius 2.9, speaks of cherubim veiling their faces with their wings, a clear allusion to Isa 6. Philo apparently also identifies the cherubim and seraphim in a fragment from the de Deo. In a discussion of the appearance of the three men to Abraham in Gen 18, whom he identifies with the cherubim (i. e. the creatrix virtus associated with the name Deus and the regia virtus associated with the name Dominus), Philo quotes Isaiah 6 and then says “Cherubim exponitur typus, vel incendium”.46 Kretschmar remarks, “Incendium ist dabei ganz offensichtlich Uebersetzung von ‘Seraphim’”.47 The importance of the cherubim and seraphim lies in the fact that their appearances in the Bible were generative of mystical speculation and liturgical formulation in later periods. Isaiah’s vision dates from 742 BC, Ezekiel’s from 593 BC; the seraphim and cherubim are taken as adjuncts of the awe-inspiring vision of God and neither defended nor explained. They are, in the cherubim’s case literally, part of the furniture. Ezekiel’s visions are the source of the Jewish merkabah mysticism of the rabbinic period, and also, with Daniel, furnish the world of apocalyptic. Isaiah’s vision becomes the source for the qedushah and sanctus that will be studied in Chapter 3. Why did these beings play such a significant role in a monotheistic religion? It may be that the answer is to be found in the “holy strangeness” which is a part of the mystic’s experience of God. These theriomorphic divine beings, associated in the most ancient tradition with the concept of the deity enthroned and with the temple, were hallowed by antiquity and formed a suitable visual equivalent for the strangeness of the encounter with the divine majesty. The fact that both cherubim and seraphim are associated with prayer and praise is doubtless a source for the later concept of heaven as a place filled with beings unceasingly praising God. The bronze serpent Nehushtan, destroyed by Hezekiah a generation after Isaiah (2 Kgs 18.4), was probably kept in the Temple. This raises the issue of the extent to which 44 Six-winged cherubim also AposCon 7.35 and Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.6, the golden cherubim of the Temple; six-winged living creatures Apoc. Abrah. 18. 45 Preisendanz, vol. 2, 148. 46 Philonis Judei Paralipomena Armena, ed. J. B. Aucher, Venice 1826, 616. 47 Kretschmar, Studien, 84.

1.1 Angels and pagan religions

21

visionary experiences are shaped by familiar liturgical practices; was Isaiah predisposed to see seraphim attending God because he was used to seeing a sacred serpent displayed in the Temple? In any event, the high status of the canonical prophets in the Judaism of the period considered here will have served to reassure concerns about the appropriateness of the cherubim and seraphim. 1.1.3 From the second century to the beginning of the Christian era Angels become more prominent in post-exilic Jewish thought, and are more clearly defined as subordinate spirits, by contrast to earlier passages where the “angel of the Lord” appears to be a manifestation of God himself. This is especially true of the second-century writings. The first Biblical mention of named angels is in Daniel; but parts of 1 Enoch are probably slightly earlier, and contain many named angels, including the three Biblical ones. The concept of archangels, with its implication that many angels of varying ranks exist, also appears now, with the “princes” of Daniel 10.13, the “seven angels” of Tob 12.15, and the term archangel in the Greek version of 1 Enoch 20. The Ethiopic calls them “the holy angels who watch” (naming six). The title Watcher also appears in Dan 4.13 and 1 Enoch 12.2 (meaning exalted angels), 10.9 (fallen angels) etc. Fallen angels and a principal demonic adversary appear: fallen angels in 1 Enoch 6 ff.; a principal adversary (Semyaz or Azaz’el) ibid.; also Mastema in Jubilees 10.8 and Belial in the Qumran writings.48 In view of j R. H.’s assertion that the names of the angels came from Babylon (i. e the sphere of Persian rule), and even more so in view of the existence of a fully worked-out system of good and evil spirits in Zoroastrian belief, Persian influence has long been seen in this development.49 It should first be noted that a popular belief in troublesome evil spirits is common to many religions and should be distinguished from a more developed angelology and demonology that can have specifically Jewish or Zoroastrian characteristics. Likewise magic and astrology could be practised by Jews, even rabbis.50 Note also the inscription in Miletus’ theatre invoking the protection of archangels, with magical names.51 These para-religious practices represent part of a shared culture. Bousset and Gressmann assume that Persian religion does not influence Judaism in its pure form, but only “in einer starken Zersetzung 48 It is difficult to find Biblical precedents for either category beyond Genesis 6 and Ezekiel 28 for fallen angels. The Satan of Job 1–2 is very different from these second-century adversaries. Reed, Asael, highlights the importance of 1 Enoch 6–11 for 3 Enoch, an atypical Hekhalot text by virtue of its interest in apocalyptic. Rather than seeing this as evidence for continuous Jewish tradition, she suggests it may be due to transmission through Christian sources. 49 Hultgård, Judentum, 548 f. 50 Fossum, Name, 241–245, discusses the Golem legend, including Talmudic reports. 51 CIG 2895. Deissmann’s discussion compares the magical invocation of named archangels in a fourth- or fifth-century papyrus from Egypt, where the magical names exactly correspond. Deissmann, Light, 453–460.

22

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

durch babylonische Bestandteile”, principally astrology.52 Thus, while mentioning the Persian amesha spentas (see below), they prefer to link the seven Jewish archangels with the seven highest Babylonian star deities.53 However, while astrology does originate in Babylonia, a clear separation of all the elements of the syncretistic religious Zeitgeist of the Hellenistic period may not be possible. Adela Y. Collins rejects any association of Babylonian star or planetary deities with the Jewish tradition of seven heavens. She suggests instead influence from the tradition of seven archangels; we infer that she also rejects Babylonian influence on the seven archangels.54 A related issue are the various angelic apparitions in the books of the Maccabees: while their form seems influenced by Hellenistic religious idioms, specifically the cult of the Dioscuri, the appearance of angelic or divine help per se is not something that can be limited to one particular religious culture.55 Turning now to the possibility of Persian influence on Judaism, the exile does not seem particularly productive of foreign introductions in Biblical writings, despite j R. H. 1.4. Barr remarks that the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and Tobit, products of Babylonian Judaism, are familiar with Persian administrative language, but show no interest in Zoroastrian religious concepts.56 It seems rather that Persian concepts such as dualism begin to appear in the period of Hellenistic domination, to the extent that Barr has argued that Persian concepts come to Judaism via Hellenistic culture and its fascination with all things Oriental, as part of an anti-Hellenistic reaction in the second century BC.57 The relative weighting of Canaanite and Persian influence on Judaism has fluctuated recently. Kuhn argued that the dualism visible in the Manual of Discipline from Qumran, with its doctrine of the two spirits, was directly owed to Zoroastrian thought.58 On the other hand, Barr observes an increasing tendency to offer inner-Jewish explanations, “so that developments in Jewish apocalyptic are understood as … reactivations of ancient Canaanite myth rather than as products of late and Iranian influence.”59 He certainly understands the Qumran doctrine of the two spirits as an inner-Jewish development (226). There may 52

Bousset, Religion, 482. This ignores the existence of conflicting traditions as to the number of the archangels, with four probably being the older tradition. 54 Collins, Seven, 86. 55 Goldstein, Maccabees, 198, cites a sixth-century Babylonian tablet that tells how a šedu prevented a temple robbery; also Herodotus on the miraculous protection of Delphi against Xerxes. For epiphanies of the Dioscuri, see PW suppl. vol. 4, “Epiphanie”, col. 293–4 and 298. The Dioscuri appear on Seleucid coins: PW vol. 5.1, “Dioskuren”, col. 1103. 56 Barr, Influence, 218. Also Hultgård, Judentum, 555: Persian influence only in Palestinian Judaism. 57 Barr, Influence, 229. Hultgård, Judentum, 517, also makes the link with anti-Hellenistic attitudes. Cf. Widengren, Iran, 141. 58 Kuhn, Sektenschrift. 59 Barr, Influence, 206. 53

1.1 Angels and pagan religions

23

be a few superficial borrowings like the name of the demon Asmodeus in Tobit 3.8.60 The dispute between Samael and Michael for the soul or body of Moses (Origen, Princ. 3.2.1; DeutR 11.10; Jude 9) may have a possible Persian source in the battle between Ormazd and Ahriman for the soul of the departed.61 Barr understands the repeated stress that God’s creation is good, in Gen 1, as a pointed contrast to Zoroastrianism, where not all created things are good (and not all created by God). The Iranian ideas thus act as a “catalyst” for the definition of Jewish ideas.62 Hinnells argues that the parallels of detail found in intertestamental literature, especially the Similitudes of Enoch, are due to wide-ranging Zoroastrian influence.63 He also instances the demonology of the New Testament and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (but not rabbinic literature). He suggests the binding of the “ancient serpent” in Rev 20 is an adoption of the story of the binding of the dragon Az-I Dahak by the hero Fredun; the dragon escapes just before the eschaton and destroys one-third of humankind.64 Since we have accepted a Canaanite origin for the OT binding of the dragon, any Persian influence on Rev 20 can only be incidental, moulding details of the existing story in a Persian direction. Hultgård also considers this myth, which continues with the healing of the earth by Fredun, and compares the healing of the earth by Raphael in 1 Enoch 10, after he has bound Azaz’el.65 He concludes that Iranian influence is here combined with indigenous traditions. This is, however, a matter of a single detail. On more fundamental questions such as the belief in resurrection Hultgård is cautious. While admitting that Judaism and Zoroastrianism share a belief in resurrection, he points to a significant difference between them: in Iranian religion all are resurrected and purified as part of the renewal of the world. In the Book of Daniel, sinners are resurrected to “shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12.2).66 Thus Hultgård accepts that resurrection belief is an inner-Jewish development, although “der plötzliche Durchbruch des Auferstehungsglaubens bei den frühen Hasidim von einer befruchtenden Begegnung mit den iranischen Vorstellungen wesentlich gefördert wurde” (544). We turn now to angels and spirits. The highest spirits in Zoroastrian religion are the amesha spentas, “immortal beneficent ones”.67 This title first appears in 60 Aeshma daeva, demon of violence and wrath. Barr is doubtful regarding this derivation, Influence, 215 f. He also points out that Asmodeus more closely resembles a simple troublemaker than a serious threat to the stability of the cosmos. 61 Duchesne-Guillemin, Religion, 265. Other evidence is gathered by Berger, Streit; also Hannah, Michael, 41 f. 62 Barr, Influence, 208. 63 Hinnells, Zoroastrian, 309–12. 64 Cf. Fossum, Name, 252. 65 Hultgård, Judentum, 540. 66 Widengren, Iran, 165, points out that in 1 Enoch only the sinners experience woes, whereas in Iranian apocalyptic texts all do so. 67 Jackson, Amesha, 384.

24

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

the prose Yasna Haptanhati; in the gathas, the earliest poems, they are known as Entities, abstract spirits, and accompany Ahura Mazda.68 The amesha spentas have been offered as the model for the Jewish archangels, partly because of their number, seven.69 König seeks to demonstrate that the number of the amesha spentas in the gathas is not fixed at seven. However, his principal argument is that fixing a number does not fit with the portrayal of the amesha spentas in the gathas, but presupposes the later concept of amesha spentas as gods.70 In the gathas they are thought of as being on the borderline “wo eine poetische Personifikation in eine reale Personenvorstellung übergeht” (49). While König’s dating is flawed (Zoroaster ca. 1000 BC71, Daniel 6th century BC), which leads him to reject any Persian influence on Jewish archangels, his objections against linking Jewish archangels with Persian amesha spentas are nevertheless worth considering. Thus, if the Jewish borrowing is supposed to come from the picture in the gathas, which would seem the most likely, as being close in time to the Babylonian exile, there is the difficulty of the not clearly personal and abstract nature of the amesha spentas. The concept of an archangel in Judaism goes together with a named personality. Archangels are not personifications of qualities belonging to God, nor is there a blurring of the distinction between archangels and God.72 Where such personifications or hypostases appear in the Bible, they have similarly abstract names to those of the amesha spentas, e. g. Wisdom. Secondly, if the Jewish borrowing is thought to come from the younger Avestan concept, König objects that the duties of archangels in the Apocrypha have no equivalent in the younger Avesta (59). The one factor about the amesha spentas in the gathas that might seem promising, namely their ambivalent identity as something between divine and human, disappears in the Yasna Haptanhati, in which they are already pictured as divine beings that receive worship. Barr is of the same opinion: “But the names and functions of the Ameša Spentas … are very far removed from what counted as angels in most stages of Judaism”.73 And while he accepts that the developed angelology of Enoch may be closer to Iranian thought, in that each of the Watchers controls a science, “neither the total structure of the Enochic angelology, nor the style of the names, shows great similarity to the system of the Ameša Spentas” (ibid.). Philo’s , 68 They are Spenta Mainyu, “Holy Spirit”, Vohu Manah, “Good Thought / Mind”, Asha Vahishta, “Best Truth / Order”, Khshathra Vairya, “Power / Dominion to be Chosen”, Spenta Armaiti, “Holy Devotion”, Haurvatat, “Wholeness / Health”, and Ameretat, “Immortality”. 69 Kohut, Angelologie. 70 König, Amesha, 51. 71 A date around 700 BC for Zoroaster is accepted by a majority of scholars, but some important Iranists disagree: Boyce, Persian, 280, dates him between 1500 and 1300 BC. 72 König instances the common use of amesha spentas’ names in the instrumental case indicating their function of simple extensions of Ahura Mazda. 73 Barr, Influence, 222.

1.1 Angels and pagan religions

25

while clearly related to existing Jewish abstractions such as Wisdom and Spirit, are certainly more like the amesha spentas than angels are.74 However, Hultgård and Duchesne-Guillemin see only a general analogy.75 The other element of Persian angelology that may have influenced Jewish thought is the fravashi, sometimes described as a guardian angel. The fravashi is a spiritual being, part of human personality but pre-existent.76 Divine beings also have a fravashi, even Ahura Mazda himself. Fravashis have tutelary functions, but “we do not find any one Fravashi acting as guardian angel for the human being with whom he is linked”.77 The fravashis as a heavenly collective, comprising those of the gods and those of mortals living, dead and to come, bear some resemblance to Roman manes or Indian pitaras, for example they are venerated as ancestors.78 As a collective they appear as armed warriors, coming to help in battle.79 Kellens characterises fravashis as composite divinities, resulting from the combination of ancester-cult and hero-cult. Fravashis protect those who worship them, and this seems to be the decisive indication against seeing them as the model for guardian angels. Duchesne-Guillemin puts it succinctly: Chaque homme – du moins chaque homme juste – a eu sa fravaši, a été détenteur, par-delà le trépas, d’une force protectrice. Celle-ci, remarquons-le, s’exerce non pas en sa faveur, comme le ferait celle d’un ange gardien, mais au bénéfice de ceux qui l’invoquent. 80

In other words, the action of the fravashi, offering protection in exchange for worship, is no different from that of any other deity with whom the worshipper feels a special affinity. Certainly the personal link is not with the person to whom the fravashi belongs, as the term “guardian angel” would suggest, but between the fravashi and the worshipper. Kellens goes even further than Duchesne-Guillemin and holds that the fravashis do not act as guardians of an individual at all, but of collectives: family, clan, tribe, or nation.81 However, the greatest objection to linking fravashis with Jewish angels follows from a principle formulated by Barr: 74 Apart from the Logos, the are: (these two are mentioned more often than the others and equated with the two cherubim of the mercy-seat, e. g. Mos. 99, Cher. 28, Q. in Gen. I.57, Q. in Exod. II.62), ( ) 75

Hultgård, Judentum, 566; Duchesne-Guillemin, Religion, 260. The human personality includes five immaterial elements: vitality (ahu), ego (daena), perception / sense (baoda), soul (urvan) and fravashi (Yasht 13.155). The root meaning of the word fravashi is “preference”: Kellens, Fravaši, 101. 77 Moulton, Fravashi, 117. 78 Kellens, Fravaši, 100. 79 The concept of humans and angels fighting side by side, seen in the Qumran War Scroll, may be influenced by this aspect of the fravashi’s character. But Josh 5.14 and 2 Kings 6.15–17 suggest that the army of divine protectors is sufficiently rooted in Jewish thought. 80 Duchesne-Guillemin, Religion,328 f. 81 Kellens, Fravaši, 111. 76

26

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

It is here, I suggest, that arguments for Iranian influence upon Judaism have often suffered from the gross fault of much comparison between religions, the isolation of similar elements and the ignoring of the structural reasons why these elements are important within one religion as distinct from another. 82

The fravashi is clearly a central concept in Iranian anthropology; its presence with Ahura Mazda in heaven assures the immortality of the soul with whom it is linked. Guardian angels are less prominent in Judaism (and Christianity). Raphael in the Book of Tobit accompanies Tobias on a single journey, not for life; the mentions of the heavenly counterpart in the New Testament, though paralleling that aspect of the fravashi’s nature, offer no indication that a person’s angel protects them. Although the concept of guardian angels increases in prominence in rabbinic writings and is also well attested in the Church Fathers, their role is not of fundamental structural importance (except in Origen). A similar approach to Barr’s is taken by Shaked in assessing the dualism of Qumran and Iran.83 He notes the similarity between the multivalent word ruah in Qumran (which can mean the two opposing cosmic entities, the corresponding qualities in humankind, various human faculties, and angels), and the Iranian term menog (Avestan mainyu) with a similar complexity of meaning. But “the complex of notions associated with the idea of menog forms part of a coherent system in Iran, and stands in complementary opposition to the term getig, while in Judaism the development … never comes to form anything like a consistent system”. Thus, he argues, the direction of influence was from Iran to Judaism. Barr suggests that the Iranian concept of the cosmic war against the demons lies behind the increased importance of Gen 6 in later angelology. An older story in which angelic expulsions (Gen 6, Isa 14.12, Ezek 28.12) were not necessarily “the beginning of quite catastrophic evil” was reinterpreted under Iranian influence as a “uniquely bad breakdown of the cosmic order”.84 This seems to me a convincing illustration of the type of influence suggested by Hultgård, whereby a foreign concept influences an existing Jewish idea. Such reinterpretation would seem to be at the root of the increasing dualism to be seen in post-Biblical Jewish literature. Details may be direct borrowings, as we have seen; the more fundamental trend of thought is the product of the interaction of Jewish with Persian ideas.85 Hultgård rejects both amesha spentas and fravashis and sees angels as an independent development in Judaism.86 This assessment seems justified; the considerations outlined above are sufficient to rule out simple borrowing. Hult82

Influence, 220. Shaked, Iran, 317 f. 84 Barr, Influence, 228; cf. Duchesne-Guillemin, Religion, 260. 85 Davidson, Angels, 234, concludes that the “predominant roots” of the dualism in the War Scroll lie in Judaism. 86 Hultgård, Judentum, 546. 83

1.1 Angels and pagan religions

27

gård’s discussion is nuanced. Thus, in assessing Sib. 2.252–255, in which “all will pass through the unquenchable river” and TIsaac 5.24, he admits that there is a similarity with the Persian river of burning metal, which seems as warm milk to the righteous but which burns the wicked.87 But the Sibylline oracles are more likely to be influenced by Stoic ideas of the at the end of the world. “Manchmal ist es schwierig, die genaue Einwirkung der einen oder anderen Weltbrandvorstellung festzustellen, weil schon in der Umwelt des Judentums das Motiv von einem Weltbrand synkretistische Züge aufweist”.88 Similarly, although the motif of the weighing of the soul (e. g. 1 Enoch 41.1, TAbraham 12) can be paralleled in Persian thought, it is also found in Egyptian belief. The bridge to heaven (Činvat), across which the souls pass in Persian belief, appears in a late rabbinic text (Yalqut on the Prophets 50089). The same story would appear to lie behind the following passage from Ephrem, Homily on Our Lord 4: “Dir sei Lob, der du dein Kreuz zur Brücke über den Tod gemacht hast, damit darauf die Seelen vom Reich der Toten ins Reich der Lebenden hinübergehen (können).”90 91

It also appears to be indicated in a fragmentary Messianic apocalyptic text from Qumran, 4Q521. In a passage reconstructed by Puech (frr. 7,1–8 + 5 ii 7–16), there is a mention of a “pont de l’Abîme / des Abîmes” wgšr th[wm (/ -wt)](5 ii 12)92. Puech draws the comparison with the Činvat bridge, but points out that in Persian thought the crossing happens at the time of death, not the end of time. Hinnells is right to draw attention to the prominence of demonology in the New Testament, and his view that this is due to Iranian influence coincides with Hultgård’s assessment that Zoroastrianism is behind the increasing dualism of Judaism from the second century BC onwards. While some of the details of Widengren’s argument have been rejected, his general view of Iranian influence on 1 Enoch remains plausible. Barr’s suggestion is persuasive, that comparison 87 Hinnells, Zoroastrian, 310, suggests a parallel in 1 Enoch 67.13. In fact the element of comparative judgement is lacking: the waters burn to punish the fallen angels, but none experience them as pleasant. This bears out Hultgård’s assessment of a “grundlegender Unterschied” between the Iranian and Jewish concepts of (judgement by) fire: in Jewish thought fire is a punishment for sinners and evil powers, in Iranian thought a means of separation between good and evil and also a means of eschatological perfection and purification, while the Iranian hell is not a fiery place (535). 88 Hultgård, Judentum, 575. 89 Yalqut Shim‘oni, ed. Bezalel Landau, Jerusalem 1960: . 90 Less clear references are H Fid 6.17, Parad 5.4. Compare also Syriac Liturgy of S. James: Crux tua pons sit illis, Hammond 78. Possibly also 3 Enoch 22B, Act. Thom. 124. 91 De Domino Nostro, 4 (Syriac) and 5 (German). 92 Puech, Croyance, vol. 2, 650 f., discussion 688–692. The Garcia-Martinez study edition reads: [… ] .

28

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

led to the adoption of foreign imagery while the actual content was resisted.93 It seems less able to explain the suddenness and far-reaching nature of the influx of dualist ideas. Thus in the case of angels, the existing Biblical traditions undergo a development towards increasing individualization, with names and the assignment of distinct tasks. Above all, “anti-angels” or demons appear who have little Biblical precedent. Influence from the existing Iranian concept of opposing armies of good and evil spirits, central to the cosmology of Zoroastrianism, seems the best explanation. To sum up: we have rejected simple borrowing of either of the two Persian concepts which might be thought to parallel later Jewish angelic roles. Nevertheless, a diffuse but nonetheless far-reaching alteration of Jewish ideas about angels, in the context of a general increase in dualist concepts, took place in the second century BC. In general the nature of the Persian influence should be characterised as a reinterpretation and development of original Jewish concepts, rather than the wholesale importation of new ideas, except small narrative details. However, the overarching concept of dualism does seem to be such an importation. It is possible that Hellenistic thought had a contributory influence, making it easier for Persian dualism to have an effect because some elements of Greek thought point in the same direction. Although there are elements in earlier Jewish thought that are compatible with dualism, such as the existence of Sheol, still the thoroughgoing dualism of opposing spheres of good and evil, evidenced particularly in the Qumran Manual of Discipline, is new in this form.

1.2 The first century and beyond 1.2.1 Judaism For the subdivisions of Judaism in first-century Palestine we have a valuable witness in Josephus, born in Jerusalem in AD 37, who in later life called himself a Pharisee. His description of the three sects of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes) is coloured by his Roman target audience: their attitude to fate ( , a Stoic concept) is the distinguishing characteristic.94 Thus Sadducees reject fate, Essenes say fate rules all, while the Pharisees’ attitude lies in between, in that some things are the work of fate, but not all (Ant. 13.5.9). 93

Barr, Influence, 229 f. Francis Schmidt considers whether one can speak of a Jewish conception of fate, citing Philo’s discussion of astrology in De providentia 1.82–88: “Lex enim mentis imperat eis, non genethlialogia (84), and the rabbinic belief that the power of the stars stops at the borders of Israel. (Paper presented to the Cambridge Hebrew, Jewish and Early Christian Studies seminar, 25th November 2002). B Shab 156a attests this belief for R. Johanan and others; but the same Gemara shows a number of rabbis placidly accepting astrology. Simon, Verus, 26 f., discusses astrological symbolism in synagogue decorations. 94

1.2 The first century and beyond

29

He says further that Pharisees believe in fate, free will and God, that the soul is imperishable and that the souls of the wicked will be punished (BJ 2.8.14). This section will consider the subdivisions of Judaism from the point of view of their different attitudes to angels, starting from the assertion of Acts 23.8, “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge both”: . The first part is corroborated by Josephus, BJ 2.8.14: . There is evidence that this rejection involved refusing to serve God only for the sake of a reward.95 The second part of the statement raises difficulties. Firstly, do the Pharisees themselves actually acknowledge angels as of equal importance with the resurrection? M Sanhedrin 10.1 suggests not: those who deny the resurrection are excluded from the world to come, while angels are not mentioned. Angels are in fact conspicuously absent from the Mishnah. Its terse, legal character would mostly exclude mention of angels in any case; but even m Sotah 9.15, which has an apocalyptic flavour, fails to mention them; similarly the mentions of the world to come in m Aboth. The “outside books”, another ground for exclusion in m Sanh 10.1, reflect great interest in angels; thus the silence of the Mishnah appears a conscious exclusion of a certain type of Judaism, characterized by belief in angels. It is not known precisely how these “outside books” relate to the various groups within Judaism. A case in point is the relation between the writings found at Qumran and the Essenes described by Josephus, see below. Acts 23.8, therefore, is at least guilty of oversimplification in that the Pharisees and their rabbinic successors were ambiguous in their attitudes towards angels, although they did not reject them altogether. The Talmuds too, despite having more mentions of angels and demons, reflect a comparable unease with the subject. Even Biblical titles that imply the existence of subordinate divine entities, such as “God of gods” or “God of spirits”, are avoided in rabbinic writings.96 A second difficulty is that it seems scarcely possible that Sadducees should deny the existence of angels: angels are sufficiently prominent in the Pentateuch for a complete rejection to be extremely unlikely.97 However, the existence of a tradition that the “angel” of Exod. 23.20–23 refers to Joshua suggests that a strong de-emphasis of angelic traditions was possible to Sadducees.98 Further, the Acts passage mentions three things: resurrection, angel and spirit, and says 95

m Aboth 1.5, Clem. Recog. 1.54, ARN A 5. Horbury, Herodian. 97 Barrett, Acts, vol. 2, 1065 f. 98 Justin, Dial. 75. The argument mixes two viewpoints: 1. prophets are called angels and apostles of God, but without any supernatural intention. 2. Joshua is called angel because “my Name is in him”, i. e. the name of Jesus. This indwelling parallels that of the Name-bearing great angel (1.4.2 below). If the first viewpoint goes back to a Jewish source, a Sadducee tradition is the most likely candidate. 96

30

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

that the Pharisees acknowledge “both”, . Should “angel” and “spirit” be understood as tautologous? Daube suggests that angels and spirits are synonymous expressions for the souls of the righteous in the interim period before the resurrection.99 Viviano and Taylor suggest that the reading should be “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, either in the form of an angel, or in the form of a spirit”, i. e. neither as an embodied, angelic entity nor as a disembodied spirit.100 But should angels be conceived as embodied? Philo, Gig. 6, equates angels with spirits or souls. It therefore seems best to understand “neither angel nor spirit” more as a loose tautology, in apposition to “resurrection” and illustrating it; in effect reducing the rejected doctrines to one, namely resurrection. A developed angelology certainly accompanies belief in the resurrection, as the non-canonical literature shows. Daube’s solution leaves us with two rejected doctrines, resurrection and interim existence, the latter being itself problematic, as various accounts of the fate of souls are visible in the sources. Nevertheless, the combination of Acts 23.8 and m Sanh 10.1 leaves us with the impression that angels are somehow bound up with the question of orthodoxy, which becomes a burning issue within Judaism after the rise of Christianity. Recent discussion of this question has been characterised by Sanders’ advocacy of a “common Judaism” centred on the Temple, criticized as too harmonizing by Hengel and Deines.101 Sanders argues that others besides the Pharisees tried to avoid impurity. Neusner, by contrast, emphasises Pharisaic ritual purity, which tends to characterize them as a comparatively closed sect.102 Neusner contradicts Sanders’ argument, saying “there is very little evidence that, in general, people wanted to be pure”.103 Deines disagrees with both, according great influence to the Pharisees; see below. While not accepting the label “sect”, Hengel and Deines point to the elitist character of Pharisee halakah, and the consequences of this attitude for the final judgement; the tension between m Sanh 10.1a, “all Israel has a share in the world to come” and 1b following, “except …” is finally unresolved (p. 44 f.). In the following sections the various sects of Judaism will be presented separately, but finally we will return to the question of the unity of Judaism. 1.2.1.1 Pharisees The division of Judaism into the three sects named by Josephus appears to centre on the crisis which precipitated the Maccabean uprising, and the associated end of the Zadokite high priesthood. The Teacher of Righteousness and the 99 100 101 102 103

Daube, Acts. Viviano and Taylor, Sadducees; Taylor, Actes, 150 f. Sanders, Judaism; Sanders, Law. Hengel and Deines, Sanders. Neusner, Rabbinic. Neusner, Maccoby, 98.

1.2 The first century and beyond

31

Qumran community apparently separated from the Temple establishment over disagreements in halakhic interpretation.104 The Teacher of Righteousness was a Zadokite, and the end of the Zadokite line confirmed his group’s understanding of themselves as the true interpreters of the Law. The Pharisees, by contrast, were able to accept the break in tradition: the Pharisaic concept of the oral Law enabled them to deal more easily with change.105 This concept, known as the “traditions of the fathers”, clearly distinguishes Pharisees from Sadducees by the mid-second century BC. This approach to halakah also enjoyed the support of the mass of the population, according to Josephus (Ant. 13.10.6), whereas the Sadducees found support only among the . Deines considers the archaeological evidence for use of stone vessels in accordance with Pharisaic halakah, from the latter part of the first century BC onwards, and synagogues and from the middle of the first century AD. He concludes that “Das sich in den archäologischen Funden abzeichnende Streben nach einer umfassenden Reinheit in Kult und im Alltag läßt sich als religiöses Phänomen nicht erklären ohne eine starke, im Land verbreitete Trägergruppe, die es sich zur Aufgabe gemacht hat, in diesem Sinne ‘volksmissionarisch’ tätig zu sein”; thus confirming Josephus’ assertion of Pharisaism’s appeal to the masses.106 This concern with purity does not blur the distinction between priests and laity, but fulfils the command in Lev 11.45 for the whole people to be holy. In practice this led to a less strict purity halakah than that of Sadducees or Essenes, in order for it to be practicable for non-professionals; but the intention was to raise the standard of purity observed by ordinary Jews.107 The transfer of authority to the Pharisaic legal experts in practice effected a sidelining of priestly authority. Further confirmation of Pharisaism’s popular support comes from the fact that the Pharisees are the principal opponents addressed in the NT. In view of our earlier discussion of Acts 23.8, the relation between the Jewish pseudepigraphical writings and the Pharisees remains opaque. We cannot simply allot writings with angelological content to “the Pharisees”. Josephus’ threefold division of Judaism is not particularly helpful for the study of the non-canonical Jewish writings, and gives no indication of how widely distributed these may have been. The most we can say is that some may have originated among subgroups of the Pharisees. The sheer number of extant non-canonical works with angelological interests, presupposing belief in the resurrection, nevertheless supports the idea that at least broadly Pharisaic ideas had popular support. 104 Schaper, Pharisees, 406, cites 4QMMT (= 4Q394–9), possibly predating the appointment of Jonathan the Hasmonean as high priest in 152 BC, concerning the question of whether all Jerusalem, and not only the Temple area, is to preserve the highest degree of ritual purity. 105 Schaper, Pharisees, 411. The actual formulation of the expression “two Torot” comes in the Tannaitic period, NumR 14.10. 106 Deines, Steingefäße, 278. 107 Deines, Steingefäße, 283.

32

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

Deines’ distinction between fully practising Pharisees and nominal assenters to their doctrines is helpful here.108 1.2.1.2 Sadducees Stemberger confesses continuing uncertainty whether the Sadducees can be said to have emerged in the Maccabean period, or not until Herodian times, in connection with the restoration of the Zadokite high priestly line.109 However, the one fact that emerges with certainty from the sources is their denial of the resurrection. Since it was around the Maccabean period that this doctrine became popular in Judaism, it would seem to support their emergence as a group denying the new teaching at this time. The Sadducees were aristocratic and wealthy, centred around the priestly families. Stemberger connects their disappearance after 70 AD with the decline of the rural aristocracy, not only the loss of their power base in the Temple.110 Stemberger asks whether there is a common conceptual basis for the halakhic differences between Sadducees and Pharisees, and concludes that it is not simply a matter of oral versus written law. Rather, the Sadducees also had their own oral traditions and were genuinely religious. The later portrayal of the Sadducees as criminally lax on purity matters, which God punishes with mysterious death (e. g. t Para 3.8, b Nid 33b) reflects the proPharisee attitude of the rabbis. The Sadducees’ attitude to God, according to Josephus, was as follows: … (BJ 2.8).

What does it mean to say that they “remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight, of evil”? Josephus never explicitly compares the Sadducees with Epicureans, but there seems to be an affinity with the Epicurean concept of the remoteness of the gods.111 Perhaps some Sadducees were influenced consciously or unconsciously by Greek philosophy. It was certainly priestly circles that were to the fore in the Hellenizing movement of the Maccabean period.112 Rejection of angels, “messengers” whose existence implies that God communicates with the human world, the locus of evil, fits this attitude neatly. However, other Sadducees are likely to have been simply conservatives who rejected the new doctrine of resurrection on the basis that the Writings were far less authoritative than the Pentateuch, where it is unknown.

108

Deines, Pharisäer, 551. Stemberger, Sadducees, 433. 110 Stemberger, Sadducees, 435. 111 Stemberger, Sadducees, 440. Josephus does, however, say that Epicureans do away with fate, as he says of the Sadducees: Ant. 10.278. 112 Hengel, Interpenetration. 109

1.2 The first century and beyond

33

Stemberger’s comments on Acts 23.8 tend to agree with our earlier conclusion that the Sadducees deny resurrection and its concomitant angelology: Perhaps they were opposed … to some later development of the doctrine, a development that contradicted their main tenets, such as the doctrine that angels were responsible for the fate of individuals or nations, or generally the multiplication of angels and spirits in the popular belief of later Judaism; or perhaps we should connect this point with their denial of resurrection. In this last case, the Sadducees would have opposed the thesis that in the resurrection the righteous “shall be made like unto angels” [2 Bar 51.10].113

The last point agrees with Viviano and Taylor. Angels being responsible for a person’s fate would contradict the Sadducees’ rejection of fate reported by Josephus; determinism of this kind is typical for the dualist outlook shown by the Qumran community. Stemberger sums up the tenets of the Sadducees as a rejection of later developments in the biblical religion. This, then, is a possible account of their origins: The second century BC was a time of religious innovation, which we have connected with Persian influence, followed by the Maccabean crisis that centred on resistance to Hellenizing influence. It seems more than likely that a group should emerge which rejected both forms of foreign influence (and thus probably the later Writings) and the new doctrines of resurrection, dualist world-view and its related angelology. Such a group is plausibly assumed to belong to naturally conservative circles such as the priesthood and the aristocracy.114 We are therefore in a position to identify a first instance in which attitudes to angels are determinative for orthodoxy. Although the word is anachronistic, the bitter opposition of Pharisees and Sadducees with regard to purity laws indicates that the Pharisees at least regarded the Sadducees as unorthodox, in that they did not implement the Law correctly; and this was probably reciprocated.115 If “angel and spirit” in Acts 23.8 represents a loose summary of post-second century developed angelology, the Sadducees also regarded the holders of these innovating views as unorthodox. However, because the majority of Jews quickly adopted the Pharisees’ positions, including belief in resurrection, it would appear that what counted as right Judaism in most people’s eyes changed rapidly; from being the defenders of traditional orthodoxy, the Sadducees became a small group opposed to the new orthodoxy of “angel and spirit”, i. e. resurrection. It cannot have helped matters that the Qumran movement, while conservative in other respects, wholeheartedly endorsed dualism and angel beliefs.

113

Stemberger, Sadducees, 441. This scenario could still accommodate the view that the Sadducees did not emerge until Herodian times. In this case earlier resistance would have crystallised into a party when the Zadokite line returned to the high priesthood and conservative fortunes revived. 115 E. g. b Yoma 19b, a Sadducee offers incense in the way the Sadducees deem correct, not the Pharisees. 114

34

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

1.2.1.3 Essenes The Essenes are located on the west side of the Dead Sea by Pliny the Elder (N. H. 5.15.73), one of the principal reasons for attributing the Qumran settlement and manuscripts to them. While this attribution is accepted here, we will treat the Essenes and the Qumran evidence separately.116 Both Philo and Josephus give the number of Essenes as around 4 000.117 Philo’s account is shorter and not materially different from Josephus. Josephus distinguishes two orders of Essenes, those who marry and those who do not. Their principal characteristic is the cultivation of peculiar sanctity, with special rules attached to eating, bathing, dress and community discipline. They believe in the immortality of the soul; Josephus’ Platonizing portrayal of the Essene beliefs (the immortal soul is imprisoned in the body and escapes aloft, , at death (BJ 2. 154 f.)) is influenced by his apologetic interest in portraying the Jewish sects like Greek schools of philosophy. Josephus cites two practices as characteristic of the Essenes that may be linked with angels. First, explicitly, … (BJ 2.142). The names of the angels belong to the secrets of heaven, and may be related to the idea of passwords necessary to traverse the heavens, found in later Gnostic and Hekhalot literature.118 The fact that Josephus ascribes prominence to angels among the Essenes argues for their identification with the Qumran community, in whose writings angels are prominent. It is also noticeable that angelic names are given rarely in the Qumran sectarian writings. Josephus also states that some Essenes claim to foretell the future: possibly the “angels” are angeli interpretes, and the Essenes learn the correct names to invoke in order to be able to prophesy. Secondly, another characteristic practice may be an implicit reference to angels. Josephus reports the Essenes as praying to the sun at dawn, and also, when answering the call of nature, wrapping themselves in their mantles so as not to offend the rays of the deity ( ). While Philo’s briefer account of the Essenes does not mention this, he reports that the Therapeutae turn to the rising sun at dawn and pray.119 This may possibly have a bearing on the practice of the Essenes. Since sun-worship is specifically condemned in Ezekiel 8.16 f., cf. m Sukkah 5.2–4, and the Essenes are not condemned for this practice, we may conjecture from Josephus’ words that the sun is being venerated as an angel 116

Golb, Scrolls, argues that the scrolls stem from Jerusalem and represent Palestinian Judaism in general. Campbell, Sectarian, 813–818, reviews the original identification of Qumran with the Essenes and recent modifications and challenges to the theory. 117 Quod omn. prob. 75; Ant. 18.20. 118 E. g. hekhalot rabbati, Schäfer §§ 219–236, Synopse 95–104, tr. Bd. II 166–199. 119 V. contempl. 89. Taylor and Davies, Therapeutae, argue that these have no connection with the Essenes; however, the similar practice of prayer to the sun may be compared in either case.

1.2 The first century and beyond

35

of God. Leaney discusses evidence for a sun-cult at Jerusalem in the Israelite period, but downplays any possibility that the Essenes may have offered prayer actually to the sun.120 Sanders is less sure. On the one hand he suggests that the tower whose building is prescribed in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 xxx 3–xxxi 9) may have been intended for sun-worship.121 On the other he notes that Josephus uses at B. J. 2.128, which may suggest “a divine being below God”. However, at 2.148, Josephus uses of the sun without qualification. While Sanders notes that Josephus accepts the Essenes’ practice as compatible with monotheism, a practice which later times thought pagan, he offers no suggestion as to why it should be thought compatible. The explanation he offers for the depiction of Helios in the Hammath Tiberias mosaic, that it was seen as a representation of the power of God and worshipped in this sense (247, cf. 351), seems difficult to square with Josephus’ report that the Essenes prayed to the sun as if entreating it to rise (B. J. 2.128). I suggest that the angelic interpretation offered here at least addresses this issue. 1 Enoch, read at Qumran, can support this if we accept the identification of the Essenes with the Qumran community. The Book of the Luminaries of 1 Enoch, especially ch. 75, appears to see the stars as simply material objects to each of which an angel is assigned, like any other feature of the creation. Elsewhere in 1 Enoch, however, the stars are clearly angelic beings: 1 Enoch 18.13–16 describes the punishment of fallen stars; 1 Enoch 43.2 stars have names and can obey, and their number corresponds to the number of the angels; 1 Enoch 86 and 88 describe fallen stars and their punishment in the vision of the bovids; 1 Enoch 102.2 the luminaries faint with fear. The identification of stars with angels is widespread in Judaism; in Biblical references to the it is not always possible to tell whether stars or angels are intended (e. g. 1 Kgs 22.19, standing around the throne of God);122 also Job 38.7, the morning stars and the sons of God are equivalent, in a typical parallelism; and Mal 4.2, the sun of righteousness with wings. Although this is a figure, the idea that the rising sun should possess wings seems much easier to understand if the concept of the sun as an angel lies in the background. Sadly, the fragments of the Words of the Luminaries from Qumran (4Q504–6), despite the title, contain nothing specifically angelic except an exhortation to “all the angels of the holy vault” to praise God (4Q504 frs. 1–2 vii 6).123 If our interpretation of Josephus’ report is accepted, this would represent first-century Jewish evidence, in a non-polemical

120

Leaney, Rule, 75–79. Sanders, Judaism, 245 f. 122 Schäfer, Rivalität, 24. 123 Possibly relevant is the rabbinic title for heretics as “star worshippers” (e. g. b Gitt 45b), taken together with Deut 4.18 (do not worship stars, God has allotted them to the Gentiles) and Deut. 32.8 LXX (God fixed the nations according to the number of the angels of God). 121

36

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

context, for angel veneration.124 Chapter 2’s more detailed discussion of Qumran will suggest further evidence for angel veneration. 1.2.1.4 Qumran The Qumran community read a range of apocrypha which are known independently, and some previously unknown but non-sectarian works which were presumably read by a wider Jewish audience, as well as their own sectarian literature. For non-sectarian works which show interest in angels, we may cite 4Q225, pseudo-Jubilees, which expands the story of Gen 22 to include good angels weeping and evil angels rejoicing at the prospect of the sacrifice of Isaac (fr. 2 ii 5–7).125 Some of the liturgical writings found at Qumran may be characterized as mainstream;126 even the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice may not be a sectarian work.127 This has enormous implications for the importance of angelology in Second Temple Judaism, particularly if an alternative origin is eventually identified. However, the specifically sectarian writings enable us to say something about the sect, as does the selection of non-sectarian works that the community chose to use. The Qumran community embraced Persian dualism, but not Hellenistic thought. However, a certain degree of unacknowledged influence from Hellenistic thought-forms is likely (as we have also postulated for the Sadducees): Hengel remarks on the “Intellektualisierung der Frömmigkeit” represented by the Qumranic emphasis on knowledge and revelation, and compares their concern for pure Biblical Hebrew, and the existence of a library that represented an intellectual centre for Palestinian Judaism, with similar Greek phenomena.128 Josephus’ assertion that the Essenes ascribed everything to fate is interpreted by Betz as meaning they ascribed everything to God within the context of a strict dualist determinism, as seen in the doctrine of the “Two Spirits” in the Community Rule (1QS iii.13–iv.26).129 In one sense the Qumran community are comparable to the Pharisees in their insistence on purity. But while the Pharisaic emphasis seems to have been on extending holiness to everyday, lay life, the priesthood continued to be of the highest importance for the Qumran community (e. g. expecting a priestly and a royal messiah),130 imposing priestly standards 124

The importance of context is noted by Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 51. Campbell, Sectarian, 810 f. 126 Falk, Daily. 127 Newsom, Sectually. Newsom here reverses her previous opinion and suggests that the Songs are not the product of the Qumran community. The criterion is the use of the divine name elohim, avoided in sectarian texts. 128 Hengel, Judentum, 415–17. 129 Betz, Essenes, 462. 130 See Merx, Messias, 46–49; cf. 1.2.1.5 below. Two Messiahs are apparently envisaged in TXIIP: TSimeon 7.2, TJudah 21.1 f. Abegg, Messiah, expresses reservations about the dual Messiah at Qumran. 125

1.2 The first century and beyond

37

of purity on the whole community and in a sense “clericalising” it, although the priestly / lay distinction remains important within the community.131 The earliest works found at Qumran probably predate the secession; this is likely for Jubilees and the earlier parts of 1 Enoch. Multiple copies of both were found at Qumran (except the Similitudes of Enoch, chs. 37–71), indicating their importance and use by the sect, even though their origin is not sectarian.132 The fact of the community’s secession from mainstream Judaism to form “the new covenant in the land of Damascus” (CD-A vi 19) on the one hand indicates that the community had a strong sense of orthodoxy (and / or –praxy) which necessitated the split. The fact that they continued to use not only the Scriptures, with their own sectarian glosses, but also recently written Jewish works, indicates on the other hand that ideas like those of the Qumran community could find support in wider circles of Judaism than the sect itself. Thus CD-A xvi 3–4 refers to the Book of Jubilees as an authoritative source for “the exact interpretation of their ages”. There is evidently also a very close relationship between Jubilees and 1 Enoch: Meyer points out that Jub 4.17 refers to Enoch as one “who wrote in a book the signs of the heaven according to the order of their months, so that the sons of man might know the (appointed) times of the years according to their order”, apparently indicating a version of 1 Enoch. Meyer suggests that an older version of 1 Enoch than the extant one is the source for Jubilees’ calendar. Around these teachings (of Jub., TXIIP, 1 En, CD) “hat sich eine Gruppe von Frommen (‘Gerechten’) zusammengeschlossen”, i. e. the Hasidim and the nucleus of the Qumran community.133 Jubilees, as a reworking of Genesis, shows a striking degree of interest in angels by comparison with its original, telling of the fall of the Watchers, the existence of the evil angel Prince Mastema and his hosts, and of various ranks of angels. Comparable ideas are found in 1 Enoch, which is particularly interested in the fall and subsequent punishment of the Watchers. Thus in the third to second centuries BC, interest in angels is clearly well rooted in Judaism as a whole. A hint of this is given in Pseudo-Philo, LAB 13.6: “Now the feast of trumpets will be an offering for your watchers, pro speculatoribus vestris.” Harrington suggests that at New Year, Israel is brought to judgement by God’s angels.134 The text continues, “Inasmuch as I watched over creation, may you also be 131 Schiffmann, Pharisaic, 299, associates Qumran purity rulings with a Sadducean approach. 132 For the dating of the Similitudes and a suggested reason for their absence from Qumran, see Greenfield’s prolegomenon to Odeberg, XVIIf. 133 Meyer, Ursprung, 46 f. 134 OTP 2, 321 note e, supported by Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 170–173. Jacobson, Commentary, 512, correctly notes that the context in LAB does not suggest the notion of judgement. His interpretation is “on behalf of your [human] watchmen”. However, there seems no good reason to reject the angelic interpretation out of hand as Jacobson does. What exactly is intended remains obscure.

38

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

mindful of all the earth”; this seems to indicate the function of angels as set over natural phenomena, rather than angelic judges.135 But although its interpretation is debatable, the angelic reference seems secure. Hengel points to the fact that similar ideas and names of angels reappear in the rabbinic tradition, which shares with Qumran a rootedness in the Hasidic tradition.136 The distinctiveness of Qumran angelology should not therefore be overstressed; it may well be that their angelology was uncontroversial.137 The distinctive teaching of Qumran focuses rather on the Teacher of Righteousness. This teacher was opposed by a “wicked priest” according to the Habakkuk pesher, probably a reference to Jonathan the first Hasmonean High Priest. This work is important for its reference to the teaching of the Teacher of Righteousness as offering the (only) key to right understanding of Scripture, in particular prophecy.138 This is a more radical innovation than the interpretation of Scripture through the “traditions of the fathers”, as the Pharisees did. This new understanding, as the pesher demonstrates, involves the Jeremianic concept of a new covenant. However, the concept is taken in a new direction: “The idea of an ekklesia as a gathering of the elect and an eschatological congregation first materialized among the Essenes of Qumran”.139 Linked with the eschatological orientation of the community and their demand for priestly standards of purity is their understanding of themselves as an earthly counterpart to the angelic priests of the heavenly temple. It was indicated above that both 1 Enoch and Jubilees give prominence to angels; Jubilees also gives prominence to priests and the patriarch Levi. A key angelic passage is Jub 2.18–21: 18

And he [God] told us – all of the angels of the presence and all of the angels of sanctification, these two great kinds – that we might keep the sabbath with him in heaven and on earth. 19 And he said to us, “Behold, I shall separate for myself a people from among all the nations. And they will also keep the sabbath. And I will sanctify them for myself, and I will bless them. […]”21 And thus he created therein a sign by which they might keep the sabbath with us on the seventh day, to eat and drink and bless the one who created all

135

Angels with oversight over weather, elements etc.: Jub 2.2, 1 Enoch 60.16–22, 65.6–8, 2 Enoch 5–6, 19.4, 40.10; 3 Enoch 14.4, 17.4–8; TAdam 4.2–4; Hermas 1.4.2, Athenagoras Apol 10, Origen Hom. Jer. 10.6, PG 13, 365A; Origen, C. Cels. 8.31, 8.57. Often these are subordinate angels, but even high-ranking ones can be spoken of in this way, e. g. 1 Enoch 40.9 Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and Phanuel. Cf. Ps.-Philo, LAB 18.5, the “angel in charge of hymns” who wrestles with Jacob, associated by Mach with the heavenly praises (Entwicklungsstadien, 222). 136 Hengel, Judentum, 422. 137 Hengel, Judentum, 424, describes the sudden expansion of angelology in this period as “ein bislang ungelöstes Rätsel” and rejects a simple appeal to a Persian origin, arguing for some Hellenistic features in Qumran angelology. 138 1QpHab vii 4–5, Garcia-Martinez vol. 1, 16–17 (palaeographically dated 30–1 BC). 139 Betz, Essenes, 449.

1.2 The first century and beyond

39

things just as he blessed and sanctified for himself a people who appeared from all the nations so that they might keep the sabbath together with us.

Note the twice repeated statement that Israel keeps the sabbath together with the angels. In addition, 15.27 justifies the law of circumcision by saying that the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification are created circumcised, and so men must be circumcised “so that they might be with him [God] and with his holy angels”. In other words, these highest classes of angels are bound under the Law, which has validity also in heaven. This reveals a world-view of heaven and earth mirroring each other, an idea associated with the Temple and priestly ideology (see 3.2.1 below). Explicitly sectarian works share the same interest in angels, e. g. the War Scroll, 1QM xii 7–9: 7

You, God, are awe[some] in the splendour of your majesty, and the congregation of your holy ones is among us for everlasting assistance. We will [treat] kings with contempt, with jeers 8and mockery the heroes, for the Lord is holy and the King of glory is with us the nation of his holy ones are [our] he[roes, and] the army of his angels is enlisted with us; 9 the war hero is in our congregation; the army of his spirits is with our steps.

How did it come about that such highly developed angelology was acceptable as legitimate Judaism? It seems that the decisive difference between Persian and Greek influence was that angels and dualism could find scriptural justification; thus works like those cited above could be defended as in line with Biblical tradition. Although not the criterion for orthodoxy, as with the Sadducees, the angelology of Qumran is a significant element in their theology as a whole, by its very emphasis. 1.2.1.5 Samaritans Christian heresiologists believed that some Samaritans believed in resurrection, and some did not (as with Judaism).140 Certain aspects of Samaritan belief, although mediated through late texts, indicate a comparatively archaic theology.141 The exalted view of Moses (e. g. Memar Marqah IV.6, 1.3.6 below) resembles the attitude to Moses in the New Testament, Philo and Josephus, as opposed to his relative lack of prominence in rabbinic texts, which are contemporary with the earliest Samaritan writings. Later writings give prominence to the eschatological figure of the Ta’eb, the “prophet like Moses” (Deut 18.18). Merx discusses the Ta’eb and the “double Messiah”. He suggests that the Ta’eb originates in the Messiah son of Ephraim or Joseph.142 If he is correct, then this late-developing Samaritan belief is paralleled at Qumran. However, 1QS ix 11 reads “until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel”. This 140 E. g. Epiphanius, Pan. 9.2.3. See Fossum, Samaritan, 295–7; Dexinger, Samaritan, 281 f.; Isser, Dositheans, 146 f. 141 Montgomery, Samaritans, 240. 142 Merx, Messias, 47.

40

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

seems to indicate that the “prophet like Moses” is a separate figure from the two Messiahs; if the Ta’eb is the “prophet like Moses”, he ought not therefore to be also the Messiah son of Ephraim, who would equate to the Messiah of Israel. Another important Samaritan expression, the Day of Recompense, is attested at 1QS ix 23, . During our period, the Samaritans maintained the primacy of Mt. Gerizim over Jerusalem. Previously they had accepted the legitimacy of the Jerusalem cult beside their own, despite its rejection of themselves.143 Study of the Samaritans has been hampered by the late date of the sources and the contradictions between Jewish and Samaritan accounts. Macdonald (1964) relied heavily on the Samaritan tradition that the separation from the Jews occurred in the period of the judges.144 Purvis and Dexinger treat the Samaritan writings more cautiously and regard the Maccabean period as the crucial time for the separation of Samaritans from Jews.145 It was then that the temple on Mt. Gerizim was destroyed and the Samaritan Pentateuch came into being, with its Gerizim expansion in Exod 20.17.146 Dexinger stresses the problematic nature of applying dogmatically oriented Christian terms such as “sect” or “heresy” to Judaism, an ethnically based religion. Nevertheless, “Behaviour conforming to halakah could be called orthopraxy. One should never forget, however, that behind such orthopraxy there is always a significant amount of orthodoxy”.147 Thus the crucial break with the Samaritans came when the competing claims exceeded the bounds of Judaism’s tolerance for non-fulfilment. Dexinger could perhaps have made more of the normative force of the text of Scripture. Even if the text of the Pentateuch is not yet fully standardized in the second century BC, a crucially significant divergence of textual tradition such as that in the Decalogue can scarcely appear as other than the transgression of a religious norm to Jews. Samaritans, like Jews, believe in angels, although it is difficult to ascertain when their angelology developed; the Samaritan Targum, like the Jewish versions, can ascribe actions to angels which the MT ascribes to God.148 However, the Samaritan angel beliefs, despite the lateness of the sources, lack the differentiation of contemporary Jewish angelology; there are no clear rankings of 143 In 407 BC the governors of Judaea and Samaria cooperate to rebuild the temple at Elephantine, while the high priest in Jerusalem refuses to respond. Schmidt, Temple, 123, concludes from this that while the priesthood desired a single sanctuary, this was not yet universally recognised. Hence rejection (and legitimacy) is not as thoroughgoing as the sources on either side suggest. 144 Macdonald, Theology, 17. The earliest written texts, apart from the Pentateuch, are from the late 3rd / early 4th century AD, the Memar Marqah and the Defter (prayer book). The Samaritan chronicles, of varying value, are difficult to date, but may contain early material. 145 Purvis, Samaritans; Dexinger, Limits; Dexinger, Samaritan. 146 Text in Bowman, 24. 147 Limits, 112. 148 Macdonald, Theology, 397; Montgomery, Samaritans, 217.

1.2 The first century and beyond

41

cherubim, seraphim, ophannim etc. Montgomery provides a list of titles used for angels in Samaritan Hebrew and Aramaic, and also the names of four angels who attended Moses.149 But his work does not enter into chronological considerations and so is of little use for the present purpose. Hosts, spirits and powers are all attested in Samaritan works, but may be late borrowings from Judaism. We will here consider the fourth-century Memar Marqah by way of a test case: it does seem to contain names for classes of angels. V.3, speaking of Moses’ ascent of Sinai, says, “The powers supported him, the forces comforted him, the and , certainly seem to Glory came to meet him”.150 These terms, indicate classes of angelic beings, although they are not differentiated here and appears again at have no equivalents in the later canonical rankings.151 II.12, parallel with . A longer enumeration of classes appears to be present at V.3, just before the passage quoted above: “hosts and powers and foundations and angels, , thunderings and lightnings, lights and fire”.152 Although the list continues with non-angelic phenomena, the first four are best understood as different names for angels. Ranks of angels, , are mentioned shortly afterwards. Cherubim are mentioned once, VI.5. By the fourth century, then, angelology is beginning to develop. Memar Marqah I.11 offers a hint that angelic duties are envisaged comparable to those in Judaism: “Moses entered [the Red Sea] and the angels ( ) ministered to him; Pharaoh entered and the angels punished him.” (similarly II.6). Angels of the Favour, , will surround the righteous on the day of resurrection, while , angels of wrath, surround the wicked (IV.12). We cannot show that fourth-century Samaritan angelology reflects the kind of systematization attested for Judaism in the first century by Rom 8.38 or Eph 6.12. However, the various Jewish and subsequently Christian angelic terms to do with “power” overlap to a certain extent, and it may be that the “hosts and powers and foundations and angels” actually intend a hierarchically differentiated system, although the context does not indicate it. Archangels are nowhere mentioned, although the Glory in some places at least appears to be a hypostasis of God (1.4.1 below). Angels are witnesses to the giving of the Law on Sinai.153 They are in general intermediaries between God and humankind, without obscuring the extremely high position given to Moses.154 Moses himself “ascended from 149

Montgomery, Samaritans, 215–221. Macdonald, Memar Marqah vol. 1, 126 text, 205 translation. 151 The Syriac angelic terms meaning loosely “power” are , , , ( ) However, is a term used to describe the Glory in Jewish mystical texts: Fossum, Samaritan, 367 f. 152 Note that does have an equivalent in Syriac, . 153 E. g. Memar Marqah III.5, text p. 69–70, translation p. 111. 154 E. g. Memar Marqah, II.8: “Where in the world is there a people of such great glory as Israel? Manifold wonders were done for their sake, manifold marvels by reason of them; and 150

42

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

human status to that of the angels” when on the mountain with God (V.3). But reading the angelology of Memar Marqah back into the preceding period would be unjustified. “It accords well with the lack of evidence of angelology of the early period among the Samaritans that the teaching of the fall of the angels is not found among them.”155 This is despite the importance of the day of judgement in Samaritan theology. The Samaritan beliefs offer further evidence of widespread and various angel beliefs in Syria / Palestine during our period. The existence of a largely different set of titles for angels in Memar Marqah may mean that the titles preserved in Jewish and Christian texts are only a small selection out of a larger variety, no longer extant, of which Samaritans happened to preserve a different selection. It may also be the case that some titles were associated by Jews with Samaritan belief (and vice versa) and so avoided; but the shared title of the Great Glory for God argues against this. While the Samaritans apparently experienced exposure to Persian dualism in the same way as the Jews (Macdonald ascribes to this their division of time into the ages of divine favour and disfavour), they did not develop their angel beliefs in the same way. This argues against the theory that the Jews adopted angel beliefs en bloc from outside, minimizing the Jewish theological contribution; if this were so the Samaritan beliefs would be the same. 1.2.1.6 Judaism after 70 Rabbinic Judaism developed out of Pharisaism, the version of Judaism which survived the war in greatest strength. Goodman suggests that Sadducees and Essenes continued to exist “for years, perhaps centuries”, and that the silence of rabbinic authors on this point simply means that they ignored those who disagreed with them.156 Thus the blanket term minim may hide non-rabbinic Jews as well as Christians, Jewish or Gentile. It is certainly unlikely that all the members of these sects should have been wiped out or have changed their beliefs. One example cited by Goodman is m Nid 4.2 on the ritual status of the daughters of the Sadducees; but cf. the Mishnaic rulings for non-existent Temple sacrifices. Still, it is possible that this passage reflects the preservation of Sadducaean halakah to the turn of the third century. It is, however, not possible to correlate mentions of Sadducees with the undoubtedly continuing special position of priests.157 Very few of the earliest rabbis are attested as being priests, which supports the claim that the rabbinic the assembly of the angels came to help them, and the great glory was manifested for the sake of their preservation” (text p. 40, translation p. 63). 155 Dexinger, Samaritan, 291. 156 Goodman, Sadducees, 355. 157 Cohen, Rabbi, 943.

1.2 The first century and beyond

43

movement continued the Pharisee party. Furthermore, a central part of Pharisee identity was their being “separated” from the amme ha’aretz, the Sadducees etc. In passages such as m Gittin 5.9 discussion glides imperceptibly from amme ha’aretz to Gentiles. What appears to be visible here is a process of shifting boundaries, so that divergent groups are pushed outside the people of Israel. This entails a shift in the kind of “separation” involved with being a (rabbinic, post-Pharisaic) Jew. There is no longer anyone to be separated from within the bounds of the people of Israel: as m Nid 4.2 shows, to be a rabbinic Jew is to be an Israelite; to be a Sadducee is to be a Samaritan heretic. This is extraordinary in view of the fact that the amme ha’aretz represented the vast mass of ordinary Jews in Palestine, and in fact proved untenable in the long run.158 During the first and second centuries Christians and Jews became increasingly separated, as Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho attests with its evidence for anti-Christian measures, cursing and prohibition of converse; the latter has a rabbinic parallel in t Hull 2.20–21.159 The Letter of Barnabas, while strongly rooted in Judaism, is anxious to draw a distinction between “us” and “them”.160 On the Jewish side, there is no reason to doubt Justin’s report in 1 Apol. 31 that Bar Kochba punished Christians who refused to deny Christ. Some form of the birkat ha-minim also now came into existence.161 However, Carleton Paget makes the important point that this prayer would only have been used in synagogues controlled by the rabbis, until the third century probably a small number.162 The definition of boundaries and of orthodoxy is an increasingly important issue, as mentioned above in connection with exclusion from the “world to come”. “The term [min] marks a significant attempt to draw a distinction between orthodoxy and heresy. In Rabbinic terms a min was basically a Jew who did not accept the authority of the Rabbis and who rejected Rabbinic halakah. Hence insofar as it applies to Christians, it must refer primarily to Jewish Christians … In condemning the minim the Rabbis were in effect condemning all who were not of their party: they were setting themselves up as the custodians of orthodoxy”.163 However, alternative traditions to the Mishnah continued to be preferred in Tosefta and Talmud; later rabbis also simply ignore the rulings of the Mishnah. Within the bounds of rabbinic orthodoxy, we also find rulings that some teachings are reserved for an esoteric minority – m Hag 2.1’s limits on 158 Compare Cohen, Rabbi, 968 f., on the waning of the importance of purity, hence of separation. 159 Lieu, Parting, 26 f., challenges the expression “parting of the ways” and supports the argument that the separation was only really established by the end of the fourth century. However, the second-century evidence for division cited here marks the beginning of this process. 160 Horbury, Barnabas. 161 For a summary of recent discussion, see van der Horst, Birkat. Also Kimelman, Birkat; Urbach, Self-isolation; Horbury, Benediction. 162 Carleton Paget, Jewish, 773. 163 Alexander, Parting, 9.

44

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

who may study the chapter of the chariot and the story of creation.164 This applies both to full-blown Merkabah mysticism and to apocalyptic.165 When we speak of apocalyptic circles that produce pseudepigraphical texts, these may therefore represent a subset of rabbinic Judaism. Evidence exists that excommunication was practised throughout our period, not only by sectarian Jews.166 This reveals both a well-developed sense of orthodoxy and -praxy, and a far from uniform Judaism. One of the grounds for exclusion from the world to come was reading the “outside books” (m Sanh 10.1), which is put on a par with magical incantations.167 Hence difference of doctrine and not only practice is clearly indicated as grounds for exclusion. We may recall McEleney’s definition of “minimal orthodoxy” comprising worship of the one God of Israel, the people’s special status before God, and the acceptance of the Mosaic law (i. e. scripture). The term “outside books” indicates a well-developed sense of canon.168 The discussion over which books “defile the hands” (i. e. count as inspired scripture) in m Yadaim 3.5 especially questions the status of Ecclesiastes; other works whose status is questioned at some point include Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Esther and Ezekiel.169 That divine inspiration is the key is seen clearly in the distinction made in t Yad 2.14 between Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, both of which were thought to be written by Solomon: the former is written by divine inspiration ( ), the other is human wisdom. T Yad 2.13 states that Gospels (gilyonim) and books of heretics, also Sirach and all later books do not defile the hands, implying a closed canon. T Shab 13(14).5 says that Gospels (gilyonim) and books of heretics should be left to burn, although they contain sacred names; proper Torah scrolls are permitted to be rescued on the Sabbath. B Gitt 45b states that even a scroll of the Law written by a min should be burned (because of its suspect origin). Alexander makes a link with 164 Also m Meg 4.10, “They may not use the chapter of the Chariot as a reading from the Prophets; but R. Judah permits it.” Ezek 1 eventually became the haftarah for Shavuot. 165 Rowland, Apocalyptic, 784. Also Origen’s list of forbidden texts for Jews (Comm Song of S., prologue), which includes the Song of Songs as well as Gen 1, Ezek 1 and the end of Ezek (the Temple vision). 166 Horbury, Extirpation, 58 f. 167 Also NumR 14.4: “Beware of making many books (to add to the Scriptures), for whoever does so will have no portion in the world to come”. 168 But note Kraemer, Formation, 615 n. 12: “the fixing of a canon generates often massive projects of exegesis, exegesis that effectively reopens the canon that it addresses.” Kraemer is concerned with the canonizing of the “oral Torah”, effectively a “second-level canon” (627) which relativizes scripture’s authority by claiming a common divine source. However, discussions over which books “defile the hands” indicate a stage in the process before “oral Torah” has gained fully authoritative status (and the canon has been expanded to include rabbinic traditions). 169 See the story told at b Hag 13a, b Men 45a and b Shab 13b, that R. Hanina b. Hezekiah prevented the suppression of Ezekiel, because of its apparent contradiction of the Torah (Ezek 44.31, 45.20), by working so long until he had resolved the contradictions. R. Hanina is a Shammaite and thus the tradition of restricting use of Ezek 1 apparently antedates 70.

1.2 The first century and beyond

45

the status of Torah scrolls fit for use in worship, and sees the doctrine of “defiling the hands” as a rabbinic measure for controlling the synagogue service and specifically for ruling (Jewish) Christian synagogue services invalid.170 The “outside books” show types of Judaism that are significantly different from the rabbinic norm. Products of the rabbinic period are works such as 2 Baruch, Ps.-Philo, 2 Esdras (4 Ezra), Apocalypse of Abraham, Life of Adam and Eve, the Lives of the Prophets. 2 Esdras 14 reflects the opposing argument regarding the “outside books”: Ezra’s compilation of 94 new works is portrayed as by divine inspiration. The intent is to defend the legitimacy of such writings. Apart from legendary elaboration of Biblical stories, these works display great interest in angels. Christian evidence for the continuation of angel beliefs comes from the Kerygma Petrou (probably early second century): “Neither worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they only know God, do not know him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the month and the moon” (Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.5). Celsus says much the same: “they worship angels, and are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses was their instructor” (Origen, c. Cels. 1.26); and Aristides Apol. 14 (Syriac), “their service is to angels and not to God”.171 For their own polemical purposes, these writers are putting the worst possible construction on an “inclusive tendency within Jewish monotheism”.172 But if rabbinic Judaism were truly monolithic and no interest in angels were visible to outsiders, such statements would be impossible. How widespread was such angel veneration? Chester says the following, discussing Hurtado, One: Any such developments [worship of angels] would probably have had a very limited following, but that would not in itself imply a diminution of their significance or that they would be found only in “fringe” groups within Judaism; not least because, in view of the complex, diffuse nature of Judaism pre-70, it would not be easy to decide what precisely might constitute a “fringe”.173

This complex Judaism continued well into the rabbinic period. Stuckenbruck discusses the Kerygma Petrou and Aristides passages, and suggests that, shorn of their polemical intent, they “may betray the knowledge of a practice of invoking angels alongside God”.174 He cites the two Rheneia inscriptions (2nd century BC) that call on “the Most High God, the Lord of the spirits and of all flesh”, and later on the Lord “who sees all things and the angels of God”175 to avenge the innocent blood of the murdered girls.176 Stuckenbruck understands the inscriptions 170

Alexander, Parting, 14. Origen, Comm. John 13.17 repeats the accusation of KP. 172 Horbury, Herodian. 173 Chester, Messianic, 65. 174 Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 144. 175 Compare Tobit 11.14, “Blessed be God, and blessed be his great name, and blessed be all his holy angels.” Both passages invoke angels as a matter of course, as mediators of the divine help. 176 Text in Deissmann, Light, 413–424. 171

46

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

as indicating that the angels “were accorded some honour”.177 Stuckenbruck’s study concludes that there is evidence for a number of different types of veneration: 1. invocation of angels for assistance, vengeance or protection; 2. reverence of angels whose heavenly worship is exemplary; 3. expressions of thanksgiving in response to functions or activities attributed to angels. He concludes from Qumran material that sometimes angel veneration was indeed expressed in a cultic context, although no example can be labelled “cultic devotion”.178 Hannah draws attention to a prohibition of sacrifice offered to Michael in t Hull 2.18, noting also j Ber 9.13a (do not invoke Michael or Gabriel, but Me), and concludes that there is no evidence for an actual Michael cult.179 However, the intention of the Tosefta passage, which cuts Michael down to size by putting him on a par with the luminaries (worshipped by pagans) and the “small worm”, seems to be to draw the line between permissible veneration and full-blown cultic worship. Hence it can be accepted as evidence that angels were indeed venerated by Jews; the misrepresentations shown by Celsus and Kerygma Petrou perhaps stem from (wilful) confusion with practices such as magical invocation, acknowledged to be illicit. The prohibition does not, however, suffice to prove that such sacrifices to angels actually occurred. Further support for interest in angels comes from Merkabah mysticism. A crucial attestation for the early existence of mystical speculation about the heavenly world and its angelic inhabitants is provided by the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. They resemble the much later Hekhalot texts, especially in their language with its mystical repetition, and their treating as secret things which are alluded to rather than described. Among these, 3 Enoch is partly dependent on the Talmud, but contains independent material, possibly of an earlier date (see 1.4.3 below).180 Morray-Jones’ distinction between (early) Merkabah traditions and actual Hekhalot texts should be recalled.181 The presence of Merkabah traditions in the Talmud indicates that interest in the heavenly world was a trend in Judaism that went beyond esoteric mystical circles. Stories relating to Merkabah mysticism are linked with mainstream rabbis such as R. Akiba: e. g. the famous story of the “four who entered Pardes”, b Hag. 14b, where R. Akiba is the hero who acts correctly and survives unscathed. 177

Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 185. Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 200 f. But see 2.1.2 below. 179 Hannah, Michael, 104–110. 180 OTP 1, 229; see also Alexander, Historical, 173; Alexander, 3 Enoch. 181 Morray-Jones, Transformational, 2. Elior, Mysticism, surveys Hekhalot angelology. She speaks of “an essential change in religious conception … an expansion of the definition of the divinity from a single God to a complex of divine forces”, i. e. parting company with monotheism (34). I believe Elior draws too stark a distinction between Biblical angelology and apocalyptic, Qumran and Hekhalot traditions. While magical / theurgical practices are not reconcilable with monotheism, other elements of Hekhalot angelology can be viewed more positively as part of a complex monotheism. 178

1.2 The first century and beyond

47

Ascriptions such as these must have seemed at least plausible to their hearers. In other words, the authors of the Babylonian Talmud must have thought that some form of Merkabah mysticism existed in R. Akiba’s day and was sufficiently accepted for a leading teacher such as Akiba to be envisaged as practising it. The names of rabbis quoted also indicate that the Merkabah tradition existed in both Palestine and Babylon. But the R. Akiba here associated with Merkabah mysticism is the teacher of Judah ha-Nasi, author of the anti-angelic Mishnah.182 In conclusion we may say that Judaism remained plurifom throughout the first four centuries of the Christian era, despite the attempts of the rabbis to exert a standardising influence, e. g. in the closing of the Biblical canon, possibly partly in reaction to the establishment of the Christian canon. Nevertheless, while this summary has stressed the differences between the sects of Judaism, the fact remains that Josephus portrays his three sects as belonging to one religion. It appears from the fact that he elsewhere speaks of a canon of 22 books (c. Ap. 1.8: 5 law, 13 prophets, 4 hymns and precepts) that scripture was the essential unifying factor.183 The Epistula Petri (a Christian document belonging to the pseudoClementine corpus, c. 200) bears this out: 1.3 … For those who belong to his [Moses’] people preserve everywhere the same rule in their belief in the one God and in their line of conduct, the Scriptures with their many senses being unable to incline them to assume another attitude. 4 Rather they attempt … to harmonise the contradictions of the Scriptures … 5 On this account they permit no one to teach unless he first learn how the Scriptures should be used. Wherefore there obtain amongst them one God, one law, and one hope.

This text seems to date from a time before the rule of the rabbis was fully established, and nevertheless for the author the unity of Judaism is its most striking feature. Beliefs in angels persisted and were apparently widespread, despite unease on the part of the theological experts responsible for Mishnah and Talmuds. Only a certain degree of belief in angels, apparently, was compatible with Jewish orthodoxy. “The Holy One, blessed be He” is a preferred title for God, implying that God is the only being who can properly be called holy; titles implying the existence of angels, such as God of gods, disappear. Other debates apparently 182 Morray-Jones, Paradise I, 195, notes that Akiba is the only one of the four to be an ordained rabbi; i. e. the story is concerned with controlling access to the mystical experience. Morray-Jones, Hekhalot, 4, argues that traditions associating Yohanan b. Zakkai with Merkabah mysticism are a falsification by later redactors: “This suggests that the claims of the Hekhalot writers, who cite other tannaitic authorities but never Yohanan, … to be the authentic heirs of the early mystical tradition may have some substance.” 183 Deines, Pharisäer, 550, states that the three main Jewish groups never went as far as “einer völlingen Aufhebung der religiösen Gemeinschaft” with each other; whereas Christianity’s “im Verhältnis zu Christus soteriologische Marginalität der Torah” reveals a fundamental difference.

48

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

seek to devalue angels, such as the argument over when the angels were created. GenR. 1.3 runs as follows:184 ‫׳‬

‫׳‬

‫׳‬ ‫׳‬

‫׳‬

‫׳‬ ‫׳‬

‫׳‬

‫׳‬ ‫׳‬

‫׳‬ ‫׳‬

‫׳׳‬ ‫׳׳‬ Wann wurden die Engel erschaffen? R. Jochanan sagt: Am 2. Tag wurden sie erschaffen. Das ist es, was geschrieben steht: Der in den Wassern seine Söller bälkt usw.; und danach heißt es: Der seine Engel aus Wind macht … R. Chanina sagt: Am 5. Tag wurden die Engel erschaffen, wie geschrieben steht: Geflügel fliege über die Erde; und es heißt: Mit zweien fliegt er. R. Luljani b. Tabri sagt i. N. R. Jizchaqs: Sei es, man stimmt R. Chanina, sei es, man stimmt R. Jochanan zu, so sind doch alle einig, daß die Engel am 1. Tag nicht erschaffen wurden, damit man nicht sagen kann, Michael spannte [das Firmament] im Süden, Gabriel im Norden und der Heilige, er sei gepriesen, dehnte es in der Mitte. Vielmehr: Ich, der Herr, erschaffe alles, spanne die Himmel alleine aus, breite die Erde aus me’itti (Jes. 44.24) – “wer mit mir” (mi itti) steht geschrieben: Wer beteiligte sich mit mir an der Erschaffung der Welt! 185

The crucial factor is avoiding any suggestion that God had associates in the work of creation. The same idea of stressing the angels’ subordination lies behind the idea that angels are created afresh every day from the river of fire: GenR 78.1; cf. 3 Enoch 36.186 Bauckham notes that this issue is restricted to the rabbinic texts; in Second Temple period texts monotheistic polemic is against pagan idolatry.187 This agrees with Segal’s view that rabbinic polemic against “two powers” heresies begins in the late Tannaitic period.188 These debates reinforce our earlier impression that belief in angels is connected with issues of orthodoxy; too great emphasis on angels threatens to undermine monotheism. Early Christian writings which used angelic language for Christ can only have reinforced the rabbinic view that interest in angels led down a dangerous road. The Book of Revelation preserves the picture of a Judaism in which a highly developed angelology is perfectly compatible with monotheism. (It is, in fact, solely for this reason useful for speaking of Christ.) The suspicion that is reflected in rabbinic texts such as j Ber 9.13a, “do not call upon Michael or Gabriel, but call upon Me” is a development of the period considered here, and implies that groups or individuals did in fact continue to “call upon” angels. 184 Theodor / Albeck, vol. 1, 5. VanderKam, Genesis, 307, treats GenR as specifically countering the tradition in Jub 2 of creation on the first day. 185 Tr. Schäfer, Rivalität, 53. 186 Further refs. Schäfer, Rivalität, 54. 187 Bauckham, Throne, 49 n. 14. 188 Segal, Powers, 260.

1.2 The first century and beyond

49

As Stuckenbruck says, this may have intended only veneration, but have been misconstrued. Yet this suspicion continues to coexist with an interest in mysticism, implying acceptance of angels, on the part of the rabbis themselves, e. g. b Hag 11b–16a. The great expansion of the Gemara here by comparison with the Mishnah, m Hag 2.1, in practice stands it on its head: the Mishnah is concerned with forbidding mystical speculation and the Gemara is full of examples, including angelic appearances. Angels thus continued to be an important feature of Judaism, although the rabbis sought to control discussion of their role. The portrayal of famous rabbis as engaged in mystical practices may indicate such control, implying that only experts are permitted to engage with such dangerous , who was consumed by topics – e. g. b Hag 13a, a child studying the word fire. We conclude, therefore, that angelology formed part of the oral tradition and was, like scripture, part of the “minimal orthodoxy”, in that debate about its status was a significant element of inner-Jewish discussion, and was associated with the assessment of a person’s orthodoxy. 1.2.2 Paganism Christianity spread unevenly through Syria and Palestine: Antioch and Edessa became Christian at an early date; Gaza, Baalbek and Harran remained pagan for a long time.189 At the beginning of the Christian era angels are still a living part of pagan Syrian religion. According to Teixidor, the cult of angels replaces, from about the fourth century BC, the earlier concept of assemblies of gods, as part of a general tendency towards monotheism.190 This reveals a later but parallel development to that observed in Judaism, although here the angels do not entirely supplant the other gods, who like them are subordinate to the one high god. The belief was also exported to other cultures: Cumont demonstrates the incorporation of angels into Hellenistic religious idioms by Romanised Syrians, transplanted on military service.191 This is aided by the Roman practice of acknowledging local gods as forms of their familiar deities. One example is a dedication to the Syrian god Hadad of Baalbek in his Latin dress as Iuppiter Heliopolitanus, with the title of angelus.192 At Gerasa there is an inscription , near Berytos one to ;193 similarly in Egypt, dedications to , by archers from Emesa.194 Such explicit dedications mentioning angels must be distinguished from the iconographical 189 Drijvers, Persistence, 36. Compare the maps in Belayche, Iudaea, 52 and 280, for 66 CE and the third century. 190 Teixidor, Pagan, 14. 191 Cumont, Anges. 192 Ostia, ca. AD 177–180; CIL XIV, 24. 193 Belayche, Iudaea, 99 f. 194 Dated 316 and 323.

50

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

koine, as Belayche terms it, which could show winged Nikes of Graeco-Roman type on Jewish sarcophagi or synagogues, as well as on the basilica of Ascalon, a city whose guardian deities were Phanebal and Isis-Tyche.195 During the first to fourth centuries, pagan cults in Palestine were either Graeco-Roman, or Semitic but thoroughly Hellenized, the consequence of occupation by Ptolemies and Seleucids.196 A fuller treatment of pagan angels is found in J. T. Milik’s Dédicaces faites par des dieux.197 In Palmyra, a pair of divine brothers are called ‘Aglibol and Malakbel, “angel of Bel”. Theirs was one of four sanctuaries, each associated with one of the four tribes of Palmyra.198 Also attested in Palmyra is a god named bryk šmh l‘lm’. This god “whose name is blessed for ever” is associated with two lesser divinities called “holy ones”. Divine messengers appearing in pairs go back to Ugaritic times.199 Milik presents some second-century inscriptions, including one where qdyš’ is supplemented by wlmlk[w]hy by a fortunate scribal error which proves the equation of “holy ones” with “angels”. In a bilingual inscription he conjectures plausibly the expression [ ] or , a title known from Qumran and “angels of holiness / holy angels”, apocryphal works. One of the inscriptions by archers from Emesa to has ] [ ] [ , surely another equivalent of . While Emesa is closely associated with Palmyra, its highest god is the sun. Yet the pattern is the same, of a “one high god” attended by beings called holy ones or angels. “Le Dieu Très-Haut, qu’il fût le Sol sanctissimus d’Émèse ou le Bénisoit-son-nom-à-jamais de Palmyre, est le Saint par excellence. Il est entouré par la cour des ‘anges de sainteté’, ou bien il est assisté par ‘deux frères saints’”.200 Further relevant inscriptions are from Sammet el-Baradan in the Hauran, a dedication to ’Ilâh-’al-Gê and his angel ’Idâ-rûmâ (the Raised Hand); and Ma‘lula north of Damascus (early 2nd century), the Semitic name Mal’ak-’el-’aliyân, “angel of God Most High”, in Greek letters.201 The above material is comparatively late. But an inscription from Umm el-‘Ammed, near Tyre, dating from 222 BC, mentions the god “Angel of Milk‘aštort’, ml’k mlk‘štrt, as the builder of a portico.202 Another, undated inscription, on a sphinx from the same place, associates Milk‘aštort and the Angel of Milk‘aštort. Milik takes the two to be essentially a single divinity; 195 196 197 198

Belayche, Iudaea, 45, 224. Belayche, Iudaea, 281. Milik, Dédicaces, 194–200, 423–440. Teixidor, Pagan, 108. Malakbel is a vegetation god; the Holy Brothers are depicted with

a tree. 199 200 201 202

Milik, Dédicaces, 196; also 1.1.1 above. Milik, Dédicaces, 199. Milik, Dédicaces, 432 f. Milik, Dédicaces, 424.

1.2 The first century and beyond

51

nevertheless, the “hypostase personelle” of the god is the recipient of prayers and offerings in his own right.203 Teixidor conjectures that one of the two temples found at the site may have belonged to the Angel of Milk‘aštort.204 This early inscription attests that the cult of angels in pagan Syria and its neighbouring areas was independent of Jewish or Christian influence, but well-rooted in paganism in its own right. We have literary evidence for a cult of angels at Mamre, a spot sacred to pagans as well as Jews and Christians.205 According to Sozomen, the pagan worship was because of the visitation of angels: (HE 2.4.3); according to Eusebius, the pagans worshipped both the terebinth and the angels (Onom. 1.8–16, cf. 14.5–7b [GCS E.3]). Because of the association with Abraham, the pagan worship is apparently secondary to Jewish veneration of the site; but as we have shown, pagan worship of angels was well rooted in the area. “We are not seeing a syncretistic cult but a meeting, in the same holy place, of devotees from different traditions.”206 In Asia Minor inscriptions abound to or .207 He is often associated with a lesser divinity who is sometimes given the title of angel; in Phrygia also with and (or neuters) who appear to be angels of justice and might properly be described as hypostases in that they personify an aspect of the divinity. Righteousness and Good appear as attendants of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar in a hymn, as well as a šedu and a lamasu.208 Similar paired hypostatisations are Uznu “ear, understanding” and Hasisu “wisdom”, messengers of the goddess Damkina.209 From Ugarit come the hypostatised sdk and šlm, righteousness and peace.210 Stolz notes that the different qualities of the (highest) Mesopotamian god are identified in a hymnic context with various lesser gods: Sin ist deine Göttlichkeit, Anu dein Herrschertum, Dagan dein Herrentum, Ellil dein Königtum, Adad deine überlegene Stärke, der kluge Ea dein Verstand … 211

We see here clearly the relationship between the hypostatisation of qualities and the concept of lesser divinities, corresponding to angels in a Jewish context. Sheppard cites a fascinating dedication to and alone by , evidently a cult association.212 Mitchell remarks on the 203

Compare Jewish invocation of God and his holy Name, e. g. Ps. 68.4, 103.1; also Zech

14.9. 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

Teixidor, Pagan, 41. Belayche, Iudaea, 96–104. Belayche, Iudaea, 104. Mitchell, Cult. See also Mitchell, Anatolia; Sheppard, Pagan. Ringgren, Word, 63 f. Ringgren, Word, 59. Ringgren, Word, 79–88. Stolz, Wesen, 178 f. He compares the Persian amesha spentas. Sheppard, Pagan, 87–89.

52

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

difficulty of distinguishing between pagan and Jewish uses of the term, and concludes that it is an instance of “cross-fertilization between Jews and pagans”.213 He identifies the well-known , “godfearers”, with the worshippers of . The prominence of angels in Asia Minor persisted into the Christian period, with the angel-worshippers at Colossae in Paul’s day. Religions from the West Semitic region thus included subordinate deities into the Christian period, as they had done since Canaanite times. Whether the terminology is borrowed from Judaism is not clear, nor is the precise content of the term “angel”. Certainly, where an expression such as “Milk‘aštort and the Angel of Milk‘aštort” is used and the angel seems no more than a hypostasis of the god, or where Apollo of Claros can describe himself, in the famous Oenoanda inscription, as ,214 the boundaries seem to blur. Van der Horst suggests that, in the case of an inscription such as “Zeus Most High and the Divine Angel”, seems to be a separate deity, although other inscriptions have reliefs which suggest that a mere messenger is intended.215 Non-angelic hypostases also occur in pagan contexts. E. g. Tannit’s epithet of , CIS 1.380.216 This is a special case, “face / presence of Baal”, transcribed since Tannit is already a divinity in her own right. But compare the “Image [of Baal]” in Tema or Taima (Arabia) which has its own temple and appears as the theophoric element in a name (KAI 228, 229).217 Such epithets go back as far as the Ugaritic texts, which mention the goddess Athtart-name-of-Baal.218 They persist into the Roman imperial period: coins from Ascalon portray a god called Phanebal, “face of Baal”.219 Teixidor compares Astarte-Name-of-Baal from Sidon with the Israelite Name-theology (and angels and glory as substitutes for God) and concludes, “Maybe Astarte’s part in the Phoenician pantheon was not much different from that of an angel. The cult of the angels … was an acknowledgement that there is a divine power that rises above the individual, and the angel’s task, then, was that of mediating between god and man.”220 For pagans as for Jews, the angel remains an accessible form of the divinity when the high god is more purely transcendent.

213

Mitchell, Cult, 114. Mitchell, Cult, 86. 215 van der Horst, Hosios. 216 CIS, Vol 1.4. See also Pfeifer, Ursprung, 78 f. 217 Donner / Röllig. The eds. take the name to mean “black” and think the meaning “image” “weniger wahrscheinlich”. Teixidor accepts “image” (72 f.). 218 Gibson, 4 n. 6. 219 Teixidor, Pagan, 96; Belayche, Iudaea, 229 f. 220 Teixidor, Pagan, 37 f. 214

1.2 The first century and beyond

53

1.2.3 Christianity The introduction noted that orthodoxy is an issue in Christianity from the apostolic fathers onwards. Williams has argued that a certain tendency towards orthodoxy is inherent in Christianity’s holding to one historical person, with the associated issues of correct telling of his story: It may be that the very nature of the basic Christian narrative carries the notions of canon and orthodoxy within it, in the sense that it resists … [reduction to a] moment of self-recognition in response to illumination. It is inescapably tied to a temporal account of faith, and so involved in questions of legitimation and continuity.221

The second-century conflicts, against Bauer, “are not usefully understood as a case of orthodox-heretical disagreement: they constitute a specific phenomenon in which the very possibility of such a disagreement … is being defined”.222 As Christianity is not bound to a particular social context, but is constructing a counter-culture, the personal experience of Jesus needs to be supplemented by a social, identifying context for the believer. Williams locates such a context for emergent orthodoxy in the concept of mutual accountability that is visible in the NT letters to churches and which continues through the “epistolary habit” of the second century to Eusebius’ commendations of bishops who write letters, in the fourth.223 This seems helpful for our present purpose, in that Jewish and Syriac-speaking Christianity begin by being legitimate variants, but become marginalized through their isolation from the developing mainstream. Pelikan portrays the two sees of Peter, Rome and Antioch, as emblematic of the dichotomy between eastern and western types of Christianity, beginning from the quartodeciman controversy.224 “Normative self-definition” proceeds at a much quicker pace in the west than in the east. This section will therefore consider evidence for interest in angels in Syria and Palestine, and ask whether such interest can be related to issues of orthodoxy. 1.2.3.1 Jewish Christianity Jewish Christianity is defined by Daniélou as any works that used Jewish thought forms, e. g. apocalyptic.225 This would include even the anti-Jewish Letter of Barnabas; thus Daniélou’s classification must be rejected as too broad. In its place, Carleton Paget suggests a praxis-based definition. But it remains difficult to estimate the degree of Jewish praxis necessary for a writing or a reported 221

Williams, Orthodoxy, 16. Williams, Orthodoxy, 9. 223 Markus, Problem, identifies the key issue as defining what makes a true church: as the church became more like the surrounding culture, the need for doctrine as a distinguishing factor increased. 224 Pelikan, Two. 225 Daniélou, Théologie, 17–21. 222

54

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

belief to qualify as Jewish Christian.226 We here consider sects regarded as Judaistic and associated with Syria-Palestine by patristic writers, e. g. Ebionites and Nazarenes; also the Ascension of Isaiah, a work accepted as Jewish Christian on internal evidence by modern scholars, and known to the Palestinian Epiphanius.227 This was significant for the development of Christian angelology, as will be seen in the next chapter. Some works now classified as Jewish Christian were widely influential: for example the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, related works written in Syria which may have a mid-third century core. They show gnostic elements and some interest in angels: Clem. Hom. 8.12–15 tells of how the angels were metamorphosed into precious stones etc., to convict humankind of covetousness, and then into holy human beings, to show the possibility of living a holy life. However, having become men, they then succumbed to lust and fell. They taught their wives metalworking, astronomy and medicine; they also begot the giants. This narrative is an amalgamation of concepts from Enoch and Jubilees.228 The Ebionites are first attested in Irenaeus. In Adv. haer. 1.26 he ascribes to them an adoptionist Christology, further stating that they read only the gospel of Matthew, reject Paul as an apostate, and keep the law. They deny the virgin birth (Adv. haer. 3.21). According to Origen, some Ebionites accepted and some denied the virgin birth (C. Cels. 5.61); they keep Easter on the same day as Jews and eat unleavened bread (Comm. Matt. 79, PG 13, 1728). Eusebius discusses Ebionites in HE 3.27, like Origen distinguishing those who accept and deny the virgin birth; he associates Ebionites with the Gospel of the Hebrews. Symmachus the translator of scripture was an Ebionite (HE 6.17). Epiphanius’ account of the Ebionites differs from his predecessors’, including the statement that their eucharist was an annual celebration with bread and water (Pan. 30.16). However, the sources he relies on are apparently not Ebionite; and his association of the Ebionites with the Elchasaites is not convincing either. Epiphanius and Jerome also report a group they call Nazarenes, who appear to be orthodox except in that they keep the law. Jerome says that the Nazarenes attempted to be both Jews and Christians but ended up being neither (Ep. 112.13, PL 22, 924). A number of texts can be related to these names. First, the extant fragments of Gospels of the Ebionites, the Nazarenes and the Hebrews.229 The Gospel of 226 Carleton Paget, Jewish, 741. Mimouni, Définition, 184, says that Jewish Christianity indicates “des juifs qui ont reconnu la messianité de Jésus, qui ont reconnu ou qui n’ont pas reconnu la divinité du Christ, mais qui tous continuent à observer la Torah”; which however cannot determine the degree of praxis either. 227 Pan. 40.2.2; 67.3.4 (cites Asc. Isa. 9.35 f.). 228 Such ideas are common in second- and third-century writers: Bauckham, Fall, 322. This may provide the context for Gal 1.8–9: if an angel from heaven provides knowledge which does not come through Christ, he is anathema. 229 For a discussion of the possibility that some or all of these are identical, see Vielhauer and Strecker, NTA vol. 1, 135 f. Cf. Carleton Paget, Jewish, 765 n. 139.

1.2 The first century and beyond

55

the Ebionites differed from Matthew in essential respects, but was closer to it than to any other gospel; it was written in Greek. Epiphanius, Pan. 30.16.4 f., reports as follows:

(PG 41, 432 C) “They say that he [Christ] was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels … that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called [according to Matthew? according to the Hebrews?],230 reports: I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you.”

(It is on the basis of the deviant Christology that the editors ascribe the frr. to the Gospel of the Ebionites.) The Gospel of the Nazarenes was similar to Matthew, and written in Syriac or Aramaic. The fragments appear to support the idea that the Nazarenes were doctrinally orthodox. The Gospel of the Hebrews, most often mentioned, is not particularly related to any canonical gospel, and is heretical in character, with an adoptionist Christology and apparently some shared material with the Gospel of Thomas. It focused on James the Lord’s brother. Its description of the Holy Spirit as the mother of Jesus may be a sign of a gnosticising tendency. The Jewish Christianity reflected in these reports seems as varied as the Judaism from which it springs. It should therefore not surprise us that angels are prominent in some types of Jewish Christianity, as Epiphanius suggests. Daniélou makes angelology a distinguishing characteristic of Jewish Christianity.231 This link is visible in the NT: Gal 1.8 and Col 2.18 refer to an angelic gospel and worship of angels, and both communities are also reprimanded for observing the Jewish law. Stuckenbruck summarizes recent discussion of Col 2.18 and concludes that the expression means both sharing with angels in their worship of God and being tempted to venerate angelic beings encountered during visionary experiences.232 This seems oversubtle. Why should Paul warn against disqualification because the Colossians are sharing 230 Thus NTA vol 1, 170; but it is better to translate “as that which is called among them [a / the] Gospel reports”. 231 Daniélou, Théologie, 137. 232 Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 111–119. Stettler, Kolosser, 68, argues that the genitive can only be subjective because of the following relative clause: “Dieser ist als Constructio ad sensum auf den Engelgottesdienst zu beziehen und ist zu übersetzen: ‘den er beim Eintreten [in den Himmel][ ja auch schon] geschaut hat’ ”. Surely in this case the relative pronoun would be , agreeing with . The -clause “the things he has seen” (a looser construction) may indeed refer to the worship of heaven, and nevertheless be an objective genitive.

56

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

with the angels in their worship of God? The passage must refer to some action which Paul condemns, and so really only an objective genitive is possible. But the prominence of angels in early Christian writings shows only that Christianity developed out of the whole spectrum of Judaism. It should be stressed again that angelic speculation may be considered a legitimate expression of Judaism at least in the early rabbinic period. Turning now to Asc. Isa., Norelli suggests that the work originates in latefirst-century Antioch, in an elitist grouping related to the docetist opponents of Ignatius.233 Chapters 6–11, the ascension of Isaiah through the seven heavens, represent an originally independent text, later attached to the more purely Jewish martyrdom narrative; our focus is on the former. Despite its brief treatment of earthly events, Asc. Isa. is not gnostic: salvation is not understood as the freeing of a divine element from its imprisonment in matter, nor is knowledge the means of salvation. But although the righteous are present in the seventh heaven, the work’s primary interest is on the effect of the incarnation of Christ on the angelic powers; specifically his victory over the rebellious evil angels, which restores the divinely appointed order of the cosmos.234 There are evident similarities with Jewish heavenly ascent narratives, both apocalyptic and Hekhalot texts, but also differences: Asc. Isa. shows no interest in the “landscape” of the lower heavens (e. g. Paradise, place of punishment). A conspicuous element of Asc. Isa. is the double refusal of worship by the angel (7.21, 8.5), who instructs Isaiah only to worship when he is told, which occurs in the seventh heaven (9.31), when he encounters “one whose glory surpassed that of all”, i. e. Christ, and another like him, the Holy Spirit (9.36).235 These clear distinctions need to be set against the angel-language used for both Christ and the Holy Spirit: for Asc. Isa., veneration of ordinary angels, even those who possess great glory as in the sixth and seventh heavens, is apparently 233 Norelli, Ascensio, 54–60. Similarly Hall, Ascension, but slightly later. Cf. Hannah, Ascension, Isaiah; he takes the work to be a unity, composed early second century. Origen’s reference to the martyrdom as mentioned in a Jewish apocryphal work (Comm. Matt. 10.18) argues however for independent composition. 234 Norelli, Ascensio, 448 f. 235 Isaiah attempts to worship the figure seated on the throne in the second heaven (although there is a throne in the first, we are not told that anyone is seated on it. Figures are seated on the throne in heavens 2–5). The enthroned angels in Asc. Isa. seem of minor importance, and it is difficult to assess the theological significance intended by the author. Various exalted humans and principal angels are portrayed as enthroned in heaven in Jewish tradition (contradicting the tradition that sitting is God’s prerogative, b Hag 15a); but this is on other thrones beside God’s (e. g. Hengel, Setze, 161–185). Segal neglects this difference by lumping them together as figures seated on the throne (Convert, 51); similarly Elior, Mysticism, 38 f. Two features suggest that Asc. Isa. implies a difference from these: 1. the thrones are the only thrones in each heaven, i. e. they can be confused with God’s throne; 2. Isaiah attempts to worship the occupant. Bauckham, Throne, 59, notes that the Enochic Son of Man is unique in sitting on God’s own throne; thus Jesus’ enthronement is the indicator of his (full) divinity.

1.2 The first century and beyond

57

not permissible.236 However, Stuckenbruck draws attention to the Ethiopic version of 7.15, where the angels of heaven 2 glorify the one seated on the throne; this represents worship of greater angels by lesser angels, as a part of their worship of God.237 Despite the subordinationism, the worship offered in the highest two heavens is clearly trinitarian: 8.18 “And there they [the angels] all named the primal Father and his Beloved, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all with one voice.” The Son and the Spirit worship the Great Glory, the Father (9.40). In order to do this, the Son is transformed to be like an angel (9.30), whereas the Spirit is already an angel; the Son is thus higher than the Spirit. Christ is the possessor of the divine Name (8.7;9.5);238 I suggest that it is this that distinguishes the Son from the Spirit. Various concepts coexist: a “triangular” Trinity where the Son and the Spirit appear on the same level, worshipping the Father, whereby the Son must be transformed in order to achieve this, and a three-level hierarchy, which expresses the Son’s true nature.239 Hannah draws a parallel between the “triangular” Trinity and Origen’s equation of the Son and the Spirit with the seraphim (below).240 Subordinationism is acceptable in the first and second centuries, as will be seen in the case of Justin. The Son’s transformation to an angel should be linked with his descent, in the original sense of “angel” as a messenger from God.241 Christ is sent out to execute judgement on “the princes and the angels and the gods of that world” (10.12); but in fact neither judgement or punishment are shown: the revelation of Christ’s identity as he returns to the Father appears sufficient to make Satan and the (evil) angels of the firmament worship him (11.23). The effect of Christ’s descent, disguised as an angel, is to save the fallen angels; we will return to this point when considering Origen. There is, however, an important difference between Asc. Isa. and Origen: Christ's taking of angelic and human nature remains merely a disguise (note the docetic tone of the birth narrative).242 In the beginning of the descent, in the sixth heaven, Christ is not disguised, and the angels glorify him (10.19). In the lower heavens he is increasingly disguised, so that the angels of each heaven fail to recognise him. The inference must be that the angels are ranked in the heavens according to the 236

Norelli, Ascensio, 404. Stuckenbruck, Worship, 76–78. He explains the prohibition of worship with the fact that Isaiah’s ultimate goal is the seventh heaven; hence he is superior to the enthroned angel and must not worship him. The Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice also show worship of angelic princes: see 2.1.2 below. Note that the Holy Spirit is only characterized as an angel, in contrast to Christ, and is nevertheless worshipped. 238 Gieschen, Name, 150. 239 Norelli, Ascensio, 485. This may be due to later manipulation of the text, 488 f. 240 Isaiah, 90–95. 241 Norelli, Ascensio, 487. 242 Norelli, Ascensio, 511, contrasts the true of Phil 2. Hannah, Ascension, 172– 181, denies any real parallel between 11.17 and Tob 12.19, Gen 18 and other occasions when angels only appear to eat. 237

58

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

degree of knowledge, or vision, of Christ (and hence of God) that they possess. In the lower heavens, where the knowledge is less, the degree of disguise must be greater. This point will be relevant to our discussion of Ephrem. This is the reason for the necessity of disguise even in the non-rebellious heavens; although obedient, the angels there are imperfect.243 The logical conclusion, not drawn by Asc. Isa., would be that after Christ’s ascension the seven heavens collapse into one, improving the situation of the unfallen angels in the lower heavens; this too points to Origen. However, Asc. Isa. appears to have lost any eschatological expectation for the period after the ascension, no doubt partly due to its projection into the past, to Isaiah: the eschatological expectation looks forward to incarnation and ascension, and stops there. For Origen, progression towards perfection continues into the future. Daniélou uses Asc. Isa. to argue that Jewish Christian works use angelological expressions to describe the Word and the Spirit, without implying that they are actually angels. “Le mot représente la forme sémitique de la désignation du Verbe et de l’Esprit comme des substances spirituelles, comme des ‘personnes’. Mais ces mots ne seront introduits dans la théologie que bien plus tard. ‘Ange’ est leur équivalent archaïque.”244 It is true that the Son and the Spirit are not simply equated with (other, ordinary) angels, in that they are worshipped by these. Daniélou therefore identifies here an angelomorphic Christology, not an angel-Christology.245 However, this may reveal too restricted a concept of angels. Asc. Isa. could be understood as indicating that Christ and the Spirit represent “principal angels”, a type of divine being that is nearer full divinity than angels but nevertheless created. This is suggested by Stroumsa, who links the angels of the Son and Spirit from Asc. Isa. with the tradition reported by Origen (Comm. Rom. 3.8), that the Son and the Spirit are the two cherubim of the mercy-seat.246 Cuius ergo formam duo ista cherubin habere aestimanda sunt? Cherubin enim in nostram linguam interpretatum plenitudinem scientiarum significat.247 Ubi ergo dicemus esse plenitudinem scientiarum nisi in eo de quo dicit apostolus: ‘in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi?’ [Col. 2.3] De uerbo utique Dei haec dicit apostolus. Sed et de Spiritu Sancto similia scribit cum dicit: ‘nobis autem reuelauit Deus per spiritum suum, spiritus enim omnia scrutatur etiam alta Dei.’ [1 Cor 2.10] Significat igitur | ut ego arbitror in isto propitiatorio, hoc est in anima Iesu, uerbum Dei qui est unigenitus Filius et Sanctum eius Spiritum semper habitare et hoc est quod indicant duo cherubin propitiatorio superposita.248 243 Compare 1 Tim 3.16 “seen by angels”, more evidence for a tradition of Christ being revealed to the (good) angels. 244 Daniélou, Théologie, 168 f. 245 Daniélou, Théologie, 179. See also Hannah, Michael, 197–99. 246 Stroumsa, Couple, 27. 247 Philo defines cherubim as (Mos. II.97). 248 Bammel, 240.

1.2 The first century and beyond

59

Origen himself is using the angelic figures symbolically, to express two realities within the one Christ, rather than an actual portrayal of either Christ or Spirit as an angel.249 However, the underlying tradition may have had an angelic Christology and pneumatology; similarly Origen’s report of an interpretation of the seraphim of Isa 6 as the Son and the Spirit, from his Hebrew teacher (Princ. 1.3.4; see 2.2.4 below). This may indeed indicate the continuing existence of distinctive Jewish-Christian theological traditions in the third century. It appears that we cannot reconstruct a distinctively Jewish Christian link between angels and orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the traditions detected in Origen and Asc. Isa. appear to reflect a form of Christianity related to the angelology of Qumran, in that principal angels worship God, and lesser angels worship God and principal angels. Angels seem to be an important “litmus test” for orthodoxy in Asc. Isa., through the angelic refusal of worship. However, this should not be labelled as Jewish Christian but simply Christian.250 The Shepherd of Hermas, which comes from Rome, has clear links with the angelology discussed above. It also reflects a strong connection between angels and orthodoxy, especially in Vis. 3 and Sim. 8. Thus it seems appropriate to turn to a geographical category, and to see whether a distinctive form of Palestinian and Syrian Christianity emerges. 1.2.3.2 Palestinian and Syrian Christianity We can confidently attribute a body of literature to authors residing or originating in Palestine or Syria, beginning with the NT.251 Jewish influence is also visible in works with no direct connection with Syria / Palestine, for example 1 Clement.252 While it is true that from the first Christians show great mobility, nevertheless the Jewish matrix of the Palestinian church will have influenced the type of Christianity that developed here. It is then necessary to distinguish between the western part of Syria / Palestine, where Christian authors are in dialogue with Greek philosophy from Justin onwards, and the eastern part, which remained comparatively uninfluenced by Greek thought until the end of our period. The eastern authors are best treated separately. Christians reworked Jewish writings such as Asc. Isa., TAdam, Lives of the Prophets, Life of Adam and Eve, 2 Esdras (4 Ezra), 2 Baruch, and TXIIP. These works, with their interest in angelology and heavenly secrets, were not only 249

Irenaeus, Dem. 10 names the powers of Word and Wisdom (= Son and Spirit), which are the cherubim and seraphim, and Daniélou and others have interpreted this to mean that Word and Wisdom are called cherubim and seraphim; but this involves a dubious emendation: Hannah, Michael, 201. 250 See Bauckham’s discussion of the “refusal tradition”: Climax, 118–149. 251 Although Mark is sometimes located at Rome, Matthew’s dependence seems to argue an origin either in Syria / Palestine or Egypt, since Matthew probably stems from Antioch. 252 Jaubert, Thèmes.

60

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

read by simple believers: Origen cites non-canonical writings, and angels play a key role in his systematic theology. In effect he is synthesising Jewish angelological ideas with the quasi-angelological ideas found in Platonism. In this he has a predecessor in Philo, who says (Gig. 6), “It is Moses’ custom to give the name of angels to those whom other philosophers call demons (or spirits), souls that is which fly and hover in the air.”253 Philo can call the Logos an archangel (Conf. 146, also ), although “the actual function of the Logos … [suggests influence rather from] late Platonist philosophy, where the remote transcendent God requires a second, metaphysically inferior aspect of himself to face towards the lower world.”254 Xenocrates distinguished good from evil spirits and attributed everything immoral to the latter which would otherwise be attributed to the gods.255 Thus Platonist angelology developed from a similar motive of theodicy to that which we have already discerned in the Bible. Xenocrates also distinguished three kinds of demons ( ): those who had always been demons; those who were human souls which became demons after separating from the body at death; those who were in human beings and identical with the soul. Judaism and Christianity also envisage the possibility of souls becoming angels after death, although it is by no means the only belief on the fate of the soul.256 Philo says some souls descend into bodies, while some serve as ministering angels (Gig. 12); soul, demon and angel are different names for the same thing (16). Evil is explained by the fact that inferior angels share in creation. This idea of a differentiated fall is strongly reminiscent of Origen; see chapter 2. Original Christian writings were also produced in Syria and Palestine at this time. From the middle of the second century come the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the Apocryphon of James and probably the source of the Acts of Pilate, the Acts of John and the Acts of Thomas. The Thomas literature is strongly ascetic and shows interest in angels, e. g. Gos. Thom. log. 88; the Acts will be considered in detail in the next section. The Apocalypse of Peter, mid-second century, probably originated in Egypt, but was read in churches in “Palestine” in the 5th century (Sozomen, HE 7.19). Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 2.19, apparently cites it. This shows the widespread early popularity of a text (noted as of debatable canonicity in the Muratorian Canon) which was later condemned. It goes into great detail about the torments of hell and the dark angels of punishment, and names Uriel, Ezrael angel of wrath, and Tatirokos (Tartarouchos). 253

, of course, do not have the same negative connotation as demons. Also Somn.

141. 254

Chadwick, Philo, 145. Merlan, Academy, 34 f. On Middle Platonism’s discussion of plurality in God see also Osborn, Emergence, 48–52. 256 2 Baruch 51.5; 3 Enoch 9–15, 2 Enoch 22 (Enoch); TAbraham 11–13 (Adam and Abel); cf. Ezekiel Trag Exagoge 68–82 (Moses); Mart. Polycarp 2, Origen Princ. 1.8.4. 255

1.2 The first century and beyond

61

We now turn to writings by Church Fathers from the area. Gentile Christianity began in Antioch, but the city was also home to a large Jewish community, and Antiochene Christianity appears to have continued to show a Jewish colouring.257 The letters of Ignatius of Antioch reveal the danger of Judaizing, e. g. Magn. 8–10, Phil. 6. He is also striving against docetic Christology (Trall. 10–11, Smyrn. 2).258 Trall. 5 appears to reflect awareness of the danger of angelic speculation, since he refuses to write about “heavenly things, and the places of the angels, and their gatherings under their respective princes”. The struggle against Judaizers was to remain characteristic of Christianity in Antioch until the fifth century.259 John Chrysostom calls Paul of Samosata “a Jew wearing a Christian mask, … ” (Comm. Ps. 109.2, PG 55, 267); the accusation may be a consequence of Paul’s low Christology.260 Paul is tenuously linked with Arius, through Lucian of Antioch who may have followed his teachings, and there is a certain resemblance between their Christologies. If he was in fact a precursor of Arianism, this may indicate a particular attitude to angels also: linked with Arius’ idea that the Son is a creature, though pre-eminent, is the existence of other powers ( ) of God.261 Christ seems to be conceived by Arius along the lines of a principal angel, or Philo’s Logos; hence we may possibly infer an angelic Christology for Paul of Samosata. Note Epiphanius’ discussion of angels in his chapters on Paul of Samosata and the Arians (below). Justin Martyr has an intriguing comment in 1 Apol. 6.2: “But both Him [God the Father], and the Son (who came forth from him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore …”

… 257

Downey, Antioch. Goulder, Tale, 28–30, describes Petrine (law-observant) and Pauline Christian missions and counter-missions in Asia Minor. His view of Col 2.18 is that Petrine Christians were appealing to visions of the heavenly throne and messages direct from archangels to counter Paul’s teaching (48–53). Goulder associates angels exclusively with Petrine Jewish Christianity; however, section 2.3.3 will conclude that Merkabah traditions are represented in Syriac-speaking Christianity. 259 Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 2. 260 Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 24. 261 Hanson, Search, 20. Asterius, fr. II in De Synodis 18, speaks of Christ as of the many powers created by God: ibid., 33. Werner’s thesis is that Arianism is the last remnant of an original angel Christology: Entstehung, 375. Barbel, Christos, 349, counters that “weiterhin müssen wir gestehen, nicht zu wissen, ob Arius und die ersten Arianer so etwas wie eine Engelchristologie vertraten.” He adds that the use of the title Angelos for Christ “zur Schaffung einer arianischen Atmosphäre beigetragen hat” (350); in view of the pervasive association of Arianism with angels by Epiphanius, this is probably correct. 258

62

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

This passage is singular in Justin. His Christology is subordinationist and centred on the identification of Christ with the divine Logos visible in OT appearances of God. This being can have many names: in 1 Apol. 63, Christ is called both angel and apostle; but these are functional titles (Dial. 56 and 128, he is called angel because he came to humankind). Dial. 61, “God begat … a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself captain, when he appeared in human form to Joshua …” (similarly Dial. 34, 126 and 128). “Holy Spirit” indicates scripture: Justin is enumerating scriptural titles for the one being who appears in many guises. The most similar passage to 1 Apol. 6 is Dial. 58, “He who is both Angel and God and Lord, and who appeared as a man to Abraham, and who wrestled in human form with Jacob …” This does seem to refer to Christ actually being an angel, and not simply titled as one.262 However, the “other good angels” are clearly distinct from Christ (see especially Dial. and / 128).263 Osborn notes Justin’s distinction between , underscoring Christ’s supremacy over the creatures.264 What can we make of 1 Apol. 6.2 as regards angelology? Justin envisages hosts of angels, led by Christ, who is their . The angels are worthy of some kind of veneration (but note 1 Apol. 13, which clearly restricts worship to Father, Son and Spirit). The fact that Justin’s Christology is so clearly subordinationist makes his acceptance of angel veneration understandable. The unbegotten Father is worshipped in the first place, the Son in the second and the Spirit in the third (1 Apol. 13). But since Justin freely uses angel-langugage of Christ, and calls him the captain of the (other) angels, a lesser degree of veneration for these lesser but still heavenly beings follows naturally. The fact that he takes angel veneration as a matter of course supports our earlier observations of Jewish angel veneration: it is a non-controversial part of inherited tradition. Tatian studied in Rome under Justin, and then returned to Syria or Mesopotamia. He was an extreme ascetic, rejecting wine, meat and marriage.265 Drijvers suggests that, though Western writers associated Tatian with sectarian Encratites, his ideas represent the common coin of East Syrian Christianity, which had a strong ascetic tendency from the beginning.266 Tatian’s Diatessaron or Gospel harmony had canonical status in the Syrian church until the fifth century. The original text is lost, but partly reconstructed from citations in Aphrahat and 262 “Ob nun der Logos deshalb untergeordnet ist, weil er Bote ist, oder ob er Bote ist, weil er als Logos untergeordnet ist, wird von Justinus nie klar gesagt.” Barbel, Christos, 54. 263 Hannah, Michael, 202–206; Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 138. 264 Osborn, Justin, 29. 265 Hunt, Tatian, 64, 144–175, plays down Tatian’s asceticism, e. g. suggesting that alterations in the Diatessaron may stem from Ephrem or editors (148 f.). 266 Drijvers, East, 7. Also Vööbus, Persia, 37.

1.2 The first century and beyond

63

Ephrem; there are also fragments of translations, e. g. into Persian and Arabic, reflecting its great popularity. The Diatessaron reveals Tatian’s ascetic interests in interpolations and alterations: even “I am the true vine”, Jn 15.1, becomes “I am the tree of the fruit of the truth”; it also avoids referring to Joseph as the husband of Mary, and alters Lk 2.36 to say that the prophetess Anna remained a virgin in her marriage.267 Since so little of his work survives, it is impossible to determine whether Tatian’s asceticism was founded on a Greek / Gnostic argument or was more akin to Jewish ascetic traditions. Tatian believes that angels were created before humankind, which suggests a knowledge of Jewish angelology (Oratio ad Graecos 7). However, the Logos is the Framer of angels (ibid.) and is God’s instrument in creation. There is no indication of any use of angelology for the sake of Christology. Tatian also knows fallen angels and one firstborn fallen angel. Tatian distinguishes two kinds of spirit, and ; before the fall humankind possessed both. Immortality is conferred by the union of the soul with the divine spirit; salvation is achieved by the struggle for this union, so that the Holy Spirit indwells the soul, and by the rejection of the demons. However, Tatian expressly states that demons are not human souls. His linking of demons with matter had far-reaching consequences for Syrian Christianity. He says, “Should anyone wish to conquer them [the demons], let him repudiate matter” (16); this means subduing the passions: “Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it” (11). Tatian’s asceticism should be seen against the background of the popularity of Marcionite Christianity in Syria and Palestine: Justin wrote a work against Marcion. Marcionites were celibate, rejecting marriage and meat-eating, possibly also wine.268 They fasted on the Sabbath; baptism was reserved for the celibate. These ideas did not seem heretical in the Christian East. Eusebius of Caesarea discusses Jewish beliefs in Book 7 of the Praeparatio evangelica, which yields some remarks about angels. Human nature cannot describe the spiritual and rational powers because of the multitude and variety of their forms (7.15.1), in uncountable families and kinds (7.15.12); they can only draw an analogy with the multitude of the stars. This seems to indicate a developed angelology with many ranks of angels. Eusebius states that sacred Scripture calls these powers by the name of … (7.15.15). Not all these terms are attested in the Old Testament, although Eusebius is portraying Judaism. In the next section he speaks of a fallen power (the devil) and an infinity of other fallen beings (his angels); this too seems to reflect post-OT Judaism better than “sacred Scripture”. In Book 11 he discusses Philo’s Logos as the secondary cause (of creation). He 267

Vööbus, Persia, 41 f. Note their distaste for the material creation, altering the Lord’s Prayer to “Give us this day thy daily bread”. 268

64

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

cites Plato’s Laws for the existence of gods and demons, but says that Jewish thought anticipated Plato by thousands of years. The devil is the negative power, the angels of God the good powers (11.26). In the Demonstratio evangelica Eusebius speaks several times of the angels’ duty of caring for humankind (4.144 d, 4.155d–156a, 4.156c). In the last passage he cites Dt 32.8 LXX in support of the teaching that the angels care for the nations, whereas Israel was confided to the highest and king of all, namely Christ. Elsewhere it is wicked demons and opposing powers that rule the nations who are enemies of Israel (3.75c). The demons are located in the air (3.141b) and all over the world (4.159d). In Book 7 Eusebius discusses the seraphim of Isa 6 (7.309d–312a). He defines “seraphim” as “the choirs of angels and divine powers, or of the prophets and apostles; for ‘seraphim’ translated is ‘the beginning of their mouth’”, and the prophets are the beginning of the preaching of salvation: ; (7.311 a)

This type of etymology is familiar from Philo. A little later Eusebius gives the correct etymology, , citing Ps. 104.4. In keeping with his Christological interpretation of this passage, “Lord of hosts” is applied to Christ, who is called (311d) – the title comes from Josh 5.14 LXX. However, Eusebius seems unaware that this is an angelic title; likewise, although he mentions the , he seems little concerned with rankings of different angels, certainly not that the seraphim are the highest class of angel. The angels carry no particular theological emphasis in this passage, whose focus is on Christ. Eusebius’ student Eusebius of Emesa discusses angels in his fifth homily, De imagine.269 He says that as the soul is greater in honour than the body, so are the angels greater than the soul. The angelic nature needs neither houses, food, money nor sleep; instead they praise constantly the Unborn and the Son (5.15; a similar list 24.5).270 He goes on, Sine somno natura ignorat requiem; vigilans virtus semper adorat.

He then mentions the multitude of different kinds of angel, comparing them with the stars; this conjunction strongly suggests a dependence on Eusebius of Caesarea. However, he appears to be expanding Eusebius with more clearly Jewish ideas. The participle vigilans, taken in apposition to virtus as “the power, as a Watcher, always adores”, suggests the Jewish angelic title of . He also stresses 269 Nearly all of Eusebius’ homilies are extant only in a Latin translation, probably of the fourth or fifth century. Buytaert, vol. 1, p. LII. 270 Cf. a Greek fragment: ; Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire, p. 13*, fr. 2.

65

1.2 The first century and beyond

more strongly than Eusebius of Caesarea that the differences between the angelic kinds include differences of rank: Angelos enim archangeli virtute et dignitate praecellunt. Later in the homily he underscores that angels have not saved us, but Christ (5.29). Thus nunc autem ab unigenito Dei Filio ita salvati sumus, ut ad similitudinem angelorum veniremus, ubi non nubunt neque nubuntur quia non sicut delictum, ita et donum (5.30). Eusebius of Emesa here reflects ideas which locate him in the ascetic tradition of Syriac-speaking Christianity, as well as the Greek-speaking mainstream of his teacher. Firstly, the likeness of angels is already achieved, not connected with the attainment of heaven. Secondly, it is equated with chastity, exemplified in the text “they neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Mk 12.25 and parallels), which in the original is explicitly referred to the heavenly state, but which Eusebius elsewhere also links with praise of virginity (e. g. 23.9 qui in bellis vincunt, non efficiuntur ut angeli, sed qui neque nubunt neque nubuntur). Christians are apparently only fully saved if they abstain from marriage. He is more careful in his discussion of virginity in homily 6, De martyribus (it is fuller here than in 7 De virginibus): 6.6 marriage is good, but virginity is better. In 6.17 he admits: si non essent nuptiae, nec virgines essent. Nevertheless virginity has the highest honour. However, Eusebius of Emesa nowhere reflects the Jewish apocalyptic idea that angels are privy to the secrets of heaven. He stresses rather the ignorance of the angels (following Mt 24.36), in order to stress a fortiori human ignorance of the generation of the Son (9.8), and similarly 14.18 on the relation of the Father and the Son: angeli nesciunt et ego inquiro? This is reminiscent of Ephrem’s portrayal of the reverent silence of the angels before the divine mystery (2.3 below). Cyril of Jerusalem gives apparent rankings of angelic orders twice in his Catechetical Lectures, but they differ: 16.23 angels, archangels, spirits, virtues, principalities, powers, thrones, dominions; and 23.6 (= Myst. 5.6) angels, archangels, virtues, dominions, principalities, powers, thrones, cherubim, seraphim.271 Cyril mentions angels quite often, e. g. their joy over those now preparing for baptism. Of particular interest is 2.6: “but how much He forgave the angels we know not; for them also he forgave, since One alone is without sin. even Jesus who purgeth our sins.” This assertion that the angels require the atonement of Christ is paralleled to a certain extent in Origen, Princ. fr. 30: Christ may be crucified in the heavenly places to combat the “spiritual hosts of wickedness” (see 2.2.1). This teaching is condemned in Justinian’s edict against Origen of 543.272 It is interesting to find it paralleled in so orthodox an author as Cyril. We may compare Job 4.18, “Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he 271

3

Compare the ranking of Ps.-Dionysius (in descending order): 1 ;4 5 6 ;7 8

2 9

272

Görgemanns, 824.

.

66

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

charges with error”, and also Job 15.15, “God puts no trust even in his holy ones, and the heavens are not clean in his sight”. The function of such assertions may be to stress the superlative perfection of God. Cyril speaks of the angelic life several times (4.1, 4.24, 12.34). The and virgins are models for the rest of the church (4.24). However, he instructs catechumens not to be puffed up against those who follow “the humbler path of matrimony” (4.25); clearly it is necessary to distinguish orthodox Christians from Marcionites. Human beings cannot understand the nature of cherubim (9.3), or what principalities, powers etc. are (11.12); but all ranks of angels cannot comprehend God: The angels see God not as he is, but as far as they themselves are capable … The angels therefore behold as much as they can bear, and archangels as much as they are able; and thrones and dominions more than the former, but yet less than His worthiness; for with the Son the Holy Ghost alone can rightly behold Him. (6.6)273

This seems to prefigure Ps.-Dionysius (see section 2.3.5). A similar passage in 11.11 says that the orders of angels, who each seem to be in a separate heaven, do not know how the Father begot the Son. The number of angels is immense: the 99 sheep of the parable of the lost sheep are the angels, and all humankind that ever lived the single lost one (15.24). Heaven is much larger than earth, as the circumference of a wheel to the hub, and the higher heavens in proportion (6.3). This may possibly reflect the rabbinic teaching on the vast extent of the heavens (b Hag 13a): The thickness of each firmament is equal to a journey of five hundred years, and so are the spaces between the seven firmaments. Above them are the holy Chayyoth. Their feet measure a distance equal to all of these put together; their ankles are of similar dimension … (etc.)

In general, Cyril’s teaching belongs to the by now established mainstream. He shares angelological themes with Eusebius of Emesa (their ignorance of the divine mystery, the “angelic life” of virgins), but mentions more different ranks of angels. It may be concluded that these have become stock themes; note also the shared defence of matrimony. Eusebius’ si non essent nuptiae, nec virgines essent is balanced by Cyril’s “Thou too who retainest thy chastity, wast thou not begotten of those who had married?” (4.25).274 Even in Cyril’s time Marcionism is a serious opponent. Epiphanius of Salamis had a monastic career in Palestine before becoming bishop. The Panarion has occasional valuable remarks on angels: for example, angels buried the body of Moses (9.4.13). Deut 34.6 mentions no angels; however, DeutR 11.10 mentions Michael, Gabriel and Zagzagel; Tg Ps.-Jon ad loc. 273

Tr. Gifford. The topos also appears in Jerome, Adv. Iovinianum 1.16 (PL 23, 235): nuptiae terram replent, virginitas paradisum. 274

1.2 The first century and beyond

67

names Michael, Gabriel, Metatron, Jophiel, Uriel, and Jephephia. Epiphanius is evidently referring to some extra-biblical tradition of Jewish origin. In the chapter on Paul of Samosata, he says that the angels were created together with the firmament and earth and heaven (65.4.8), citing Job 38.7 to show that they were created before the stars. “[T]he angels were not created after the stars, and … they were not created before heaven and earth” (65.5.4). This again suggests extra-biblical traditions such as that reflected in GenR 1.3 (text section 1.2.1.6). Epiphanius postulates a questioner asking Aetius, “Tell me what the top of the heavens is, the bottom of the underworld, what is to the right, what is to the left of creation!” (76.54.19). This strongly resembles m Hag 2.1, “Whoever reflects on four things, it were a mercy if he had never come into the world, viz. what is above, what is beneath, what is before and what is after.” Moreover, angels play a key role in Epiphanius’ argument against the Arians: 69.52.1 But if they say, “If he was of the Father why did he become flesh?” our reply would be, “What do you say about the angels?” Everyone knows that Arians admit that the angels were made by the Son. 2Indeed, they also blaspheme the Holy Spirit by venturing to say that he was created by the Son, although he is an uncreated being who proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son. 3Hence, if they dare to say this of the Holy Spirit, how much more can they not deny that the angels, who are creatures, have their being from the Only-begotten? But if the angels he created were made spiritual but in spite of that are his creation, and, as his workmanship, are infinitely far below his essence – and yet they have not taken flesh – what about that? 4Are they greater than the Son even though he created them? Or what about the Holy Spirit? Why didn’t he – either the Holy Spirit of God or one of the holy angels – become flesh, and put on flesh and become man? 5The Son surely did not assume flesh because of an inferiority to the Father. In that case the angels, or even the Spirit, would surely have assumed flesh.275

Here the angels have the theological function of contrast between the uncreated and yet incarnate Son and the created and yet non-fleshly angels. The Son, creator of the angels, is not himself a creature, although he took flesh. This was “to show that the reason for Adam’s transgression or disobedience was not his creaturehood, or that God had made sin” (6). It appears that at the time the Panarion was written (c. 375–8), there is still variety in the names of the angelic orders, as we have seen in Cyril. In his discussion of the Arians, Epiphanius says the following: “Then again they say, ‘How could he come in the flesh, if he was of the Father’s essence?’ They should tell us why angels, who are his servants [and not of his essence], have not taken flesh. Why not archangels? Why not hosts? Why not all the other spiritual beings?” (69.17.1) This passage indicates that “hosts” are an order of angels, not a more general appellation; they are named as such in AposCon, TDomini, and also Ignatius, Trall. In 66.3.14, Epiphanius describes how a heretic was pulled 275

tr. Williams, vol. 2, 368 f.

68

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

to his death by an angel, i. e. acting as God’s intermediary. Epiphanius regularly refers to details from the Book of Jubilees, with and without citing their source; he quotes its other name, the Little Genesis, at 39.6.1. Jubilees does not figure in the list of Jewish canonical books at 8.6.2–4, even among the named apocrypha; nevertheless Epiphanius clearly treats it as having a certain authority. Epiphanius does not seem to be aware that “sons of God” is an angelic title: he quotes Ps. 89.6 (69.53.7), “Who shall be likened unto the Lord among the sons of God?”, and says that all things are termed sons colloquially, but the Son alone is Son by nature, not grace.276 In his discussion of the Katharoi, Epiphanius mentions the rules regarding clerical celibacy (59.4.1–3). According to him, the orthodox Christian norm excludes remarried widowers. “She (the Church) does not even accept the husband of one wife if he is still cohabiting with her and fathering children. She does accept the abstinent husband of one wife, or a widower, as a deacon, presbyter, bishop and subdeacon”. Celibacy is not mentioned, but since Epiphanius is himself a celibate ex-monastic, it should be taken for granted. We may compare De Fide 21.7 f.277: But the crown … of all these is the holy priesthood, which is drawn mostly from virgins, but if not from virgins, from single men. (8) If there are not enough single men to serve, it is composed of men who abstain from relations with their own wives, or widowers who have had only one wife.

This pattern of celibacy or married continence bears a close resemblance to the strict rules of the Syriac-speaking church of the third century. These, however, are regularly supported with references to the angelic life; Epiphanius fails to mention angels in this context. It would be worth investigating whether Epiphanius’ assumptions do in fact reflect the norm for the fourth-century church in Syria, Palestine and surrounding areas, or whether his approach is especially rigorous. He next discusses a group called Angelics (60.1.1–2). Epiphanius only knows the name and speculates whether its origin is because some people say the world was made by angels, or whether “because they boasted of having the rank of angels and leading particularly exemplary lives” (2). The existence of groups of this latter type is clear enough; unfortunately Epiphanius does not offer any information as to who gave the group this name; other titles of heresies are invented by Epiphanius (e. g. the Alogoi). John Chrysostom was born in Antioch and wrote the homilies on the Statues (387) and against the Jews (386 / 7) there. He shows themes that are now familiar: the monks enter Antioch like angels arriving from heaven (Hom. Stat. 17.3); the angelic life of the monks is also shown by John the Baptist (Hom. Matt. 10.4). To go to the monastery of a holy man is to pass, as it were, from earth to 276 277

74.8.6–9.6 offers a similar distinction between spirits and the Holy Spirit. The last section of the Panarion.

1.2 The first century and beyond

69

heaven (Hom. 1 Tim. 14). Chrysostom can cite the names of angelic orders, e. g. Hom. Matt. 54.9, angels, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, whole host, royal palaces, tabernacles; but this appears to be simply rhetorical amplification, without any stress on ranking or function. Chrysostom too has a word to say on “marrying and giving in marriage”: “But not because they do not marry, therefore are they angels, but because they are as angels, therefore they do not marry” (Hom. Matt. 70.2). It seems that Chrysostom is aware of the more ascetical interpretation of this saying and wishes to counter it. Similarly 77.1, like Eusebius of Emesa and Ephrem, comments on the ignorance of angels to encourage human reticence. Like them, he knows their sleepless nature ( ) (Hom. John 15.2). The Homilies on Acts, probably written in Constantinople, argue that a man can become an angel, since it is virtue that makes angels (32). Hom. Acts 43 states that God does not punish by his own hand, but by means of the angels. He may here be following Philo, Fug. 66, “For it is unbecoming to God to punish … He punishes not by his own hands but by those of others, who act as his ministers ( )”.278 The office of angels is to minister to God for our salvation (Hom. Heb. 3.4); a comment which downplays the independent importance of the angelic world. In Comm. Gal. ad 1.8–9 (PG 61, 624) Chrysostom appears to assert a belief which rabbinic Judaism was now seeking to impose against the tradition of angelic involvement in the giving of the Torah: he says that Scripture ranks above angels, for angels are only servants, and Scripture was given, not by servants, but by God. There is good evidence for a tradition that angels gave the law on Sinai: Josephus, Ant. 15.136, Acts 7.53, Gal 3.19, Heb 2.2; SongR 1.2 2; also the setting of Jubilees, where the angel is the mediator of God’s revelation to Moses.279 Again like Eusebius of Emesa, Hom. Rom. 9 stresses that “it was not by angels or archangels, but by His only-begotten Son Himself that He saved us”. This formulation is so similar to the Jewish “not by an angel, nor by a seraph” (ARN B 1.2) that it strongly suggests that Chrysostom knew some form of this expression and is deliberately Christianising it.280 In Hom. John 56.3 Chrysostom speaks of building a house in heaven, with Peter, Paul, and angels as neighbours, and 278

See also De opif. mundi 75: God’s subordinates are responsible for evil; also Conf. 179–182. 279 The majority of later rabbinic opinion repudiated the tradition of angelic involvement in the giving of the Torah, e. g. ARN B 1.2 “not by the mouth of an angel or seraph” ‫״‬ ‫״‬ (Schechter, p. 2). See Schäfer, Rivalität, 111–159. Angels are present, but not mediating the law, in Mekhilta Exod. 20.18, PesR 21.7. 280 Isa 63.9 LXX doubtless lies in the background of both, but the two angelic titles are common to Chrysostom and ARN, but not LXX. Significantly, there is a Kethibh / Qere in MT which removes even the suggestion of angelic help beyond that of the single angel of the presence, who may be more easily understood as a hypostasis of God himself: . Q = , to give the sense “in all their distress he was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them”.

70

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

contrasts it with the folly of building palatial houses on earth. This may possibly reflect knowledge of the Acts of Thomas and the palace Thomas builds for the king in heaven, rather than on earth as instructed (Act. Thom. 17–25). To summarize: the mainstream, Greek-speaking authors show awareness of various elements of Jewish angel beliefs, and can use them to support their arguments.281 But these beliefs have been fully “baptised”; in the fourth-century authors, the process of synthesis is already complete, and the Greek structure of their thought remains the dominant element. Thus in the western part of SyriaPalestine, Jewish Christianity, still discernible as a legitimate variant in Justin, is lost entirely in a mainstream which is Jewish insofar as it retains elements of the parent religion, of which belief in angels is one. But Epiphanius’ discussion of Paul of Samosata and of the Arians shows that Christians, like Jews, were aware that unusual angel beliefs could signal unorthodoxy on crucial matters such as Christology. The stress on reverent silence in connection with angels may be an equivalent phenomenon to the rabbinic attempts to control access to angelic speculation. 1.2.3.3 Syriac-speaking Christianity Almost all writings originating in the Syriac-speaking area and the first three Christian centuries are transmitted in both Greek and Syriac versions; the literate usually knew both languages.282 Thus the area’s isolation from Western Christian thought should not be overstressed. However, the area around Edessa is distinctive in that competing variants of Christianity persist there much later than in the West. As late as 363, when Ephrem came to Edessa, orthodox Christians were in the minority in the town, a smaller group than Bardaisanites, Marcionites and Manichaeans.283 There was also a large Jewish community, while the bulk of the population were pagans.284 Drijvers suggests that the Bardaisanites, Marcionites and Manichaeans were likely to be of pagan rather than Jewish origin; thus the only part of the Christian church that had substantial contact with Jews, until the end of the third century, was the very small orthodox community.285 The church of pagan origin was characterised by gnostic and encratite tendencies. However, Vööbus ascribes the ascetic tendency of the Syriac-speaking church to its Jewish origins, and considers that Christianity came to Edessa from Pales281

Kessler, Exegetical, suggests criteria for determining influence in either direction. Drijvers, East, 3. Bardaisan spoke Greek and Syriac (Epiphanius, Pan. 56). Drijvers, Syrian, 125. Murray, Characteristics, 10, notes the Hellenistic genres of earliest Syriac prose, despite the lack of the Greek loanwords that characterise later Syriac. 283 Drijvers, Bardaisan, 127. 284 Drijvers, Jews, 89. Kirsten, Edessa, 562–572. 285 Drijvers, Jews, 96. Against the Jewish theory of Vööbus and Murray, he points to the absence of Jews from Tatian, Bardaisan and Thomas literature (Syrian, 139), and characterises the encratism of Act. Thom. as “anything but Jewish” (Early, 167). 282

1.2 The first century and beyond

71

tine, and from Jewish Christians.286 Murray agrees on the Jewish origin, citing similarities between the qeiama and ascetical movements like the Qumran community.287 However, in his opinion “the Christianity of Aphrahat and Ephrem is best accounted for as a breakaway movement among the Jewish community in Adiabene”, rather than direct from Palestine.288 Syriac Christianity retained a number of Jewish features: midrashic-style interpretation, liturgical singing and the architectural element of the raised bema from the synagogue.289 Hence Murray calls Syriac Christianity the principal surviving heir of Jewish Christianity.290 The Doctrina Addai (whose core is late third century) portrays the first missionary, Addai, staying in Edessa with Tobia, son of Tobia the Jew from Palestine. It also shows him as an ascetic, rejecting a reward from King Abgar. The Doctrina Addai is, according to Drijvers, the “propaganda tract” of the small Christian group at Edessa “which would develop into a fourth-century orthodoxy having close links with Antioch”.291 He notes the identity of the apostle’s name with that of a Manichaean missionary; by incorporating the correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa, the Doctrina Addai also underscores the antiquity and authenticity of its Christianity by contrast to Manichaeism. Monasticism developed independently in Syria from that of Egypt; the Syrian monastic tradition is at least as old as the Egyptian.292 It is also more radical, especially in its rejection of work for the sake of prayer.293 Far from being a startling innovation, as in the West, it is a natural consequence of the high value placed on virginity and asceticism in the Syrian church. It was also more influential in the wider Christian society, e. g. the monks of Antioch saved the city in the affair of the statues (John Chrysostom, Hom. Stat. 17.3); a pilgrimage industry later developed around St. Simeon Stylites. Monasticism and radical ascetic practices are found in Marcionite Christianity and Manichaeism as well as the orthodox variant of Christianity, and seem to be 286

Vööbus, Persia, 7. Murray, Circumcision, 202. His argument is that Aphrahat 11, drawing a parallel between Joshua’s circumcision of the Israelites, and Jesus and the circumcision of the heart, refers to baptism and the qeiama, an allegorical interpretation from a Jewish source. 288 Murray, Symbols, 8. 289 Murray, Symbols, 18f; also Rouwhorst, Jewish. For an example of midrashic interpretation in Aphrahat, see Murray, Symbols, 97–100. Koltun-Fromm, Yokes, argues for affinities between Aphrahat’s expression “yoke of the holy ones” in Dem. 6 and the rabbinic expression “yoke of Torah”, e. g. m Aboth 3.5, NumR 19.26. 290 Murray, Characteristics, 5. 291 Syrian, 135. Brock, Eusebius, 228, notes its concern to establish a link with Rome, “which is achieved by the statement that Addai’s second successor, Palut, was consecrated bishop by Serapion of Antioch [and he by Zephyrinus of Rome]”. 292 For a possible influence from Syrian asceticism on Antony, see Murray, Characteristics, 9. 293 The Manichee elect do not work, but this is to avoid the guilt involved in preparing food, which they allow the hearers to incur instead. Epiphanius, Pan. 66.28.7 f. 287

72

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

a distinctive Syrian characteristic.294 This asceticism conceived the Christian life as a war against evil and corruption, struggling for perfection and the hastening of the Kingdom of God. This is a link with the “holy war” theme prominent at Qumran.295 Further, virginity anticipated the angelic state of the resurrection: Ephrem, Parad 6.24, has the angels marvelling at Elijah, who bore a hidden treasure, i. e. his virginity. Because of his virginity Elijah was transported bodily to heaven.296 O’Neill’s suggestion of continuity between Jewish and Christian ascetic communities is convincing as regards the presence of asceticism from the beginning of the Christian church; however, as regards cenobitic communities (pivotal to his argument that the Jewish non-canonical writings were preserved in monasteries), he fails to consider that in Syria, the cenobitic life seems to be a late development, although Syria offers the best evidence for a continuous tradition of ascetic consecration from the beginning.297 Syriac-speaking asceticism developed its own terminology. Towards the end of the Doctrina Addai the new Christian congregation is described as follows298: but all the qeiama of men and women was abstinent and glorious, and they were holy and pure and dwelt singly and abstinently without defilement, in watchfulness of the service gloriously. 299

The bene qeiama and benat qeiama are technical terms for the virgins who are full members of the church; some live at home, some in small communities, but not yet geographically separated from the wider congregation. But can also mean “covenant”, and Vööbus draws a parallel with the “covenanters” of Qumran. Its root meaning is to stand, which awakes associations with the standing and never-sleeping angels (note , “in watchfulness” above).300 This means that has a liturgical connotation through the link with the 294 Murray, Characteristics, 7, speculates whether celibacy was already valued in pagan Mesopotamia, citing the self-castration of the adherents of Atargatis. 295 Brock, Asceticism, 2: link between the struggles of asceticism and those of martyrdom. 296 Also Aphrahat 6.1, “Celui qui aime la virginité, qu’il ressemble à Élie.” Virginity is the reason why John the Baptist received the spirit of Elijah, 6.5. Epiphanius, Pan. 63.4.5, cites Elijah, Elisha and John the Baptist as practisers of chastity and virginity, “this great mark of the imitation of the angels”. 297 O’Neill, Origins. 298 Vööbus, Persia, 11. 299 [sic, presumably .] 300 Brock, Asceticism, 8, is right to reject Nagel’s suggestion of = resurrection on linguistic grounds. , emphatic , and , emphatic , both can mean “standing”, but only the former means “ascetic community”, and only the latter means “resurrection”. Cf. Juhl, Askese, 157 f.

1.2 The first century and beyond

73

ceaseless worship of the .301 “Standing Ones”, from the same root, is a Samaritan title for angels; see 1.3.5. For a Christian grouping to call themselves “sons of the covenant” indicates a strongly Jewish style of self-identification. Asceticism is well founded in Palestinian Judaism; Nazirites existed as well as the Essenes.302 There were also other Jewish ascetic groupings, which led into the encratite Christian groups and also to Elchasaites and Mandaeans. When Manichaeism begins in Mesopotamia (AD 254), it too shows extreme asceticism; Mani travelled in India and knew both Buddhist and Hindu ascetic practices. Extreme asceticism on the part of orthodox Christian monks is described in a spurious letter of Ephrem.303 Vööbus suggests an influence from Manichaeism on Christian asceticism.304 However, it appears that the radical Syrian ascetic tradition antedates Mani. Hence Tatian’s ascetic radicalism “might already have had contacts with the Christian thought and practice prevalent in Christianity in the Syrian Orient”;305 although Tatian seems to have become a Christian while in Rome, the bishop of Rome was a Syrian from Emesa, Anicetus (ca. 154–165).306 In the context of the bene qeiama it is worth citing Tatian’s version of the “they neither marry nor are given in marriage” text, in the Diatessaron. Instead of relating it to angels in heaven, Tatian refers it to the Christian life in this world: “the people of this world take a wife and make marriages; but they who shall be worthy of the life of that other world and of the resurrection of the blessed, will neither take wives nor make wedding feasts”.307 To a certain extent this is prefigured in Luke’s version of the text (Lk 20.34–36): “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection”. Luke’s alteration of Mark’s words (12.25: “when they rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven”) clearly allows the meaning of abstaining from marriage in this life. But Tatian’s version is even more explicit.308

301

Murray, Symbols, 13. M Nazir 1.2, 4 regulates for lifelong Nazirites as well as those whose vows are of short duration. 303 Lamy, vol. 4, col. 153. Compare the fifth-century Simeon Stylites, Theodoret, Hist. rel. 26. 304 Vööbus, Persia, 167. Manichaean influence may be why later Syrian tradition “forgot” that monasticism was indigenous and claimed that it derived from Egypt (169). Brock, Asceticism, 3, attributes it to the great prestige of Egyptian monasticism. 305 Vööbus, Persia, 37. 306 Solin, Juden, 671. Euaristus, bishop of Rome c. 97–105, was from Antioch. 307 Vööbus, Persia, 43, citing the Liège codex of the Diatessaron (in Dutch). 308 Brock, Asceticism, 6. 302

74

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

Two other key expressions are virginity, , and sanctity,309 , meaning chastity lived within marriage. Baptism was restricted to virgins and those who lived in sanctity: Act. Thom. 49 “give me the seal, that that enemy [a spirit of fornication] may not return to me again”; 94 “Blessed are the spirits of the holy [= chaste ones], and those who have received the heavenly crown [= baptism] intact from the aeon appointed for them.”310 Aphrahat’s seventh homily contains traces of an earlier baptismal liturgy which includes last-minute exhortations to marry if one wishes to and to retreat from the battle if one loves possessions: “C’est aux solitaires que convient le combat” (7.18), 311 .312 After this the candidates are allowed 313 to proceed to baptism (7.18). The key words “crown” and “covenant” occur together in Od. Sol. 9.11: “put on the crown in the true covenant of the Lord”, .

Again the “sons of the covenant” are implied to be the only recipients of the crown; and the verse continues: “and all those who have conquered will be inscribed in his book”, indicating the spiritual warfare of the committed Christian. Thus only the inner core of Christians count as the true church; the eucharist is a communion of the pure. A further characteristic Syriac expression is , ihidaya. It means “sole, 314 only” and can mean “only-begotten”, translating ; but also “celibate, solitary, monk / nun”. In the passage from the Doctrina Addai quoted earlier, the qeiama of men and women dwelt , “singly” or “as solitaries”. The anchoritic lifestyle embodies the battle with evil: uninhabited places are the abode of demons, anchorites carry the battle into the enemy’s territory.315 “There are three elements in the meaning and doctrine of ihidayuta: 1. singleness by leaving family and not marrying; 2. singlemindedness (stressed already by Paul and James!) and 3. a special relationship to the Ihidaya, Christ the Only-begotten Son, whom the consecrated ascetics ‘put on’ in a special way.”316 The Acts of Thomas, early third century, probably from Edessa, show strong ascetic tendencies. Judas Thomas is the twin brother of the Lord, of identical appearance, and a prototype ascetic who is chaste, eats little, and wears only one 309

Perhaps better “consecration”, with Murray. Thus NTA; Vööbus (96) reads , contest. 311 [sic, presumably ] 312 Parisot, col. 341. 313 Juhl, Askese, 139–141, rejects this. But although by Aphrahat’s time baptism is not so limited, but is probably for some the moment of entry into the qeiama (the reason Aphrahat cites these words), the source liturgy may nevertheless have restricted baptism to celibates. 314 e. g. Aphrahat 6.6; but the play on words should be given full weight: “the ihidaia from the bosom of His Father shall gladden all the ihidaie”; Vööbus, vol. 1, 107n. 315 Vööbus, Persia, 149. 316 Murray, Symbols, 13. 310

1.2 The first century and beyond

75

garment. The message is that “Sexual abstinence makes man into a true son of God, a twin of Jesus the only Son of God, who is his heavenly double and dwells as divine spirit in him.”317 Compare the teaching of Mani, where the Paraclete is the heavenly twin of Jesus. Harris suggests influence from the Graeco-Roman concept of the heavenly twins, one of whom is mortal, on Gnostic and Christian ideas of the heavenly twin (arguably a form of the guardian angel).318 Harris conjectures that the Dioscuri were worshipped at Edessa; this is contradicted by Kirsten.319 Milik connects Iuppiter Dolichenus with angels, whose associates are elsewhere called Castores after the heavenly twins.320 The Graeco-Roman twins are well attested as helpers of mortals in distress, whether battle or shipwreck; and this similarity of function with angels may support the idea that there is some connection between angels, Castor and Pollux and Judas Thomas, although it is not possible to be precise about dependence. Virginity is prominent in the Acts of Thomas. In chapters 4–16 is told how Thomas arrives at a wedding feast and prays with bride and bridegroom. Then Jesus appears to them (he is indistinguishable from Thomas), and persuades them to abandon “filthy intercourse” in order to become “holy temples”; both renounce matrimony for the sake of “another marriage” with “the true man” (14, compare 124). The “spiritual marriage” of chastity that we see here did actually exist: the ps.-Clementine letters De virginitate are against the practice and warn against the dangers of living with virgins, underscoring the better way of strict segregation (1.10 and 2.1–5). But the two types of chastity clearly exist side by side: “He will give to virgins [ ] a notable place in the house of God, which is … better than [the place] of those who have passed a wedded life in sanctity [ ], and whose ‘bed has not been defiled’. For God will give to virgins [ ] the kingdom of heaven, as to the holy angels …” (1.4).321 The singleness of the ihidaya, as well as making him or her a twin of Christ, restores the prelapsarian state of humankind in paradise and destroys the difference between male and female (an important theme also in Gos. Thom., log. 114, and Aphrahat, 6.6 and 18.9).322 This is symbolically expressed in the Hymn of the Pearl (108–113), with its glorious heavenly robe like a second self. Note also the Palestinian Targum on Gen 3.22: “Behold the first Adam whom I created is single (ihiday) in the world, just as I am single (ihiday) in the heights of heaven.”323 The Acts of Thomas show familiarity with Jewish concepts of heaven. Angels accompany the souls 317 318 319 320 321 322 323

Drijvers, Syrian, 133. Harris, Dioscuri, 20–41. Edessa, 564. Milik, Dédicaces, 437–9. Text Vööbus, Persia, 81. Drijvers, Facts, 171. Tr. Brock, Luminous, 136.

76

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

of the dead and show them around heaven (22); fell from heaven (32); torment the wicked in hell (55–7). But by far the most important function of angels is to serve as a role model for those who anticipate heaven in this life by ascetic practices. However, Murray notes that the Acts of Thomas are less close to the ideas of Qumran than, for example, the Odes of Solomon or the Manichaean psalms. Rather than stressing ideas of covenant and community, the Acts of Thomas stress poverty, homelessness and the renunciation of stability.324 The notion of marriage with Christ, so central to the Acts of Thomas, has no equivalent in the Qumran community’s celibacy, which seems rather connected with the celibacy demanded of an army ready for battle, whose purity must match that of the angels who fight with them (e. g. 1QM vii 3–7). It seems therefore best to assume a wider influence from Jewish ascetic traditions than from Qumran alone. Aphrahat’s 23 works date from between 337 and 345. Aphrahat is himself an ihidaya, one of the bene qeiama about whom he writes (6.4; 18.1). His defence of chastity should be seen in the context of Jewish criticism of it as against nature and the commandment of God; the later treatises are full of anti-Jewish polemic, occasioned by the strengthened position of the Jews after the outbreak of war and the concomitant persecution of Christians in the Persian Empire.325 Aphrahat’s creed (1.19) gives striking prominence to the Torah and its first part may well be of Jewish origin: Et voici ce qu’est la foi: Que l’on croie en Dieu, le Seigneur de tout, qui a fait ciel, terre, mers, et tout ce qui est en eux, qui a fait Adam à son image, qui a donné la Tora à Moïse, qui a envoyé de son Esprit dans les Prophètes et qui a enfin envoyé son Messie au monde. Que l’on croie à la vivification des morts et qu’enfin l’on croie au mystère du baptême. Telle est la foi de l’Église de Dieu.326

Note the absence of reference to the crucifixion and the prominence of baptism, the point of entry into the resurrection life. Elsewhere also Aphrahat stresses the continuity between old and new covenant, especially by the use of typology. In treatise 6.14, Aphrahat speaks of the [Holy] Spirit (also called the Spirit of the Messiah / of Christ) in terms that suggest the angel of Mt 18.10. At birth, humankind are born with an “esprit animé”, and at the second birth of baptism, they receive “l’Esprit saint, prélèvement de la divinité, qui est aussi immortel”. At death then, the heavenly spirit they have received goes to Christ and intercedes for the body, that it may be raised, if the person has remained pure. The same spirit accuses those who have not remained pure. Then, on the last day when the Watchers open the gates of heaven, the spirit will finally swallow up both the “esprit animé” and the body, and the person will be raised and join Christ. This

324 325 326

Murray, Characteristics, 9. Blum, Afrahat, 627. Pierre, vol. 1, 233.

1.2 The first century and beyond

77

concept is neither quite a heavenly twin nor a guardian angel, but partakes of elements of both.327 The seventh treatise, quoted above, is shown to cite an earlier work in that it contradicts other statements of Aphrahat’s, e. g. on the value of marriage, called “very good” in 18.8, although virginity is better, and on the acceptance of non-celibates for baptism. The context in 18 is the allegation that renouncing marriage is despising God’s gifts; Aphrahat argues that marriage is good, but renunciation as an act of worship is better, instancing Old Testament celibates. Treatise 6, on the members of the qeiama, implies that they are only a subset of the whole church: the member of the qeiama who wishes to live with a female fellow-member should rather marry openly (6.4); it is thus possible to leave the qeiama without leaving the church. Like the ps.-Clementine epistles, Aphrahat warns of the dangers of benai and benat qeiama living together. He rejects “spiritual marriage”, both of benai and benat qeiama and of husband and wife living together in sanctity. Treatise 6 links the ascetics with Watchers; Jesus is also entitled Watcher: “Ceux qui n’auront pas pris des femmes seront servis par les Veilleurs du ciel” (6.6) … “[Jesus:] Lui qui est le Veilleur qui ne dort pas, il s’est endormi et s’est couché dans la barque au milieu de la mer”.328 They are to practise vigils, pray and sing psalms against the wiles of the devil who seeks to attack them in sleep (6.2). However, the members of the qeiama are still not monks in the sense of cenobites; they live as part of the normal congregation, despite their segregation (6.1 “Celui qui porte la ressemblance des anges, qu’il se rende étrange aux hommes”). The members of the qeiama probably take precedence over others at baptism in treatise 7, their moment of entry into the qeiama.329 In Aphrahat’s writings we see that the Syrian church has changed between the mid-third and early fourth century, and ascetic practices have been scaled down. This brings the church nearer to Western practice, and in the same period the organizational structure of the church was consolidated; it also became more consciously “orthodox”. The four gospels are known to Aphrahat, although the Diatessaron continued in use until the fifth century. Murray suggests that the moderated asceticism of Aphrahat and Ephrem is due to influence from the Didascalia.330 Aphrahat speaks of angels and watchers in approximately equal numbers in the first half of his work. 18.4 describes the myriads of angels surrounding God at Sinai: “Ils se hâtent, volent de leurs ailes agiles, ils clament, sanctifient et exaltent sa Majesté. Ils veillent, ils sont prêts et agiles dans leur hâte, ils sont 327

Blum, Afrahat, 631. Similarly Ephrem, Nat. 21.4, “Es kam der Wachende [= Christ, against Beck], um Wachende im Erdenrund zu schaffen. Die Wachenden wurden zu Genossen der (wachenden) Engel.” 329 Murray, Symbols, 15, compares the Testamentum Domini. 330 Symbols, 26. 328

78

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

éclatants, beaux, splendides et séduisants”. Flying ( ) and sanctifying ( ) allude to Isa 6; watching ( ) to Dan 4.331 He expressly makes angels the role model of virgins and “holy ones” when he says (18.12): “We find their form and likeness in Scripture, and we see that among those who triumph that likeness of the heavenly Watchers is found, and [even] on earth it may be obtained by grace”: 332

In treatise 6 he speaks three times of this angelic life. In 6.1, cited above, “la ressemblance des anges” is . In 6.5 he says angels bring bread and water to those who bear the likeness of heavenly Watchers, . And in 6.19 he says “Therefore love virginity, the heavenly portion [and] communion with heavenly Watchers”: 333

.

Thus Aphrahat, despite his more lenient stance on baptism, fully shares the high regard for virginity shown in the earlier Syriac writings, and for the same reason: the consecrated virgin life is the life of the angels. This view is also visible in Ephrem: Parad 7.15 says a virgin has “hated the works of darkness”, i. e. marriage. The Liber graduum, probably also fourth-century, distinguishes between the righteous and the perfect, and portrays an invisible, spiritual church only for the latter, the domain of the Paraclete. Vööbus suggests that this work is the result of a spirit of conservatism that retains the older model of the ascetic church.334 It may originate in Western Syria.335 The twenty-first treatise says that God created Adam from dust and associated him with the angels of heaven (21.10):

Vide homo, qualem cogitationem cogitaverit Adam de illo, qui eum ex pulvere creavit et angelis caelestibus admiscuit.336

Adam’s task is to praise God with the angels. Even more important is a passage from 28.9: Weil aber die vom Hause Adams infolge der Übertretung des Gebots den himmlischen Gottesdienst vergaßen, den sie wie die Engel mit den Engeln ausübten, gab ihnen Gott 331 332 333 334 335 336

Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 48. Parisot, 841. Parisot, 309. Vööbus, Persia, 195. Murray, Symbols, 36. Kmosko, col. 611–12.

1.2 The first century and beyond

79

den Gottesdienst, der auf der Erde sichtbar ist, nach dem Abbilde dessen, der himmlisch ist, damit sie nicht ganz und gar zugrunde gehen.337

Note the two different words for angel in the two passages, which are used as apparent equivalents. This second passage involves a modification of the concept visible in Jub 2.18–21.338 There, God declares to the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification, who keep the sabbath and praise him in heaven, that he intends to separate a people to do the same on earth. In other words, the institution of earthly liturgy is shown to be part of the right ordering of creation, so that the two worlds of heaven and earth may mirror each other in the pivotal function of God’s praise. Here, the institution of the liturgy has a remedial function. Adam has sinned and forgotten to praise God, and consequently been thrown out of Paradise (21.12). Therefore God has given him the earthly liturgy, so that he may not perish utterly. Here the author goes beyond the generally accepted Syriac Christian idea that the likeness of angels is found in virginity or sacred chastity (which he shares, 15.7), and locates it in the liturgical praise of God. This evokes not only echoes of the Qumran community’s beliefs, but also of John Chrysostom’s stress on the angels’ invisible presence around the altar at the eucharist (see 3.2.2). Christians can take part in this heavenly, spiritual liturgy; the visible church and sacraments are the road to the invisible, and like them (28.8, almost immediately preceding the previous quotation): Und weil die Menschen jenes Himmlische nicht begreifen, hat er ihnen sein Abbild auf der Erde gegeben, daß sie, während sie in der offenbaren Kirche stehen und vom offenbaren Opfer339 essen, lebendig seien in Ewigkeit in der verborgenen Kirche, die im Himmel ist, [und] vom verborgenen Opfer äßen. Ein unaussprechlicher Gottesdienst ist jener, welcher größer ist als der Mund der Menschen [zu sagen vermag]. Und es gleicht jener offenbare Gottesdienst dem verborgenen. Und alles, was sichtbar ist, ist Typus dessen, was unsichtbar ist.340

337

Juhl, Askese, 101; Kmosko, col. 800. Juhl, Askese, 85, notes a shared motif between Liber graduum and TLevi, additional evidence for the author’s familiarity with Jewish pseudepigraphical works like Jub. 339 or: altar. 340 Juhl, Askese, 103–4; Kmosko 797–800. 338

80

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

Every detail of human worship (church, baptism, food, prayer, sacrifice, gifts) has a hidden, spiritual counterpart. A little later the author contrasts the heavenly service with that revealed to Moses on Sinai. This implies a hierarchy of revelation. First Adam worshipped among the angels, and after his fall was given earthly worship (28.9). Then Moses was shown the spiritual worship on the mountain, but told to show the Israelites the earthly worship (28.10). Then Christ came in order to reveal to Christians the spiritual, heavenly worship by means of the earthly worship, so that they can advance to sharing in the worship of the angels in this life (28.8) – although the author does not mention angels in this context. But this spiritual worship is the prerogative of the perfect ( ), not of the ordinary righteous; the earthly church is for them. Angels are mentioned in 12.1: “… that we may live for ever in that [which is] free and mighty, the Church in heaven, and by that altar which is adorned and set up in the spirit; before which the angels minister, and all the saints, and Jesus acts as priest and effects the consecration before them and above them and on every side of them”.341

342

The Acts of Thomas and Aphrahat differ from the Jewish non-canonical writings in that they show no great interest in portraying the economy of heaven and the ranks of angels and their functions. However, the fact that angels exist is of supreme importance, in that anticipating the angelic life on earth is seen to be the only proper way to be a Christian until the mid-third century. Even in the fourth century, angelic asceticism is privileged by Aphrahat above the ordinary Christian life, which he scarcely mentions. It seems that members of the qeiama carried out pastoral functions such as visiting the sick, and hence can be said to be part of the institutional church; but this is incidental to their main focus, which is on heaven. I believe Vööbus and Murray are right to draw a parallel with Qumran, however the tradition of ascetic life may have travelled to Mesopotamia. And so the Syriac-speaking church can be said to be the principal heir not only of Jewish Christianity, but also of the type of ascetic Judaism, interested in heavenly speculation, that is best visible to us through Qumran, and which continued to exist in a marginal way in Mesopotamian as well as Palestinian Judaism throughout the period, in the form of merkabah mysticism. However, 341 342

Tr. Murray, Symbols, 264. Kmosko, 288.

1.3 Vocabulary

81

the Christian texts we possess do not reflect mystical speculation like that of the Jews, unless hymns such as the Hymn of the Pearl or Ephrem’s Hymns de Paradiso are to be interpreted as hints in this direction. Throughout our period Jews travelled from the centres in Palestine to those in Babylonia and vice versa, on the great highways through Syria, as is evidenced by the Jewish synagogue of Dura and its small Christian neighbour, both mid-third century. The continuing contact between Christians and Jews evidently continued to shape Christian ideas. Despite the existence of polemic and competition, Syriac-speaking Christianity, up to the fourth century, was rooted in Judaism in a way entirely foreign to its Greek-speaking counterpart.343

1.3 Vocabulary 1.3.1 Messengers The earlier Biblical usage of or entails the full force of the meaning “messenger”. The root ‫ ״‬, meaning “send”, is not found in Hebrew otherwise, but the verb is attested in Arabic and Ethiopic. “An early Israelite from the period of the monarchy would probably not have identified the theriomorphic cherubim and seraphim as mal’akim”.344 This is connected with the fact that two basic functions of angels are originally separate but later coalesce: their messenger function as bridges between heaven and earth, and their heavenly function as members of God’s court.345 The angelic title originates in the latter concept. At present we will consider the messenger function of angels. Such messengers are in human form (and wingless) and can be mistaken for human beings, e. g. Judg 13.2–23. The meaning of “heavenly messenger” needs to be specified by a formulation such as . Occasionally God is conceived of as present in or with the angel, as Gen 18. Later commentators sought to explain this differently. Thus Philo interprets visible appearances of God (in angel form) as appearances of the Logos, e. g. at the burning bush.346 Acts 7.35 also speaks of an angel in the burning bush, as does the Samaritan Memar Marqah 1.1. For Justin Martyr, any visible appear343 Drijvers’ argument that Syriac- and Greek-speaking Syrian Christianity were not fundamentally different from one another (Early, 173), referring to Bardaisan, Tatian and Act. Thom. as representative of a philosophical tradition rooted in Middle Platonism, does not give sufficient weight to the Jewish ascetic tradition which, as Murray and Brock have argued, is a conspicuous factor in Syriac-speaking Christianity. 344 Meier, Angel, 47. 345 Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 52. The process of coalescence is complete in Ps. 103.20 f., are pictured praising in heaven; cf. Zech 2–3. 148.1 f., where 346 Som. I.69 (plural); but at Som. I.231 f., Mos. I.66 God is described as appearing as an angel. Cf. Leg. All. III.177, where Gen 48.15, equating God with an angel, is cited, with the explanation that the angel is the Logos.

82

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

ance of God is actually an appearance of Christ (e. g. 1 Apol 63, Dial. 56, 58, 59). Ephrem Comm Exod 3.1, on the burning bush, interprets the appearance first as that of an angel, whom Moses did not fear to approach, and then of a vision of God within the vision of the angel, before whom Moses veiled his face (similarly Comm Gen 13.4). This is very close to an argument advanced by Trypho in Justin, Dial. 60, on the Jewish side. Angels which are purely messengers are not always clearly distinguished from the sender of the message, God. Mach draws attention to two parallel stories, of the angel sent to Manoah and his wife (Judg 13), and of the calling of Gideon (Judg 6).347 In Judg 13.15–16, Manoah wishes to offer the angel food, and he says, “I will not eat your food; but if you want to prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the Lord.” The angel draws a clear distinction between himself and the Lord. In Judg 6.19–21, Gideon offers the angel food, and the angel accepts it as a burnt offering, causing fire to spring up; in other words, this angel seems to be more fully empowered to represent God (1.4.2 below). The “message” an angel brings can take the form of encouragement and support: e. g. the invisible hosts revealed to Elisha, 2 Kings 6.15–17; the various appearances of angelic riders in 2 Maccabees (3.25–6, 33–4; 5.2–4; 10.29–30; 11.8–9); also 3 Macc 6.18, 4 Macc 4.10. The writing of the Septuagint reflects a stage in the process whereby the “messenger” becomes a heavenly being. In non-Jewish Greek usage does mean a simple messenger, but in the LXX it is largely restricted to the heavenly meaning.348 For example, Num 21.21 MT reads , referring to human messengers; LXX translates . By contrast, Num 22.22 MT names the angel sent to Balaam , translated by LXX . Significantly, now also replaces expressions for the heavenly court: Gen 6.2 is rendered in some LXX manuscripts, as well as by Philo and Josephus; similarly Job 38.7. is rendered in Ps. 8.5, 97(96).7 and 138(137).1. Deut 32.8 (“When the Most High apportioned the nations … he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of , but LXX the sons of God ”) was mentioned earlier: MT reads has , similarly 4Q37 (4QDeutj) fr 34 xii 14, which reads …] ;349 the angelic reading is presumably original, altered by MT because of concerns about . Apart from showing that can now properly be used of a being in heaven, this usage suggests a concern on the part of the translator to avoid any suggestion of polytheism, replacing “gods” with 347

Entwicklungsstadien, 41. For exceptions, see Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 86–89, in particular the occasions where translates , only used for human messengers with the possible exception of Isa 63.9 (1.3.4 below). In the rabbinic period is restricted to the meaning “heavenly messenger, angel”, and the root ‫ ״‬is used for human messengers. 349 DJD vol. 14, 90. 348

1.3 Vocabulary

83

“angels”. Thus a developing angelology is nevertheless founded on the idea of monotheism. The concept of the heavenly court is therefore also changing: the strife pictured in Ps. 82 within the heavenly assembly is not a conceivable action for heavenly , who are obedient worshippers of the heavenly king (Ps. 97.7 (96.7)). Mach notes a few places where is introduced although the original did not intend the heavenly council, in particular Isa 9.5 . The verse in MT reads:

He suggests that it arises from reading as belonging together, i. e. “counsellor of God” or “advising spirit”, whereby presumably renders .350 At Exod 4.24, where God attempts to kill Moses, is rendered . This is noteworthy not only because of the obvious intention of avoiding a negative portrayal of God.351 The expression chosen by the translator reflects a consciousness that the “angel of the Lord” is no ordinary angel; thus the Septuagint supports an understanding of the “angel of the Lord” as a hypostasis of God. Moreover, LXX never translates cherubim or seraphim. The inference is that, even though are now heavenly beings, they are not the same as the heavenly cherubim and seraphim. The Septuagint also translates with . It may be that the semantic connotation of “messenger” was a motivating factor in developing a different terminology for spiritual beings whose function was not to carry messages. “Spirits”, for example, are attested in 1 Enoch 39.12 “Lord of the spirits”, . and juxtaposed with “messengers / angels” in Ps. 104.4, A similar process to that observed in the Septuagint can be seen in the Peshitta. Where indicates a human messenger, alternative words are used in almost all cases; the cognate is reserved for heavenly beings.352 Also, where the Hebrew has “man” but means an angel, the Peshitta can translate “angel”, as in Gen 19.16 (as does LXX). However, at Exod 4.24, where LXX and Tgg “correct” the Hebrew, the Peshitta retains the notion that God, not an angel, seeks to kill Moses. The Peshitta can also diverge from existing tradition when speaking of the . In Gen 16.13, the Hagar episode, the Peshitta adds to Hagar’s words ( in MT) the following, not represented in the Hebrew: , “you are God in a vision” (or appearance).353 The purpose of the addition can only be to underscore the separation between God and the angel of the Lord. 350

Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 79–81. For post-LXX instances of actions of God transferred to angels for purposes of theodicy, see n. 3 p. 14 above. Cf. Philo, Fug. 66, John Chrysostom, Hom. Acts 43, PG 60, 307: God does not himself punish, but does so by means of angels. 352 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 15–17. 353 An almost identical version is given by Ephrem, Comm. Gen. 13.3–5. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 142. 351

84

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

is used of human beings in postexilic texts for prophets as messengers of God: Isa 44.26, 2 Chr 36.15, Haggai 1.13. Mal 3.1 may refer to an angel, but Mal 1.1, if not a proper name, refers to a human prophet. Mal 2.7 names a priest the when speaking of God’s special covenant with the tribe of Levi as God’s representatives. However, this usage, far from being a simple retention of the plain meaning of “messenger”, seems to presuppose the heavenly connotation of “angel”, in that the specific flavour of this application to prophets and priests turns on the heavenly association, perhaps even on the juxtaposition of the heavenly and earthly meanings in a play on words. 1.3.2 Holy ones This title can be applied to God, angels and human beings, implying a certain degree of divinization and participation in heavenly reality. Naudé speaks of the blurring of the distinction between Qumran community members and supernatural beings.354 In the Old Testament “holy ones” most often designates angels, although there are exceptions: Ps 16.3, Ps. 34.10, and possibly Dan 7.355 Brekelmans argues for the human interpretation in Dan 7 and assesses occurrences of and its equivalents in the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha and Qumran literature.356 His compilation, though now somewhat out of date, makes it clear that deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression “holy ones” seems to begin in the second century BC with Daniel, 1 Enoch and later the Qumran writings and Ps Sal.357 Given the importance of 1 Enoch at Qumran, it is not surprising to find a similarity of usage, e. g. 4Q511 fr. 35.2–4: Among the holy ones, 3 God makes (some) hol[y] for himself like an everlasting sanctuary, and there will be purity amongst those purified. And they shall be 4 priests, his just people, his army and his servants, the angels of his glory. 3[ ] 4

The Qumran community’s view of the relation between angels and humans is well illustrated by 1QHa xi 21–23: 354

Naudé, Holiness, 189. Horbury, Septuagintal, 268, prefers a human interpretation for Exod 15.11 LXX . Similarly 4 Macc 17.19, applying Dt 33.3 LXX to martyrs, and Wisd 5.5 the martyr’s lot is Wisd 18.9 sharing blessings and dangers. Thus the usage is well attested among Greek-speaking Jews before Paul. Horbury, Christ, 368–370, discusses the pre-Christian Jewish development of the concept of a saintly class. Van Koppen and van der Toorn, Holy: a divinity entitled qdš in Ugarit. 356 Brekelmans, Saints. See also Lamberigts, Sens. A useful table of angelic terms is given in Davidson, Angels, 334–342. 357 Collins, Daniel, 314–317, prefers an angelic meaning in Dan 7 and holds that an angelic meaning is at least possible in all the Qumran instances. 355

85

1.3 Vocabulary

The depraved spirit you have purified from great offence so that he can take a place with 22 the host of the holy ones, and can enter in communion with the congregation of the sons of heaven. You cast eternal destiny for man with the spirits of 23 knowledge, so that he praises your name in the community of jubilation, and tells of your wonders before all your creatures. 22

21 23

In the first passage “holy ones” clearly refers to human beings, and in the second it is an angelic title. This can encourage us to take in the first passage in the sense of “angel” rather than “messenger”, especially since it is coupled with , one of the key items of “numinous” vocabulary at Qumran. By their sanctification, human beings are brought into this numinous sphere of heaven, and the distinction between them and the angels they are set among is blurred.358 A similar concept is found in Jub 31.14, the blessing of Levi: May he draw you and your seed near to him from all flesh to serve in his sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones. May your sons’ seed be like them with respect to honour and greatness and sanctification.

This is an example of the similarity of thought between Qumran and Jubilees. The Septuagint sometimes renders with . Thus Job 5.1 is translated . Mach suggests contamination from 33.23, where a is mentioned; but the passage is not otherwise parallel, as he claims.359 Deut 33.2 MT reads as follows: […]

The Septuagint offers the following text: […] .

Without discussing the textual difficulties in detail, it seems that , although it stands in the place of the difficult , is equivalent to the idea expressed in , multitudes of holy ones, although the textual rendering of these words is , i. e. a place-name. Mach suggests that

358 See also 1QHa xii 24–5, “Those who walk on the path of your heart have listened to me, they have aligned themselves before you in the council of the holy ones’; and from the Community Rule, 1QS xi 7–8, “… he has given them an inheritance in the lot of the holy ones. He unites their assembly to the sons of the heavens in order (to form) the council of the Community …” 359 Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 83.

86

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

LXX translates twice, as it has already done with , reading “from the mountain” and “hastened” ( , Piel).360 In the New Testament, Paul’s usage of to mean “the saints”, i. e. all Christians, is echoed by the authors of Acts, Hebrews, the deutero-Paulines, Jude and Revelation. The existing Jewish concept of a saintly class of human beings (patriarchs, martyrs, the righteous, and occasionally all Israel) is here developed in a specific direction.361 In two cases angelic overtones may conceivably be present: Col 1.12 “the saints in light”; 1 Thess 3.13 “the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints”; Jude 14 is the only clear angelic reference, which is a citation: “the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones” (quoting 1 Enoch 1.9)362. But it seems as if the title “holy one” is generally restricted to this specific usage, later narrowed again (possibly under continuing Jewish influence?) to mean only an exemplary Christian; other terms are used for angels.363 Underlying this lexical shift is the Christian realised eschatology which means that Christians already participate in the life of heaven and can properly use an originally angelic title. Segal discusses the significance of baptism as the regaining of the angelic state (which he equates with that of the prelapsarian Adam) by humankind.364 With the fading of the immediacy of eschatological expectation, the way becomes clear for the Christian usage of “holy one” to be restricted to a few members of the church. Use of and is striking in light of the availability of or , “godly (ones)” for holy human beings. It is doubtless no accident that the beginning of Jewish use of and its equivalents for human beings coincides with the rise of apocalyptic in the second century BC. Collins defines apocalyptic future hopes as “the transcendence of death by the attainment of a higher, angelic form of life”, which “cannot be adequately understood as either a future expectation or a present depth experience. It is essentially an interpenetration of both”.365 In his view, a further stage of development is visible in the “partially realised eschatology” of the Qumran community, in that the revelatory authority is not an ancient hero such as Enoch but the scriptural interpretation of the Teacher of Righteousness, and also in that some of the benefits of the eschatological age are enjoyed in the present by the community.366 The realised eschatology of Christianity resembles this position, an anticipatory invading of the present by the future. Rowland downplays the eschatological referent still 360

Entwicklungsstadien, 83 f. Mt 27.52 should be understood in this Jewish sense, of the departed righteous. 362 The expression “ten thousand” marks it as angelic, cf. Dan. 7.10. 363 For Paul’s use of “principalities and powers”, see Carr, Angels; Forbes, Principalities I and II. Forbes sees “principalities and powers” as hypostatical, abstract forces rather than personal angels. He suggests influence from popular Middle Platonism. 364 Segal, Paul, 274–276. 365 Collins, Eschatology, 43. 366 Collins, Genre, 424–6. 361

87

1.3 Vocabulary

further, since eschatology is not the only component of the heavenly mysteries revealed in apocalyptic texts.367 Common to both positions is the assumption that in the apocalyptic texts, events are described which involve the meeting of heavenly and earthly realities. This meeting forms the conceptual background to the double meaning of explored here. 1.3.3 Gods The expression / / refers to subordinate heaven-dwellers who are probably decayed gods, e. g. in Ps. 29. In 1 Sam 28.13 is the spirit of the dead Samuel. Entitling beings “gods” rather than “angels” implies the concept of a divine council. “Gods” “retain the majesty of lesser gods to an extent / is a common angelic title which ‘angel’ may not always convey.”368 in Qumran, and particularly in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Schwemer makes the connection between Qumran and the pre-exilic temple theology reflected in psalms such as 29 and 93.369 Such a term would sound archaic and hence would support the community’s claim of legitimacy. Full divinity is, however, not intended. For example, the seventh song stresses God’s exaltation high above the , as in 4Q403 1 i 33–34: 34

{}

[

And] exalt {his} exaltation to the heights, gods of the exalted divinities, and his glorious divinity above 34 all the exalted heights.

In her discussion of this song, Schwemer traces a line of direct continuity between the ancient Canaanite El tradition, as incorporated in Israelite worship in Ps. 29, speaking of the “sons of El” and the kingship of God, via the Second Temple liturgy, to Qumran and hence to the rabbinic tradition.370 Another example for the distinction between God and the angelic princes is 4Q405 23 ii 11–12: 12




11

11 The chiefs of the kingdom of the holy ones of the holy king in all the heights of the sanctuaries of the kingdom 12 of his glory.

Here the “holy ones” have , while God has . Schwemer suggests that the term is reserved for God’s kingship / kingdom.371

367 368 369 370 371

Rowland, Open, 70. Horbury, Herodian. König, 59. König, 96. König, 114.

88

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

1.3.4 Spirits Ps. 104.4, “who maketh his angels spirits”, is often rendered in modern translations “you make the winds your messengers”. However, Gieschen notes that by the first century, these words had technical meanings which would be read out of the text, as Heb 1.7 demonstrates.372 Spirit as an angelic term is attested in both 1 Enoch and Jubilees. 1 Enoch 39.12–14 is particularly significant, since it juxtaposes “spirits” with an allusion to Isa 6: 12

Those who do not slumber but stand before your glory, did bless you. They shall bless, praise and extol (you), saying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of the Spirits; the spirits fill the earth.” 13And at that place (under his wings) my eyes saw others who stood before him sleepless (and) blessed (him), saying, 14“Blessed are you and blessed is the name of the Lord of the Spirits forever and ever.”

This suggests that seraphim are now also classed as a type of angel, rather than some entirely different heavenly being.373 The expression “Lord of the Spirits” is characteristic of the Similitudes;374 but spirits as angelic beings are attested in the earlier parts of Enoch also, e. g. 1 Enoch 15.8. Jubilees 2.1 speaks of the spirits who minister before God, and then enumerates them, beginning with the angels of the Presence. The significance of equating angels and spirits is that it emphasises the ontological meaning of angels as spiritual heavendwellers, thus marking another step away from the functional meaning of the angel as messenger. The Two Spirits discourse from the Qumran Community Rule (1QS iii.13– iv.26) represents a point of meeting between the concept of spirits as angels and the concept of spirits as impulses dwelling in human beings. On the one hand it speaks of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness; these are powerful angels (1.4.3 below), and in iii 24 the evil angels are named “the spirits of his lot”. On the other it states clearly that God created the spirits of truth and deceit and within humankind as a guide to conduct (iii 18 f.); these indicate the of rabbinic thought. Gieschen interprets “spirit of truth” here and in iv 21 (God will sprinkle it like water) angelically;375 but this is surely incorrect. It is simpler to assume a polyvalent use of the word “spirit” than to understand an angel dwelling within a human being or being sprinkled over a human being, a difficult concept to combine with the human shape of angels. However, Gieschen is right to see this passage as a link towards the concept of “the Holy Spirit” or 372

Gieschen, Christology, 114 n. 115. And probably also cherubim, since the passage probably alludes to Ezek 3.12; see Chapter 3. 374 2 Macc 3.24 offers a Greek equivalent: . 2 Macc probably dates from the last third of the second century BC, substantially earlier than the Similitudes. 375 Gieschen, Christology, 116. 373

1.3 Vocabulary

89

“God’s Spirit” being singled out in ways that evoke both hypostatisation and angelic individuation (1.4 below). I am not entirely convinced by his interpretation of Isa 63.9–14 as showing that the the Spirit of the Lord / the Holy Spirit is identified with the angel of God’s presence; the key is the interpretation of in v. 11, whether God’s holy spirit is thought to be “within” his people or “in the midst” of them in the form of the Exodus angel. It remains a matter for interpretation. Still, this does not detract from the point already made, that the single “spirit of God” shows similarities with hypostases and angels. 1.3.5 Watchers The title occurs twice in Aramaic Daniel (Dan 4.10, 20; ET 13, 23); a similar parallelism, though separated, is seen in 4.14 (ET 17): The sentence is rendered by decree of the watchers, the decision is given by order of the holy ones.

The meaning of is assured by its juxtaposition with ; the treatment in the Greek versions is instructive. The Septuagint renders simply with . Theodotion reads ; Aquila and Symmachus read . Thus Theodotion chooses a very literal rendering, leaving untranslated; Aquila and Symmachus translate the literal meaning of , and LXX represents the thing signified by the , an angel; but the fact that Aquila and Symmachus refrain from translating indicates that their version too intends as a (new) technical term for a type of angel. Although is not attested in Biblical Hebrew, it occurs in the Hebrew of the Damascus Document, CD-A ii 18: . It is also attested in the Ara[ ].376 This justifies maic fragments of 1 Enoch, 4Q202 iv 6 (4QEnb ar):] us in assuming that underlies the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch whenever Watchers are mentioned. 1 Enoch is probably in part older than Daniel, and Watchers play an important part. Most commonly the title refers to fallen angels, as in the passage cited (also the Grigori of 2 Enoch 18.1); but they can be an especially exalted class of angels, e. g. 1 Enoch 20 “the holy angels who watch” are Suruel (or Uriel), Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Saraqael, Gabriel; the Greek adds Remiel at 1 Enoch 22.6 = and the title “archangels”.377 Raphael is entitled 4Q206 fr. 2 ii 5. The term is also attested in TReuben 5.6–7 and TNaphtali 3.5 (in Greek), referring to fallen angels. Other Qumranic mentions of Watchers are 1Q20 = 1QapGen ar ii 1 and ii 16; 4Q543–8. 376

Also attested in 4Q203, 204, 206. possibly also in 4Q544 fr. 2, conjectured by Milik and accepted by Puech, DJD 31, 326–7. This means that the two beings in fr. 1 are good and evil Watchers. 377

90

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

The origins of the term “Watcher, wakeful one” to describe a class of angel remain obscure. Collins refers (doubtfully) to Zech 4.10, the seven “eyes of the Lord which range through the whole earth”, and (more positively) to Ps. 121.4, “He who keeps ( ) Israel will neither slumber nor sleep”, as possible Biblical precedents.378 Thus the predominant characteristic of Watchers would be their protective function. This is not, however, entirely borne out by the passages cited, although one could suppose that Watchers, though originally protecting spirits, are now simply a class of angel, having lost that function. Daniel, for example, already knows the class of prince, and 1 Enoch of archangel. Cramer argues that the prominence of ‘ir in Syriac literature is due to the origin of the concept in the Persian amesha spentas.379 However, his claim that wakefulness is characteristic of these personifications of abstract qualities lacks any supporting evidence. It seems better to accept continuing uncertainty. The existence of a translation of 1 Enoch into Syriac suggests that Enoch traditions may be a more likely source for the prominence of ‘ir in Syriac literature.380 Murray seeks to make a case for the existence of a Hebrew word ‘ar / ‘er meaning a guardian divinity, from a root *‘yr.381 This word, he suggests, was deliberately suppressed in the Hebrew Bible. It was, he continues, vocalised as ‘ir in Aramaic, and secondarily adopted the meaning “wakeful”, as if deriving from ‘wr. He also cites an Akkadian prayer to the personalised, unsleeping night watches for a possible non-Jewish antecedent for ‘ir (not a linguistic origin). However, Murray’s argument relies on the assumption of deliberate concealment which is lacking in the case of “gods”. Although alteration of “dangerous” texts is familiar, as in the case of Dt 32.8, Murray has not adduced sufficient evidence from the versions to support his claims for alteration in the passages he cites. For example, he discusses Isa 63.9: (MT); (LXX), and suggests that conceals an original ‘ar / ‘er. However, Murray does not address the difficulty that is an unconvincing translation of “protector” but a good translation of , the usual reading of MT .382 Textual cruces undoubtedly are associated with theologically uncomfortable content, and Isa 63.9 is certainly an example, see n. 280 p. 69 above. But the LXX reading does not support his argument. 378

Collins, Watcher, 894. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 13 f. 380 Brock, Fragment. 1 Enoch 6 is cited in a 12th-century author, probably from a fourthcentury Greek source via a Syrian chronicler. “Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Enoch literature was popular with the Manichaeans, one should leave open the possibility that the work might also have been known in Syriac as well at an early date…” Brock, Jewish, 224. 381 Murray, Origin. 382 has a parallel meaning to in the sense of a messenger at Prov 13.17: Freedman and Willoughby, Mal’ak, 890. It does not appear to be used with an angelic connotation, except possibly in the present instance. See also Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 87–91. Rofé, Isaiah, emends to in Isa 59.19. He is dependent on this passage, but envisages a non-angelic envoy. 379

1.3 Vocabulary

91

Meyer suggested in 1921 that is the Aramaic equivalent of .383 A He/ . I have not seen any brew can certainly appear as in Aramaic, e. g. discussion of this point: if Meyer is correct, then the meaning = “Watcher, wakeful one” must be a Volksetymologie as Murray suggests. But the existence of “awake” in Hebrew and “wake, watch”, ptc. , in Syriac,384 and the practical coalescence between verbs whose second radical is y and those whose second radical is w (e. g. an active fem. participle with an i-vowel in the class of Syriac ˝ verbs), suggests that the case for as the Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew is just as strong. Overall, since a verb ‘wr meaning “wake, watch” is well attested in Syriac and Hebrew, it seems better to retain this derivation for for the present.385 The function of Watchers in 1 Enoch and Jubilees, as teachers of arts and crafts to humankind, could be understood to support the meaning “messenger”. But it seems difficult to account for the emergence of a new title with the same content as , especially since the Watchers are portrayed as (originally) purely heavenly beings, the content of is itself changing towards a more transcendental role, and the meaning of the postulated linguistic equivalent seems to be only a human messenger, with the possible exception discussed above. Watcher gradually becomes the most common title for angel in Syriac writings. In Aphrahat’s earlier works the words ml’k and ‘ir are about equally weighted; in Ephrem ‘ir predominates.386 For Aphrahat the two words are synonymous, so that he can use either when referring to the same Biblical passage. 1.3.6 Standing ones A title claimed for himself by Simon Magus in the pseudo-Clementine literature is , the “Standing One” (Clem. Recog. 1.72, 2.7; Clem. Hom. 2.22, 24). In all these passages except the last the title is equated with Christ. Fossum notes that the term also occurs in Samaritan literature, .387 It can be a title for God, but also a title for angels. For example, he cites from the Samaritan liturgy He [i. e. God] is standing for ever; He exists unto eternity. Standing Ones [i. e. angels] and mortals [literally, “dead”] are under His rule. 383

Ursprung, vol. 2, 109 n. 3. , Watcher, is first attested, after the Syriac translation of Daniel, in Act. Thom. 36. 385 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 11 n. 4, cites also Ugaritic, Akkadian, Aramaic and Mandaean with the meaning “(a)wake”. Murray, Themes: the sense of guarding humans is not prominent in early Syriac uses of ‘ir, whereas that of keeping the watches of praise is. 386 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 72. In the second half of Aphrahat’s writings, ‘ir is markedly less common; Cramer explains that this half is largely concerned with the Jews, for whom the term would be doubly suspect, as belonging to the forbidden apocryphal writings, and associated with the story of the fall of the angels (39f). 387 Fossum, Name, 55–58, 120–124. He rejects Philo’s use of as a possible source. 384

92

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology 388

The word “standing” thus connotes “living”, as is explained in Clem. Hom. 2.22. Similarly, Moses is praised as “standing between the two assemblies, between the Standing Ones and the mortals”: 389

Just as Moses becomes one among the angels, so the followers of Simon are to become like the “Standing One” whom they worship (Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.11). Crucially, Moses’ function is perceived as that of a priest among the angels and on earth: Where is there the like of Moses, and who can compete with Moses, the Servant of God, the faithful one of His house, who dwelt among the Standing Ones in the sanctuary of the unseen? They all honoured him when he abode with them. He was supplied from their provisions, being satisfied by them. He was brought right in among them. He was made holy priest in two sanctuaries. (Memar Marqah IV.6).

390

(See 3.2.2 below) Note that “standing one” does not appear to be a messianic title in the Samaritan texts; this would suggest that Simon Magus envisages Christ as an angel, since he equates the angelic or divine title with Christ. Isser associates Moses’ standing with supplication, and concludes from this that Simon’s Christ is a Moses redivivus.391 However, this interpretation does not fit well with the passages cited here from the Samaritan liturgy. Fossum replies that standing by God involves the idea of an apotheosis.392 The title of “standing one” for angels seems not to appear in Jewish texts, but the underlying idea is familiar. The praises of the angels are performed standing; there is no sitting in heaven (b Hag 15a, 11Q17 vii 3–4, Ephrem C. Haer. 32.6, Origen, Comm. Rom. 9.41, PG 14, 1244A), in fact angels have no knees (GenR 65.21, PRE 46, John Chrysostom Hom. 1 Cor 32.6). In Dan 6.27, the adjective , referring to God, means “enduring [for ever]”:393

Note that is juxtaposed with “living”, as in Clem. Hom. 2.22. Thus a comparable expression to “standing one” is attested in a Jewish text. This phrase from 388

Tr. Fossum, Name, 121. Text Cowley, 27 l. 18 (from the Defter). ibid., 54 l. 31; similarly 53 l. 27 f. 390 Memar Marqah, ed. Macdonald, vol. 1, 95 (text). Translation: vol. 2, 155. Fossum’s version (p. 141), cited here, alters it slightly. 391 Isser, Dositheans, 139. 392 Fossum, Samaritan, 388. 393 Gamberoni, Qwm, 1256. 389

1.4 The angel of the Lord

93

Daniel also closely parallels the first passage from the Samaritan liturgy cited above, . The attestation of the title “Standing One” in Jewish Christian circles is particularly interesting in that De Conick has argued for the importance of the idea of standing in solitude in the Gospel of Thomas.394 Standing encratites are thereby linked with the angels who stand before God. She also cites the meaning of “standing” in the sense of “enduring”, as above: the encratites are imperishable by virtue of their standing.

1.4 The angel of the Lord This section will consider more closely the different types of angelic beings and others with similar functions: hypostases, the “angel of the Lord”, principal angels and archangels. 1.4.1 Hypostases or divine agents Beings such as Wisdom are sometimes entitled hypostases of the divinity; these share some features with angels. Others are God’s Name, his Spirit, the Shekinah in rabbinic thought and the Logos in Philo.395 By hypostasis I understand a figure which is in some ways a projection or extension of God, the instrument of his will, and not fully separate from him, although the degree of independence can vary. Pfeifer defines a hypostasis as follows: eine Größe, die teilhat am Wesen einer Gottheit, die durch sie handelnd in die Welt eingreift, ohne daß sich ihr Wesen im Wirken dieser Hypostase erschöpft.396

According to Pfeifer, most hypostases are only incidentally mentioned, with the exception of Wisdom, and Philo is the only author for whose thought they are important.397 Ringgren admits influence from the hypostatised Wisdom in other ancient Near Eastern religions (1.2.2 above).398 Some passages identified by Ringgren as evidence for hypostases are, however, best treated as figurative language, e. g. Ps. 85.10, “mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other”. Hengel notes that the boundary between angels and hypostases is a fluid one.399 While this is true, it does not rule out the pos394

De Conick, Seek, 89–93. Compare Memar Marqah I.4 (Grace and Goodness); b Hag 14a (Mercy and Justice); John Chrysostom, Hom. Heb. 32.7 (Mercy). 396 Pfeifer, Ursprung, 15. 397 Pfeifer, Ursprung, 102. 398 Ringgren, Word, 132 f. 399 Judentum, 279–80. Against Pfeifer, he states that there was an increase in Mittlergestalten (not “middle forms” [ET 1.155] but “mediator figures”) in the Hellenistic period. 395

94

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

sibility of distinguishing in principle between the two; this distinction will be important for the argument of this section. I will retain the term “hypostasis” here, while noting Olyan’s criticisms.400 His contention is that this term implies an increasing remoteness and inaccessibility of God, with a consequent need for mediator figures; and that this assumption implies an anti-Jewish agenda. While it is right to acknowledge the loaded history of the term, Olyan’s alternative of “special figurative treatment” plays down the independence of the thing thus treated, implying an anachronistic strict monotheism.401 A useful overview of recent discussion of the term is provided by Gieschen, who himself prefers hypostasis to other terms, which are “inadequate to describe the independent identity” of these entities.402 Gieschen concludes: critics of hypostasis nomenclature tend to argue that this terminology emphasizes the separateness of the attribute(s) from the deity, rather than noticing the continued connection between the deity and the hypostatized aspect(s) of the deity precisely because of the nomenclature. The presence of hypostases does not destroy or even weaken so-called monotheism; it increases the complexity of monotheism because the hypostases continue to remain aspects of the deity.403

His careful discussion includes recognition of a grey area between personification and hypostatization. Personification, for him, is the “literary representation of a divine aspect as a deity” without implying independent personhood; hypostatization implies a degree of independence. As examples of varying degrees he cites “an hypostasis functioning as an instrument of God’s action; an hypostasis that is the visible manifestation of God; and an hypostasis that is a distinct agent of God.” His definition of hypostasis is: “an aspect of the deity that is depicted with independent personhood of varying degrees”. It shares the nature, authority and will of the deity since it remains an aspect of the deity.404 Hurtado rejects the term hypostasis, preferring “personified divine attribute”.405 This is linked with his concern to emphasise the “mutation” represented by worship of Christ, so that he downplays the role of secondary divine figures in Judaism before Christ. Olyan’s rejection originates in the wish to correct a false perception of Judaism on the part of Christian scholars. On the other hand, scholars who stress the continuity between Christianity and Judaism, or the diverse nature of Second Temple Judaism, continue to describe Judaism as monotheism while making room within it for the existence of subordinate figures, speaking 400

Olyan, Thousand, 89–91. See Alexander’s remarks on the process of “rabbinizing Jewish society” during the period 70–135. Alexander, Parting, 4–19. 402 Christology, 36. 403 Gieschen, Christology, 44. 404 Gieschen, Christology, 45. 405 Hurtado, One, 37. Also Hurtado, Binitarian, 192–4. 401

1.4 The angel of the Lord

95

of inclusive or complex monotheism. While mediator figures are widespread in late Second Temple Judaism, there is no one figure which is universally accepted alongside God. Both transcendent and exalted human figures function as mediators, either coalescing with (in 1 Enoch 37–71) or displacing messianic figures.406 For example, Chester considers Philo. Philo’s Logos is named archangel in Conf. 146, but also called “firstborn” and “beginning”, titles from the Wisdom tradition, and also the “Name of God”, indicating another hypostatical concept.407 The expression is used in Q. in Gen. II.62, clearly indicating (despite the existence of other ) that the Logos is a single mediating agent of God. To a certain extent such ideas in Philo are likely to be coloured by the Greek philosophical secondary god, the Demiurge. It is therefore all the more important to note that the Biblical concept of angels is also present.408 Wisdom is portrayed in Wisd 9.9–10 as dwelling in heaven, seated beside God, and able to be sent to labour beside a human being who prays for her. This suggests both independence from God and possibly even human form (“seated”); being sent from God brings angels to mind. Wisdom is clearly not pictured with human form in Sir 24.3, “[I] covered the earth like a mist”. Another hypostasis in human form is God’s Word (Wisd 18.15), here with a high degree of separation. Chester retains the expression “hypostatization” while also rejecting any idea of God’s remoteness. With regard to Wisdom and the Logos, as well as other exalted human and angelic beings, he says that “it is very difficult to be certain whether they are in the end intended to be divine or not”.409 Hurtado’s emphasis on worship as the criterion is open to criticism in the face of evidence for a lesser degree of veneration, e. g. Tobit 11.14–15, blessing God and his angels.410 Stuckenbruck discusses rabbinic prohibitions of veneration, e. g. j Ber 9.13a, “do not cry to Michael or Gabriel, but to Me”. Here angel veneration is implied to compete with the worship of God himself. According to Stuckenbruck, j Ber 9.13a suggests a debate among rabbinic circles concerning the proper understanding of angels as mediators.411 It should be noted that the hypostasis concept is little used at Qumran, although angels are so prominent, functioning largely as a heavenly court.412 Grözinger suggests that in Hekhalot literature angels are sometimes no more than hypostases of the function expressed by their name (e. g. nature angels 406

Chester, Messianic, 46 f.; 56. Chester, Messianic, 48. 408 Chester, Messianic, 50, points to Philo’s use of angelic language for Moses and Abraham, as well as the Logos. 409 Chester, Messianic, 65. Vollenweider, Christus, discusses the contribution of (the hypostatised) Wisdom to the figure of Christ, e. g. pre-existence, share in creation. 410 Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 164–7. 411 Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 147. 412 Ringgren, Faith, 81; Ps. 154 (Syr Ps. II; 11Q5) is a Wisdom psalm. 407

96

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

like Baraqi’el, whose power is over lightning ( ).413 This represents a reverse development in angelology, away from independence from God, if an angel is no more than the hypostatization of some aspect of God’s creative power. Paradoxically, the multiplication of names results in an increasing anonymity of the angels so named, as one of an immense crowd. Baraqi’el is far less interesting theologically than Michael. In another sense, the sheer multiplication of angels envisaged in Hekhalot literature achieves a kind of splendour through abundance: this begins already in the language of the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The greater glorification of God is thereby achieved at the cost of sacrificing theological content in the understanding of angels. 1.4.1.1 The Great Glory “The Great Glory”, an expression used in mystical literature (e. g. 1 Enoch 14.20, TLevi 3.4, Asc. Isa. 9.37), is a reverential circumlocution equivalent to “the Holy One, blessed be He”. It appears that “the Great Glory” in these passages designates God without remainder, not an extension or attribute.414 It is noteworthy that 1 Enoch 14 represents a vision of the merkabah within the heavenly temple that shares elements with the “four who entered Pardes” tradition. It is difficult then to argue that the Glory in merkabah / hekhalot traditions represents another being beside God himself. 1 Enoch 14 is significantly earlier than the “mystical collection” from the Talmud and the Hekhalot texts. Asc. Isa. 9.37 and 2 Pet 1.17 seem to reflect a Christian usage which restricts the title Great Glory or Majestic Glory, , to God the Father. We may recall Gieschen’s definition of personification, the literary representation of a divine aspect as a deity without implying independent personhood, or the type of hypostasis which is simply a visible manifestation of God. In places where the impossibility of seeing God is not as present to the reader’s awareness as in Exod 24.10 (see 1.4.3), a certain theological inconsistency need not be troubling – and the whole enterprise of mystical visions implies that it is possible to see God. “God’s Glory … can become a technical term for God’s human appearances”.415 Such a use of “the [Great] Glory” would parallel the category of “angel of the Lord” which appears indistinguishable from God (next section).

413

Grözinger, Namen, 29. Norelli, Ascensio, 495; Segal, Powers, 192; Rowland, Open, 84 f. 415 Segal, Risen, 310. Morray-Jones, Paradise II, 277, argues with regard to 2 Cor 12 that Paul’s apostolic authority derives from his vision of Christ as the enthroned kavod, in a merkabah vision, in parallel with R. Akiba in the “four who entered Pardes” story. See also Newman, Glory, 157–247; Bockmuehl, Form; Gieschen, Christology, 80–88; Segal, Risen, 315. 414

1.4 The angel of the Lord

97

Fossum and others interpret the Glory as the name-bearing great angel.416 However, this is open to question. In what does the angelic nature of this entity consist? Is it the human form? But “angel” connotes subordination and separation, so that God in human shape ought not to be so described. Is it even legitimate to reduce the various principal angels and others to one single mediator, as Segal does? The point at issue is whether “Glory” does in fact denote both divinity and divine agency, i. e. some lesser figure.417 Fossum interprets the Prayer of Joseph, “the archangel of the power of the Lord”, , as indicating that the angel is the Power, which Fossum equates with the Glory, the angel in human form. Because the angel shares the title “firstborn” with Christ in Col 1.15 ff., Fossum concludes that Christ is there portrayed as the Glory.418 But Fossum’s premise is flawed: is best translated “archangel of the Lord’s host”, cf. Gen 21.22 LXX . Fossum also draws attention to the fact that the Glory is often entitled , the “creator in the beginning”, in Merkabah texts.419 This can only be taken as evidence that the Glory is an angel if one has already decided, with Fossum, that the creation is the work of a subordinate divine being. This involves a serious departure from Jewish orthodoxy. However, could also indicate that the Glory is perceived as a divine title tout court, specifying that it is the creator God that is visible in the theophany. The key issue is the degree of divinity that is intended to be conveyed by the figure of the Glory. It is here contended that the Glory does not represent a subordinate divine figure, i. e. an angel, but either the visible manifestation of God himself or a hypostasis. Two further types of representation support our contention that God himself can be envisaged as visible; both involve human form. Firstly, there is clearly some relationship between the principal angel traditions and the scattered hints of belief in a gigantic, divine figure in human form, rooted in the “form of God” in Gen. 1.26 and Ezek 1.28; cf. Phil 2.6, Justin Dialogue 114. The late Shi‘ur Qomah text is the clearest formulation.420 But giant size is also attributed to angels: 1 Chr 21.16 (“the angel of the Lord”, also termed “the destroying angel”); TReub 5.6 (the Watchers “as high as the heavens”); Sandalphon (b Hag 13b), two angels (2 Enoch 1.4), Metatron (3 Enoch 9), the four holy creatures and 416 Fossum, Name, 318. Morray-Jones, Transformational, 9. Segal, Convert, 41, “a consistent picture of a principal mediator figure”. 417 So Newman, Glory, 11, 102 f. In fact Newman’s own analysis shows that “the Glory” as a title is reserved for God; naming angels as glorious is not the same thing. 418 Fossum, Image, 24–28. This is not to say that Christ is not portrayed as the Glory, but rather that any such portrayal implies full divinity and not angelic identity. 419 Fossum, Name, 281. Elior, Mysticism, 36, cites Hekhalot rabbati § 243 f. and 26 to show that Anafiel is titled . However, the passages only say that he is like the creator. 420 Scholem, Gnosticism, 37, sees Origen’s list of forbidden texts for Jews (Comm Song of S., prologue) as a reference to Shi‘ur Qomah-style exegesis of the Song of Songs. Halperin, Faces, 27, disagrees. See Fishbane, Measures, for other esoteric “measuring” termini and possible Christian parallels.

98

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

other great angels (3 Enoch 21 ff., esp. 33), angels at the resurrection of Christ (Gospel of Peter 10.40 – Christ himself is even larger); Christ (Hermas Sim. 9; Epiph. Pan. 19.4.1, cf. 30.17.6; 53.1.9); Adam (Questions of Bartholomew 21, b Sanh 38b); the angel that reveals teachings to Elchasai (Hippolytus, Ref. IX.8).421 Stroumsa discusses probable references to this concept in Christian and as well as the Gnostic texts.422 Note also the references to Christ as the of God in Paul.423 Gieschen links Paul’s language of being “in Christ” and of the body of Christ with the concept of the giant Form of God.424 The concept seems likely to be related to that of the Urmensch found in Iranian thought, the primal man Gayomart out of whose body the world is created.425 Another way of characterizing a divine figure in human form is the figure apparently composed of bronze and fire, first seen in Ezek 1.26–28 and named “the Glory of the Lord”, then in Ezek 8.2–4, where it is at least possibly an angel,426 Dan 10.5–6 (probably an angel), Rev 1.13–16 (Christ); ApocZeph 6.11–15 (angel Eremiel, taken by the narrator to be God); similarly Joseph and Aseneth 14.9–10 (angel).427 The descriptions differ, but share the element of blinding brightness, and usually mention bronze. “The angelophany [of Ezek 1 and Dan 10] has some of the ingredients of a theophany.”428 The word for bronze in Ezek 1.26, , becomes in 3 Enoch and other texts a heavenly substance and / or an order of angels.429 It seems better to understand such descriptions of angels as derivative of the theophany of Ezekiel 1, where the Glory is in human form, sitting on a throne. Rather than using them to understand the Glory as a principal angel, the theophany is primary, and the angelic figures are borrowing attributes of divinity to underscore their status.430 This borrowing in one sense draws attention back again

421

The idea is rejected by Ephrem, C. Haer. 7.2. Stroumsa, Forms. See also Stroumsa, Couple; Smith, Form. 423 Segal, Paul, 262 f. 424 Gieschen, Christology, 340; also Bockmuehl, Form, 20–22. 425 Kraeling, Anthropos, 85–94. Also Stroumsa, Forms, 269 f.; Segal, Convert, 50. 426 Rowland, Open, 95–97, notes the similarity of description between Ezek 1 and 8, and concludes that the same figure is intended in both. However, rather than concluding that the “human figure on the throne … could appear apart from it”, is it not possible that the absence of the throne in Ezek 8 signals an exalted angel borrowing divine attributes, and not God in human form? Newman, Glory, 94, interprets the figure in Ezek 8 as God himself. 427 Yahoel in Apoc. Abrah. 11.2 is described in ways that recall Ezek 1.26–28, although without bronze or fire. The clothing of Metatron, 3 Enoch 12.1–5, is similar. Metatron is subsequently transformed into fire, and Morray-Jones, Transformational, 11, suggests that this is a sanitized version of a tale in which the hero actually becomes identified with the Glory. 428 Rowland, Man, 100. 429 See 3 Enoch 35; 2 Enoch 1.4–5. 430 This is supported by the borrowing of such images in a Christological context, e. g. Rev 1.13–16. If their original implication is divinity, such images are particularly appropriate for Christ, whose divine status is in process of determination. 422

1.4 The angel of the Lord

99

to God.431 In another, it can mean that a certain fluidity remains about whether angels or a fully divine figure are intended. Interpreters who are concerned with orthodoxy are more likely to interpret potentially dangerous passages hypostatically.432 Concern with orthodoxy in connection with the Glory is visible in m Hag 2.1, “whoever is not careful about the glory ( ) of his creator, it were fitting for him that he had not come into the world”.433 The exact ontological status of the Glory is difficult to determine. It may be a personified aspect of God which is visible to human beings in a way that God in his fullness is not (or not without danger), but indicating no separation from the divinity. Or it may mean God in his entirety, accepting that God is visible and his form that of a human being. Bockmuehl rightly warns of the instinctive resistance of scholars to talk about God’s visual form.434 If we are to accept hypostasis terminology for the Glory, it must be clearly distinguished from, say, the hypostatical Wisdom sitting beside God (Wisd 9), which reveals a higher degree of separation. This degree of closeness to God indicates that calling the Glory an angel is inappropriate. 1.4.2 The Angel of the Lord The concept of a hypostasis cannot be cleanly separated from angelic ideas. The expression “the angel of the Lord” is best understood as a hypostasis in some contexts, e. g. Exod 23.20–21: “I am going to send an angel in front of you … do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.”435 The angel of the Exodus represents the presence of God and the Name symbolises this. Compare this with Exod 13.21, “The LORD went in front of them in a pillar of cloud by day … and in a pillar of fire by night” with Exod 14.19, “The angel of God who was going before the Israelite army moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from in front of them and took its place behind them”. Here the angel is not a replacement for the divine presence but an elliptical reference to the divine presence. Hannah notes a change in Exod 33.1–3: the angel is “beginning to have a quasi-individual existence”;436 this is where God says “I will send an angel … but I will not go up among you”. 431

Vollenweider, Monotheismus, 23. Or to avoid the issue altogether: Rowland, Open, 86, notes that Apoc. Abrah. 18 reproduces the Merkabah vision of Ezek 1, but instead of the human figure there is simply a fire; similarly 1 Enoch 71.2; Apoc. Sedrach 2.5; Deut 4.15 “you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you … out of the fire”. 433 Morray-Jones, Paradise I, 185–189. Danby and Blackman misleadingly translate “honour”. 434 Bockmuehl, Form, 13. 435 Also Num 20.16. See Pfeifer, Ursprung, 74–76, for other appearances of the “angel of the Lord” as a hypostasis. VanderKam, Presence, interprets Jub’s angel of the Presence using Exod 23. Davila, Macrocosmic, notes points of contact between Exod 23 and Isa 63.9. 436 Michael, 21. Also Gieschen, Christology, 57. 432

100

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

According to Pfeifer, the “angel of the Lord” is the only example of a developed hypostasis theology in (pre-exilic) Israel; this use of “angel of the Lord” appears to be restricted to the period before the monarchy.437 When the “angel of the Lord” speaks in the first person, as in Gen. 22.12, “now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son … from me”, it is particularly clear that the angel is more than a spokesman.438 Mach speaks of “ungeheure Nähe von Gott und Bote” with regard to Jacob’s fight with the “man”, Gen 32.24–30. “Man” is not intended to conceal heavenly origin, e. g. Gen 18.2, 16, 22 “men”, 19.1 “angels”, referring to the same persons. The function of the “angel of the Lord” outlined here was clearly understood in antiquity: ExodR 32.9 says that wherever the angel of the Lord is mentioned, it should be understood as a manifestation of the Shekinah.439 Thus an angelic term is replaced with a hypostasis, confirming that a representation of God is intended, not a separate entity. This supports Gieschen’s observation that hypostases do not weaken monotheism, because the link with the divinity remains. As will be argued below, the threat to monotheism occurs when the (angelic) being is perceived as separate from God. Thus the “angel of the Lord” can indicate a visible manifestation of God, without remainder, like the highest class of hypostasis just discussed.440 Exod 3.2–6, the burning bush episode, is another example. The text begins “And the angel of the Lord ( ) appeared …”, but there are several occurrences of and in the following verses, and v. 6 concludes, “And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God ( )”. Gieschen distinguishes a number of different theories which have been used to explain “angel of the Lord” passages, e. g. Ringgren’s hypostasis theory, von Rad’s interpolation theory (editorial softening of anthropomorphisms), and also the identity theory, that the “angel of the Lord” is a manifestation of God himself, perhaps to protect humans from 437

Pfeifer, Ursprung, 74. Contra Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 42 f., giving Ugaritic examples of messengers who are addressed as the sender, also 2 Kgs 19.23, “By your messengers ( ) you have mocked the Lord” (irrelevant). But the Ugaritic passage does not well support his claim (2 i, Gibson p. 40–43). The messengers speak in the first person, but preface their message with “The message of Yam your lord … is this” (ll. 17, 33). Once El answers directly as if to Yam in person: “Baal is your slave, O Yam” (l. 36), but Baal speaks to the messengers as messengers: “I myself tell Yam your lord” (l. 45). So of the four occurrences, only one supports the contention that messengers are treated as the sender himself. 439 The text can also be understood to mean that the angel and the Shekinah appeared together. 440 Vollenweider, Monotheismus, 23 f., uses the term transparency when speaking of the “angel of the Lord” and of Christ, implying the highest possible degree of closeness to God. He suggests that this transparency may itself be a product of angelology: “Die Engelwesen zeichnen sich ja durch ihre schlechthinnige Abhängigkeit von Gott aus” (26). Vollenweider is firmly in Hurtado’s camp and expresses caution towards complex monotheism in first-century Judaism. However, it seems that this “schlechthinnige Abhängigkeit” does not take sufficient account of the tension inherent in angelology, evidenced by “two powers” heresy. 438

1.4 The angel of the Lord

101

the deadly consequences of truly seeing God (e. g. Judg 6.22–23, 13.22). He concludes that the “angel of the Lord” does not present a uniform tradition, but that sometimes it appears distinct from God and sometimes not.441 I suggest that two of the categories will suffice.442 If the angel of the Lord appears partially distinct from God, as in Exod 23.21 or 33.1–3, then it may be understood as a hypostasis. If the angel of the Lord appears indistinguishable from God, then it may be understood as a manifestation, usually in human form.443 Gieschen concludes that the existence of some traditions that distinguish the “angel of the Lord” from God himself caused other “angel of the Lord” traditions to be read in the same way by later interpreters. He further argues that Exod 23.21 represents a hypostasis, the Name of the Lord, being fused with the “angel of the Lord” tradition; this is part of his overall thesis that all kinds of subordinate divine figure traditions coalesce into the manlike figure of God.444 However, the text of Exod 23.20–21 seems to me rather to suggest that the angel is the primary concept, and that the Name is pictured instrumentally, as having vivifying or creative power, see n. 465 p. 105 below. A difficulty now arises: how is a single “angel of the Lord”, an extension of the divine nature, to be incorporated theologically into a heaven of many angels, of which he functions as the chief? The crucial theological step from “God + angel” to “God + many angels” (with one principal angel or a college of archangels) is not reflected in the extant texts. Olyan’s work is valuable for its tracing of textual cruces as motors of development for angelic names and classes; but it does not contribute to bridging this first gap. An example of the theological difficulty involved is given by Zechariah ch. 3. There the high priest Joshua is brought before the angel of the Lord, and Satan accuses him. But the “angel of the Lord”, evidently functioning as an elliptical reference to God, can give orders to “those who were standing before him” (3.4), who are angelic servants. This is theologically inconsistent, and perhaps best explained by the comparatively late writer Zechariah (late 6th century / early 5th century BC) using the title “the angel of the Lord” in an archaizing fashion; alternatively, it might represent a transitional state, whereby the author is unaware that representing the “angel of the Lord” in heaven among the heavenly court is self-contradictory; the older Biblical references to the angel of the Lord all involve him representing God to humankind and working on earth.445 441

Gieschen, Christology, 57 f. In effect Gieschen reduces the categories to these same two, p. 68. 443 But the “angel of the Lord in a flame of fire” of Exod 3.2 suggests that God’s manifestation here is not in human shape. Similarly the pillar of cloud and fire leading the Exodus. Philo, Mos. 1.66, speaks of a “beautiful form, not like any visible object” when describing the burning bush. 444 Gieschen, Christology, 76–8. 445 Hannah, Michael, 24 n. 45, cites Uriel in 4 Ezra as an imitation of the early “angel of 442

102

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

1.4.3 Principal angels It is here proposed to differentiate principal angels from hypostases. Principal angels are here understood as great and powerful angels who are pictured against a background of lesser angels, representing a further step away from the hypostasis concept. They may perform grand vizier-like functions on God’s behalf, but are distinct from God in a way that “the angel of the Lord” is not, and significantly possess a personal name.446 The relation of name to individual identity needs no explanation; not so easily understood is the reason why some principal angels are described as having multiple names (as is God). For example, the seventy names of Metatron in 3 Enoch 3.2, enumerated in 48D (as are the seventy secret names of God in 48B).447 This is not sufficiently accounted for either by the possession of the Divine Name (although mystical angelic names often have YHWH as a component), or by the consideration that different principal angel traditions may coalesce. Nevertheless, certain principal angel figures such as Metatron do seem to be partially rooted in the concept of the (single) “angel of the Lord”.448 For example, Metatron’s title “the lesser YHWH” reflects this: 3 Enoch 12, “my Name is in him”, quoting Exod 23.21.449 But complete separation from God implies that a principal angel can threaten monotheism more than a hypostasis or the angel of the Lord, which is still conceived as in some sense belonging to God. This is well illustrated by the story of Aher, who beholds Metatron seated in heaven and says, “Are there then two powers in heaven?” (b Hag 15 a, 3 Enoch 16). Metatron is made to stand up and whipped, in order to leave no doubt as to which is God.450 the Lord” concept. His name implies distinctness from God; but Ezra addresses him as if he is identified with God. 446 Fossum, Name, 337. The “grand vizier” concept is illustrated by 4Q470 1 5 f., where Michael apparently represents God in making a covenant with Zedekiah: Larson, Angelic. 447 Grözinger, Namen, 38, notes that some of the divine names are given to Metatron or other principal angels in Hekhalot literature, indicating that sharing God’s names involves sharing God’s power – and indeed divinity itself. 448 This is rejected by Meier, Yahweh, 59. Meier prefers a minimalist approach to “angel of YHWH” passages in the OT, where possible translating simply as “a messenger of God”, and where the figure clearly represents God, assuming interpolation of mal’ak into a passage originally only reading YHWH. 449 Also ApocAbrah 10.3 (1st or 2nd century AD, significantly earlier than 3 Enoch), the angel Iaoel “of the same name” (sc. as God). See also b Sanh 38b (equally quoting Exod 23.21) A Min here suggests that Metatron should be worshipped, but R. Idi(th) confounds him. 450 Compare Yalqut 1.20 ad Gen 2.9: the angels noticed Adam’s resemblance to God and asked “Are there two powers in this world?” God then reduced Adam’s size: he had formerly filled the world: Landau, vol. 1, 12. (Adam fills the world also in GenR 21.3.) B Sanh 38b: Adam reached from one end of the world to the other, but God diminished him when he sinned. Possibly the late Yalqut passage conflates b Sanh 38b and b Hag 15a. See also GenR 8.10: the ministering angels wish to worship Adam, God causes him to fall asleep. But Life of Adam and Eve 14 has God commanding the angels to worship Adam, and only Satan refuses, leading to his expulsion.

103

1.4 The angel of the Lord

Aher mutilated the shoots. Of him Scripture says: Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt. What does it refer to? – He saw that permission was granted to Metatron to sit and write down the merits of Israel. Said he: It is taught as a tradition that on high there is no sitting and no emulation, and no back, and no weariness. Perhaps – God forfend! – there are two divinities! [Thereupon] they led Metatron forth, and punished him with sixty fiery lashes, saying to him: Why didst thou not rise before him when thou didst see him? Permission was [then] given to him to strike out the merits of Aher. A Bath kol went forth and said: Return, ye backsliding children – except Aher. (b Hag 15 a) ° ‫׳‬

* ‫״‬

‫״‬ 451

°

According to Bauckham, “personifications or hypostatizations of aspects of God himself, such as his Spirit, his Word, or his Wisdom” are included within the divine identity and hence do not threaten God’s uniqueness. On the other hand, principal angels and exalted patriarchs, “exercising some degree of delegated divine authority”, are not included in God’s unique identity and thus do not threaten God’s uniqueness either. The only exception is the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch, who is seated on the divine throne and receives divine worship.452 But the existence of the “two powers” polemic in rabbinic writings indicates that principal angels could be perceived as threatening monotheism. The present argument is that full separation from God is the dangerous factor. The expression “mediator figure”, often used in connection with principal angels, needs consideration. What is the angel considered to mediate? Is it the presence of God, as in the case of the name-bearing angel associated with Exod 23.21? Is it human prayers, or messages and punishments from God? The degree of divinity is markedly higher in the first case than the second, and classifying Philo’s Logos, or Melchizedek, and the angels who mediate the Law on Sinai together as “mediators”, as Segal does, fails to take account of this.453 Segal does not distinguish between principal angels and hypostases in his consideration of “two powers” heresy.454 He cites Mekhilta passages to argue that the earliest “two powers” heresy centred around divine attributes, e. g. God’s 451 Alexander, 3 Enoch, 64: the version of the story in 3 Enoch depends on that of the Bomberg MS of the Talmud, the later of two recensions, but incorporates traditions that may be earlier. Morray-Jones, Hekhalot, 36, argues for the priority of 3 Enoch because the Talmudic version softens Aher’s heretical utterance and plays down Metatron’s godlike appearance. 452 Bauckham, Throne, 49, 59. Hurtado, Binitarian, 189, interprets this as reverence and not divine worship. 453 Segal, Powers, 182–205. 454 Segal, Powers, p. X, “the basic heresy involved interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God.” [his italics] Cf. ibid., 182 f.: “It rather appears that rabbinic concepts of memra, shekhina, yekara avoid the

104

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

appearance in different ways as young or old.455 But although Segal relates this to the rabbinic concept of the two divine attributes of Justice and Mercy, he does not cite any passage in which such a personified or hypostatised attribute was seen by rabbis as the root of “two powers” heresy.456 He begins from the assumption that “the idea of a separate hypostasis of the divinity must be functionally equivalent to being an angelic presence”.457 However, this equation of the terms hypostasis and angel is not helpful. As before, we must ask what is angelic about a particular figure. For Segal it seems to be the human form; this has already been discussed. The key question is better understood as separation from the divinity; a “separate hypostasis” is a contradiction in terms if we follow Gieschen’s definition of a hypostasis as distinguished by its continuing link with God. Beings that are separate from God are best described as angels, subordinate divine beings in heaven. Only a minority of the passages discussed by Segal specify what the second power is that they polemicize against. It is here suggested that (e. g.) God’s Wisdom or Name is not envisaged as competing with God himself in this way. For example, Segal notes R. Judah b. Ilai’s discussion of the “dangerous” passage Exod 24.10, “They saw the God of Israel”, warning against the danger of “two powers” interpretation by the nations.458 A literal translation “would falsify the meaning, since no man can see God and live. To insert the word ‘angel’ for God would be blasphemous (and imply two powers?).”459 Thus the only possible translation is “they saw the glory of the God of Israel”, duly given by the targums. But this supports the present argument that a hypostasis (the Glory) is perceived as less dangerous to monotheism than an angel who is so powerful as to permit a “two powers” interpretation. If a single “angel of the Lord”, or a human appearance of God such as those discussed in the Mekhilta passages, changes so as to be perceived as a separate entity from God, rather than a manifestation of God, then it too is perceived as a threat, as Segal rightly says. Michael is the most prominent angel in rabbinic writings, and the Visions of Ezekiel equates him with Metatron.460 The Qumran War Scroll at one point implications of independent divinity and possibly are meant to combat them.” But these are what are here termed hypostases. 455 Mekhilta of R. Simon b. Yohai, Bashalah 15; Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, Bahodesh 5, Shirata 4. 456 Segal, Powers, 46, calls the appearances of God as a young or old man “a manlike hypostasis of God”. This is a very loose use of the word “hypostasis”, which should be restricted to a divine attribute. It seems to me that what Segal is envisaging is closer to a single “angel of the Lord” figure, in that for the authors of the cited passages, the figure is a representation of God himself, not of a part or attribute of God. 457 Segal, Powers, 186. 458 Mekhilta dRI Shirata 4.2. 459 Segal, Powers, 51. 460 Segal, Powers, 66 (Vis. Ezek. is fourth or fifth century, i. e. probably earlier than 3 Enoch). Alexander, Historical, 162 f., explains that Metatron was originally a secret name of Michael, but later developed as an independent entity. The figure of Michael / Metatron is itself one of

1.4 The angel of the Lord

105

seems to identify him with the Prince of Light (1QM xvii 6 f.).461 In 11Q13 Melchizedek is portrayed as God’s grand vizier, leading angelic armies against his evil counterpart,462 and pronouncing judgement; the passage even applies the divine name in the plural to him, citing Ps. 82.1 (11Q13 ii 10). This passage supports the interpretation in 1.3.3 above, that the angelic title “gods” implies particular pre-eminence. The parallels between the 1QM and 11Q13 passages are so close that it is possible that Michael and Melchizedek were identified in the lost portions of 11Q13.463 GenR 51.2, in a discussion of the repetition of the divine Name in Gen 19.24, reports R. Judah’s belief that the repetition refers to Gabriel. According to Segal, this implies an exegesis “which allowed the tetragrammaton to signify a being other than Israel’s one God”, coming perilously close to “two powers” heresy.464 It may, however, be an instance in which the divine Name gives power to the being who bears it, an extension of “my name is in him”.465 GenR 1.3, which excludes Michael and Gabriel from any part in creation, implies a risk of infringement of God’s prerogatives. The increasing prominence given to Gabriel in rabbinic writings may be due to concerns about Michael’s exalted status.466 The first-century Prayer of Joseph portrays the angel Israel / Jacob as the firstborn of every living thing (fr. A, 3). He titles himself “the archangel of the power of the Lord and the chief captain among the sons of God”, as well as “the first minister before the face of God” (fr. A. 7 f.); these titles are presumably inspired from Josh 5.14, , LXX . Although in some ways this text should be related to the concept of archangels (i. e. a group of pre-eminent angels, see below), the importance of the first rank and its exaltation above others point in the direction of principal angel ideas. three that make up the Metatron of 3 Enoch, the others being Enoch and Yahoel / the lesser YHWH. 461 But cf. Fletcher-Louis’ caution, Glory, 461 f. 462 Cf. 1QS iii 13–iv 26, 1QM xiii 9–12. 463 Milik’s conjecture of the three names Michael, Prince of Light and Melchizedek in 4Q544 fr. 2 2–3, accepted by Puech in DJD 31, 329. 464 Segal, Powers, 131. 465 See Fossum, Name, 241–256 on creation by the Name, esp. the early attestation at Jub 36.7; 1 Enoch 69.14–26, the secret name by which heaven and earth were created; 3 Enoch 39.1 sacred names engraved on the throne of glory and capable of independent flight (cf. 3 Enoch 48B). Also b Men 29 b, GenR 12.10, Pesikta Rabbati 21.10. Also Midr. Tehillim ad Ps. 17.3: all angels bear the Name engraved on their heart: Buber, 63a–b. A parallel tradition in Pesikta Rabbati says: “[The angels] are His couriers and His name is engraven upon their hearts like a seal”, ‫( ׳‬Jastrow vol. 1, 518 s. v. , tabellarius). The Golem legend, which dates back to Talmudic times, is also relevant. Mystical sealing with the divine Name appears in fifth-century Syriac baptismal formulae: Morray-Jones, Transformational, 27. Gieschen, Name, draws attention to the importance of the divine Name for Christology, including the Name-bearing angel and the Enochic Son of Man (1 Enoch 48.2). 466 Hannah, Michael, 97 n. 23, counts 18 mentions of Michael in the Babylonian Talmud, against 39 mentions of Gabriel.

106

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

1.4.4 Archangels The notion of archangels implies a plurality, rather than a single pre-eminent angel, and also the existence of a larger group of subordinate angels over whom the archangels are set. A similar content is implied by the “angels of the Presence” or of the Face, who first appear at Isa 63.9 in the singular, like a principal angel, also Jub 1.27, 29, 2.1. In Jubilees they also appear in the plural as one of the two highest classes of angels (2.2, 15.27); also in TLevi 3.5 .467 In Qumran texts proper they appear at 1QSb iv a 25 and 1QH vi 13. 1 Enoch 40 classes Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel as four “faces”, which Schäfer takes to mean angels of the Presence.468 Biblical precedents for the four archangels are the four living creatures of Ezekiel 1;469 for the group of seven, the six destroying “men” of Ezekiel 9, led by the “man clothed in linen”. A “man clothed in linen” acts as angelus interpres in Dan 10. This may be Gabriel (cf. Dan 8.16 and 9.21); but he also shows features of divinity, i. e. bronze and fire, as outlined above; this indicates that he is a powerful principal angel. The detail of the linen clothing, i. e. priestly garments, may indicate that the angel serves in the heavenly temple. Interestingly, the first mention of the “man clothed in linen” in Ezek 9 has no such features, though he is associated with the throne chariot. Archangels may partly be treated as a subform of principal angels, but not entirely. Michael and Gabriel can appear as single, powerful angels. Raphael and Uriel however, and much more so the others who appear in lists of seven or six archangels, are more clearly members of a group. Compare Tob 12.15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ready and enter before the glory of the Lord”. The variation between six and seven may depend on whether one member of the group is thought of as pre-eminent.470 Josh 5.14 may have contributed to the idea of a pre-eminent member of a group of angelic princes: the title is used of Michael, as one of a group, in Daniel 10. However, the group of four archangels may be an earlier tradition than the group of seven.471 The name of the fourth in this group varies. In 1 Enoch 9–10 the MS traditions offer Uriel, Suryal and Sariel. Hannah suggests that Uriel is found in Greek texts, Sariel in Hebrew / Aramaic texts, citing 1QM 9.14–16; Sib 2.214 ff.; Ap. Mos.

467

Charles, 34. This reading is found in MSS families , A and S1 (stemma p. xxii). Schäfer, Rivalität, 21. 469 van Henten, Archangel, 81. 470 E. g. a fourth-century amethyst bearing a picture of Christ and the name surrounded by six angelic names including those of the four principal archangels. Hannah, Michael, 172 f. Daniélou, Angélologie, 173, compares Hermas, Sim. 8.12. 471 Hannah, Michael, 29 f. 468

1.5 Conclusion

107

40.2; 3 Bar 4.7 (Slavonic) and Greek Apoc. Ezra 6.1–2. Admittedly the Phanuel tradition from 1 Enoch 40 complicates this picture.472 Michael is named as “one of the archangels (chief angels)” in 1 Enoch 71.3. Otherwise the archangels as a group appear at 2 Enoch 19.3, 20.1, 2 Baruch 59.11. The title , already Josh. 5.14 LXX, is used in TAbraham rec. A., 3 Baruch (Greek) 11.6, 13.3; JosAs 14.7, GkApoc Ezra 1.4, 4.24; 2 Enoch 22.6, 33.10. The title appears more or less interchangeable with archangel, and in fact 2 Enoch 22.6 has archistratig in one version and archangel in another. Ranking of angels in different classes, although without attaching names to each class, may go back to Qumran. Schwemer suggests that the seven angelic princes of the sixth song of the sabbath sacrifice may be understood as blessing seven separate groups of angels, 4Q403 1 i.473 These groups are implicitly understood as of increasing rank, as the seven angels who invest Levi with marks of priesthood, TLevi 8.2–10. Philo’s resemble archangels, in that ordinary angels are said to wait upon them (Conf. 174). The more corporate understanding reflected in the concept of a group of archangels is also shown in the fact that the ancient idea of the divine council reappears in rabbinic writings under the guise of the heavenly familia or beth din.474 It is even claimed in j Sanh 18 a that God never acts without consulting his heavenly court.475 By comparison to principal angel traditions, archangels and even more so a divine council tend to increase the distance between angels and God, and leave them in comparative anonymity. They are therefore less threatening to monotheism than principal angel traditions.

1.5 Conclusion The historical overview identified phases in angelological thought, each of which bears on right belief about God (orthodoxy), located within a context of complex monotheism, i. e. where the one God is associated with lesser divine beings. In the first phase, before the second century BC, angelic interpretation of difficult texts such as Ps. 29 safeguards monotheism, (e. g. LXX replacing with ). A monotheism which embraces angels may therefore be described as more, not less, orthodox, if the angels do not challenge God’s 472 Greenfield discusses the “prince of the countenance” Suriya and links the name with the archangel Suriel who replaces Uriel in some Coptic and Gnostic texts. He also identifes Suriya / Suriel with Sariel. Odeberg, XXIVf. 473 König, 90. 474 Schäfer, Rivalität, 41–3. 475 Because of the pre-eminence of the Law which a beth din administers: e. g. b BM 59b, R. Eliezer disagrees with the Sages, but God supports him with miracles and finally a Bath Kol. R. Jeremiah counters that since Torah has been given on Mt. Sinai, they pay no attention to a Bath Kol. God replies gleefully, “My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!”

108

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

status. The cherubim and seraphim exemplify correct worship of God. This too reflects a concern for orthodoxy: the fact that these divine beings worship God underscores their subordinate status. The sphere of angelic action changes over time. In the early period, angels are shown operating on earth, bringing messages from God in heaven. From the second century BC, angels are primarily located in heaven, with two main functions. The first is praise of God and attendance upon him, originating partly in the ancient concept of the heavenly council. The cherubim and seraphim probably represent another source; these are located in heaven and associated with praise and the visible revelation of God’s presence, from the beginning. They are later understood as types of angels (e. g. 1 Enoch 39, juxtaposing (angelic) spirits with a reference to Isa 6, implying that seraphim are a type of angel). This second phase of angelological thought therefore operates by means of a shift in angelic function, which implies a “liturgicising” of their nature. It is therefore likely that this liturgically oriented angelology originated in the Temple. The second main function is that of war within the heavenly sphere (Dan 10–12). It is not readily derived from the messenger function of angels, although its anchor text is an angelic appearance, i. e. a message. Josh 5.14 implies very exalted status for the commander of the Lord’s army ( ), since Joshua is bidden to remove his shoes like Moses at the burning bush. The adoption of this title for the angelic princes of Daniel indicates that they are highly exalted. It also implies the existence of angelic “footsoldiers” whom they command; angelic ranks are now differentiated. This reveals a certain tension between the princes or archangels, whose exaltation stresses their divinity, and the ordinary angels, whose name stresses their subordination to God. The shift in emphasis towards the heavenly sphere probably reflects the influence of Persian cosmology, with its opposed armies of spirits; the tension between the higher and lower angels reflects older and newer angelic roles. The combination of priestly and military functions for angels may be linked with a similar Biblical association: e. g. Deut 20.2–4, Josh 6.3–5, 2 Chr 13.12. The theme of orthodoxy is found in the Bible in Hezekiah’s, Josiah’s and Ezra’s reforms. It is linked with angels in this second phase of angelological thought, in the conflict between Pharisees and Sadducees. Angelic beliefs, though not themselves the criterion, are used to support their understanding of orthodoxy by the Qumran sect; similarly Philo uses angels to express his philosophical presentation of Judaism. This links angels with orthodoxy in that a philosophically correct account of God’s dealings with the world gives angels a pivotal role. Philo equates the angels with the Platonic daimones, and defines them as souls. The distinction between higher and lower angels appears in Philo as those which are pure spirit and those which belong to “une catégorie intermédiaire entre l’intelligible et le sensible”: “Les hommes sont bien des anges du sensible mais déchus, nullement des anges de l’intelligible dont l’immuabilité

1.5 Conclusion

109

serait en contradiction ontologique évidente avec le statut d’êtres partiellement matériels”.476 Philo uses different angelic titles to represent different ranks of his hierarchy: cherubim for the creative and royal divine powers ( ), archangel for the Logos.477 A further theme of this second phase is greater interest in angels in their own right, shown in increased numbers and greater individualization, and in the multiplication of new texts. This expansion of angelology expresses reflection about the new doctrine of resurrection and / or the immortality of the soul. Texts that picture souls after death sharing the heavenly sphere with angels have a spiritualised understanding of the afterlife; this entails a restructuring of the picture of relations between God and the world. In one sense this is a theological step backward. Envisaging God as unique, set over against the whole of his creation, shows a clear ontological distinction between God and the rest. The “double house”478 of heaven and earth takes the dangerous step of placing God as one inhabitant of heaven among the many angels, essentially on the same ontological level as they, although pre-eminent in power. An intuitive understanding of this danger is presumably the theological insight behind the tradition that God is invisible, or that the sight of God causes death. Heavenly praising beings can be more comfortably accommodated in complex monotheism than e. g. Philo’s co-creating angels, as more clearly subordinate. The eventual emergence of “two powers” heresy is thus unsurprising; later rabbinic tradition located God himself in distant, inaccessible heavens, or behind a curtain, reinstating the distinction between God and creation. A third phase of angelological thinking begins with the rise of Christianity and the sharpening of the issue of orthodoxy within Judaism. Concern for the canon and anxiety over unrestricted angelology reflects this. Gradations within the orthodox fold appear, with mystical texts reserved for specialists and hedged about with warnings of their danger. A counter-view, defending the legitimacy of new writings, and hence of angelological interests, is visible in 2 Esdras 14. There is no uniform angelology in the first to fourth centuries; texts like 3 Enoch which combine references to principal angels with references to a host of lesser angels or multiple archangels may simply be theologically inconsistent.479 Deliberate ambivalence may enhance the numinous mysteriousness of a figure. The Son 476

Decharneux, Anges, 157. Philo, though an Alexandrian, has close links with the Herodian royal family and Judaea. He also reflects Palestinian rabbinic exegesis, e. g. the Mekhilta: Belkin, Philo. Thus he both reflects and influences Judaean thought; see section 2.2, introduction, for his influence on both Christianity and Judaism in Caesarea. 478 Ps.-Clem. Recog. 9.3 “God by His Son created the world as a double house … and appointed angelic powers to dwell in the higher [and men in the lower]”. The OT Sheol becomes Hades in the LXX, implying a “triple house” of heaven / earth / Hades, a Hellenistic idea. 479 Bietenhard, Himmlische, 106: “Mindestens 5 Systeme von Engelklassen kennt der 3 Hen”; similarly Olyan, Thousand, 1 n. 1. 477

110

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

of Man in Dan 7 and 1 Enoch 46 ff. seems to carry many layers of significance: angelic, messianic and possibly divine. The figures of bronze and fire similarly have both angelic and divine elements. Initially Christianity had no parallel to the rabbinic reticence towards angels; Christians continued to use the “outside books”, and discussion of emerging orthodoxy centred on other issues. A century after the Gnostic movement, Origen can develop a theology based on angels with no fear of being unorthodox. We noted that Epiphanius discusses angels in connection with Paul of Samosata and the Arians, suggesting that a subordinationist Christology may entail over-reliance on angelological ideas from the point of view of fourth-century orthodoxy. This could indicate a philosophical angelology such as Philo’s (whose Logos resembles the Arian Christ in that he stands on the border between Creator and creature). Angelology thus appears as a background issue in the first great doctrinal controversy of the church. In the late fourth century, teachings about angels were cited to show Origen’s unorthodoxy: e. g. that humankind had an unbodied existence in heaven before birth, that the devil and his angels will be saved.480 Thus by the end of the fourth century, Christianity connects excessive angelological interest with heresy in the same way as rabbinic Judaism. A tradition continued of minimizing angelological interpretations: Julius Africanus and others (e. g. Ephrem, Parad 1.10) believed that “sons of God” in Gen 6 referred to Sethians, Clem. Recog. 1.29 refers it to righteous men, who had lived the life of angels; Justin interpreted the angel of Exod 23 as Joshua; Epiphanius understood “sons of God” in Ps. 89.6 to mean that all can be sons of God by grace. Such interpretation may reflect unease with angelology. However, identifications of angels with people may also work in the opposite way: the identification of the angel of Exod 23 with Joshua can be read as an exaltation of Joshua rather than a degradation of the angel; likewise Origen’s treatment of John the Baptist as an incarnate angel. The theme of the transcendence of God vis-à-vis the angels continues in this period: a by-product of Christian controversies about the nature of Christ is to clarify the ontological status of angels. Jewish attempts to express an ontological distinction both between angels and humans, on the one hand, and between angels and God, on the other, appear in references to angels’ souls481, their fiery corporeality482 and their food.483 The concept of angels’ food is biblically anchored 480

Jerome, Adv. Ioann. Hier. 7. 3 Enoch 47: angels who recite the song wrongly are consumed by the fire of God, but their “spirits and souls” go to stand behind the Shekinah. 482 Angels are spirit and / or fire, e. g. Ephrem H Fid 55.5, i. e. close in nature to God who is also conceived as fiery, as in the vision of Ezekiel. Cf. j R. H. 2.5 half water and half fire (like heaven); NumR 12.8, DeutR 5.12 Michael is made of snow, Gabriel of fire; ARN B24 angels of fire and hail; 2 Enoch 37 an ice angel chills Enoch so that he can endure the terror of the Lord. 483 ExodR 32.4 angels are sustained by the lustre of the Shekinah, i. e. they require spiritual food; cf. GenR 78.1, the river of fire, , comes from the perspiration of the living crea481

1.5 Conclusion

111

in Ps. 78(77).25, . The word means “mighty ones”, but the inference is plain (compare Ps. 103.20 ); LXX renders . Similarly Ps. 105(104).40 speaks of / ; “bread of heaven” implies “bread of heavendwellers”. The same tradition is visible in Wisd 16.20 f., which speaks of and . The psalm is expanded to say that the food altered itself to suit the taste of the eaters.484 These passages explain the presence of angels’ food in both Jewish and Christian tradition (in our period Wisdom is used by Christians, not Jews). Dumoulin links the rabbinic tradition of the pre-existence of the manna with its angelic nature.485 The theme of angel veneration and its permissibility for the orthodox appears in this phase. Whereas the Essene prayers to the sun, identified above as licit veneration of angels, are taken for granted, t Hull 2.18 offers evidence for veneration but is concerned to limit orthodox behaviour; compare the prohibitions in the Mishnah against forms of prayer that imply “two powers” heresy.486 The orthodoxy of the angels themselves in this regard is demonstrated by the “refusal tradition”, where humans attempt to worship an angel and are rebuked. This represents a form of control over the permissible limits of complex monotheism.487 However, this tradition coexists with one that some form of veneration is permissible and indeed necessary. Josh 5.15 prescribes venerative behaviour that in Exod 3.5 is appropriate for the manifestation of God himself (if the burning bush episode is to be treated as not, or not only, an angelic appearance). In this context we may reconsider Col 2.18, (understood as worship of angels, as argued above). Paul is arguing against law-observance, instancing food laws, calendar restrictions, self-abasement, visions and . (Incidentally, this portrait fits Qumran remarkably well.) The may simply be instanced by Paul as another element of licit Jewish religion that has been superseded by the advent of Christ. The prominent mention of veneration of angels implies that for this group, angel veneration was of central importance. Similarly, Chester argues that in Col 1.15–20, “the writer is probably engaged in arguing against the view that Christ is only one of several angelic … beings, but to do so he has to use angelological themes”, which would suggest a context of uncontested angel veneration.488 tures as they carry the Merkabah. B Yom 75b the angels eat manna, citing Ps. 78.25; compare Joseph and Aseneth 16.14. 484 Similarly b Yom 75a, ExodR 5.9, 25.3, NumR 19.22. Dumoulin, Manne, 59. 485 Dumoulin, Manne, 80. 486 M Ber 5.3, m Meg 4.9: Segal, Powers, 98–108. Also b Sanh 38b: far from worshipping Metatron, “we would not accept him even as a messenger!” 487 Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 103, infers that venerative behaviour underlies the refusal tradition. He also identifies behind Heb 1–2 a polemic against angels perceived as a threat to Christ’s status (139). 488 Chester, Messianic, 74.

112

Chapter 1: Syrian Sources and the History of Angelology

The theme of Christian asceticism is linked with angels by a key text, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven”. The text is treated by Eusebius of Emesa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Tatian and John Chrysostom. They all show awareness of this link, summed up in virginity. The author of the Liber graduum, on the other hand, locates the likeness of angels in the liturgical praise of God. This is striking in view of our remarks on the liturgical nature of angels. But the centrality of virginity indicates a further development of the concept of orthodoxy, namely the distinction between the ordinary believers and the perfect. The idea that perfection is attainable in this life is there from the beginning (e. g. Matt 5.3–11, Rom 6.11–14, 8.1–2, Gal 2.20, Eph 4.13); but the stress on angelic virginity emphasizes it strongly.489 The thematic section of the chapter distinguished between hypostases, principal angels and manifestations of God, drawing out distinctions which are only implicit in the texts. It was postulated that the criterion lies in their degree of separation from God. The Glory represents a particularly difficult case. Against Fossum’s definition of this figure as an angel, it was suggested that the Glory is either a manifestation of God, avoiding the ineffable Name, or the highest class of hypostasis.490 In either case, the very close link with God means that the figure does not threaten monotheism. If the distinction is blurred and at the same time the figure is perceived as separate from God, as in the case of powerful grand-vizier-like angels, orthodoxy is threatened and angelology is perceived as dangerous. Therefore the different types of principal angels, archangels etc. can be seen partly as a response to the tensions inherent within complex monotheism: hypostatic language does not encroach on God’s uniqueness, the concept of a college of archangels restrains any single archangel from undue prominence. The increasing sophistication of angelic imagery is a tool in the service of orthodoxy. New explanations can be applied to existing traditions in order to underscore the distinction between God and angel, e. g. the interpretation that any mention of the angel of the Lord in the Bible implies the presence of the Shekinah (ExodR 32.9). The success of orthodox Christology, in these terms, may be explained as abandoning angelic language, implying separation from God, and increasingly relying on language which stressed the link with God (what are here called hypostases, eventually developing into the hypostases of fully Trinitarian theology). In the course of the chapter we have identified points at which angel concepts support orthodoxy and / or monotheism (e. g. by textual alterations that avoid associating God with evil), and points at which they threaten it (e. g. GenR 1.3 denying angelic involvement in creation). Angels are a key conceptual category for 489

Flew, Perfection. The idea is also present in Platonism and Gnosticism. Note the OT use of and to speak of the presence of God; also pagan treatment of divine names, section 1.2.2. 490

1.5 Conclusion

113

expressing theological thought, both in philosophically articulated systems such as Philo’s, Justin’s and Origen’s, but also in the more symbolic style favoured by rabbinic writing, Syriac Christianity, apocalyptic and Merkabah mysticism. Syriac asceticism, with its focus on angels, is deeply rooted in Jewish mystical thought. The next chapter will examine the role of angels in more detail in three theologies; the final chapter will consider the role of angels in articulating theological thought in a type of expression which does not lend itself to philosophical or formal theological analysis, namely liturgy, which nevertheless is crucial in forming a sense of orthodoxy.

Chapter 2

Theological functions of angels The right ear hears the Lord by night, but the left an angel. LAB 53.6

This chapter will consider in greater detail three examples of angelological reflection from the area of Syria / Palestine. The Qumran texts, Origen and Ephrem the Syrian have been chosen as offering a substantial amount of material on angels. The aim is to consider the theological implications of the material, which with the exception of Origen offers little explicit theological analysis. The material thus gathered will enable us to form conclusions as to the relation between angelology and orthodoxy in these three bodies of work. For example, there are sufficient points of contact between Origen and Qumran, and Ephrem and Qumran, to support the case that at least an inchoate theology of angels was part of the theological inheritance of all three.

2.1 Qumran Chapter 1 briefly introduced the Qumran community; the present section will discuss their self-understanding as an earthly counterpart to the angelic priests of the heavenly temple; “The Qumran community was already experiencing heaven on earth, so to speak: the members were living the angelic life”.1 This angelic life is part of the mapping of the whole cosmos in terms of the influence of angelic and demonic armies. This is most clearly seen in the Two Spirits Discourse of the Community Rule, 1QS iii 13–iv 26. The spheres of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness find their equivalent within each human soul, the spirits of truth and of deceit (1QS iii 18 f.). 2 We will consider four aspects of the Qumran community’s attitude to angels: firstly, the idea of communion with angels; next the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the work in which angels are most prominent; the figure of Melchizedek, representing the complex of ideas that was discussed under principal angels in 1

Collins, Genre, 426. See Davidson, Angels, 145. “Prince of Lights” may refer to the luminaries. For demons, see Alexander, Demonology; Nitzan, Prayer, 228; Davidson, Angels, 158. 2

116

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Chapter 1; and finally the link between angels and liturgy. Two general points should first be noted. Firstly, 1 Enoch and Jubilees, both used at Qumran, differ in their treatment of angels. Jub 4.15 states that the Watchers descended “in order to teach the sons of man, and perform judgement and uprightness upon the earth”; this clearly has an apologetic motivation, to remove the origin of evil from heaven: the descent of the angels is not part of their sin.3 In the Enochic literature, the fall of the Watchers is more prominent than the Eden story as the origin of sin. For example, from the dead giants emerge the Nephilim, who are demons (1 En 15.11); this represents an attempt to bring order into the demonic realm, by tracing them back to one source.4 1QM xiii 10 f. reads: “You made Belial for the pit …”, clearly disagreeing with the Enochic aetiology of evil. This would appear to contradict 4Q180 1 7–10, apparently a reference to the fall of the Watchers. However, Enoch, Jubilees and the Qumran writings all share the concept of a heavenly world inhabited by angels. Secondly, the importance of halakhah at Qumran lies in the necessity of preserving perfect holiness among the community. An inadequately performed Temple ritual would lose its efficacy to atone for the sins of Israel.5 According to Nitzan, the Qumran community developed the idea of atonement by the prayers of a holy group which perfectly obeyed the Law, to replace the Temple sacrifices (1QS 9.3–6).6 However, Nitzan’s account disregards the fact that it is still not clear whether the community completely boycotted the Temple or not.7 Moreover, Falk has shown that the practice of regular prayer is based on Temple practice and probably also existed outside Qumran.8 Thus Nitzan’s absolute opposition between prayer and sacrifice should be nuanced. Still it is noteworthy that the holiness of community members is not based on their membership of Israel, nor on their fulfilment of liturgical obligations in the Temple. Rather, it will be seen that the linked complexes of worship in the heavenly temple and likeness or even identity with the angels are the source of their holiness and their fitness to worship God. The shared terminology of and indicates that human holiness is ultimately derived from God. Lev 20.26, “You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy”, and similar passages, root the idea of becom3

VanderKam, Angel, 155. Note that in CD-A ii 17 f. the fall of the Watchers is because of previous sin. In 4Q180 1 7–10 Azazel, angels and giants are named, so that the fall of the Watchers can be inferred, but its cause is not mentioned. These are, according to Davidson, Angels, 179, the only certain references to the fallen angels in the sectarian writings. 4 Alexander, Demonology, 338. Life of Adam and Eve 13–16 links the two aetiologies of evil in that the creation of Adam occasions the fall of the angels, because Satan refuses to worship Adam with the other angels. Delcor, Mythe, 48. 5 Nitzan, Idea, 129 f. Klinzing, Umdeutung, 17 f., notes the crucial role of the divergent calendar: in the Temple all sabbaths are profaned, see Jub 6.37. 6 ibid., 131. Note also the citation of Prov 15.8 at CD-A xi 20–21. 7 Falk, Daily, 137 f.; also Ginsberg, Unknown, 70 f.: prohibition of sending a ritually impure man with an offering for the altar, CD xi 18 f. 8 Falk, Prayer, 124 f.

2.1 Qumran

117

ing angels firmly in Biblical orthodoxy. The word appears to imply both ritual purity and moral sanctity.9 Thus angelological ideas perform a (retrospective) apologetic function, justifying the secession from mainstream Judaism. 2.1.1 Fellowship with angels The fellowship of the community with angels is a pervasive theme. CD-A 15.15– 17 (= 4Q266 fr. 8 i 7–9) justifies the exclusion of people with stated defects because of the holy angels. The author of the Hodayot rejoices because he has been purified and so has entered into fellowship with the sons of heaven and the host of holy ones (1QHa xi 21 f., quoted 1.4.2). 1QHa xiv 13 f. speaks of fellowship with the angels of the presence (or face). 1Q28b iii 25–26, iv 24–26 (quoted below), from the blessings appended to the Community Rule, compares priests with angels of the presence. 1QM xii 7–9 (quoted below) claims that the army of the angels fights with the Qumran community. Kuhn distinguishes between three Vorstellungskreise in which communion with angels is envisaged: help in the holy war; cultic exclusion of deficient persons; and priestly communion with the angels.10 This last is the most important. Liturgical fellowship with the angels appears to be a new development, despite the parallels observed in Jub, although caution must be exercised since so little is known about contemporary liturgy in other forms of Judaism.11 If the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice do indeed originate outside Qumran, then very probably other Jews also experienced liturgical fellowship with the angels. Falk takes 4Q503 Daily Prayers to be benedictions to accompany the morning and evening recital of the Shema.12 Blessing “with all the companies of the light”, i. e. together with the angels, is mentioned several times. “It seems probable that their communal prayer is connected with the idea that the interchange of the luminaries is a special time when angels must present themselves before God to praise him.”13 Communion with the angels is grounded in the priestly character of the community. The roots of this concept lie in the Book of Jubilees. Jub 50.9 characterizes the sabbath as “a day of the holy kingdom”, and Schwemer comments: “mit dem ‘heiligen Königreich’ in 50,9 [wird] die Gemeinschaft Israels mit den beiden obersten Engelklassen bezeichnet. Ganz Israel amtiert hier priesterlich am Sabbat …”14 Even more important are two earlier passages in Jub. Exodus 9

Regev, Abominated, distinguishes ritual and moral purity in 4QMMT. Kuhn, Enderwartung, 69. The idea of angelic help in war, fundamental to the War Scroll, occurs in 1 En 90.14. Davidson, Angels, 109. 11 Falk, Daily, 145 f. 12 Falk, Prayer, 119. 13 Falk, Daily, 49. See 3.2.1 below. 14 Schwemer, König, 54. Cf. Nitzan, Prayer, 276: “Only after the destruction of the Second Temple does there appear an approach comparing the praise of God by all Israel with the exaltation of the angelic song” (referring to b Hag 12b) [my emphasis]. 10

118

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

19.6 promises that Israel will be a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. This is taken up in Jub 33.20, but strangely not so in 1Q28b i 1 – ii 28 (1QSb), the blessing for the community.15 However, the blessing for the priests that follows (iii 22 – iv 28) does have close links with the blessing of Levi in Jub 31.13–17. In particular, both texts make the link with the priestly service of the heavenly angels.16 The Qumran blessing makes it quite clear that the earthly service of priests is not simply a counterpart to the heavenly, but happens together with that of the angels. The relevant passages are as follows: May the Lord bless you from his [ho]ly [residence]. May he set you as a glorious ornament in the midst of 26 the holy ones. [May he re]new the covenant of [eternal] priesthood for you. May he grant you your place [in the] holy [residence] … May you be 25 like an angel of the face in the holy residence for the glory of the God of the Hos[ts … You shall] be around, serving in the temple of the 26 kingdom, casting the lot with the angels of the face and the Council of the Community […] for eternal time and for all the perpetual periods. (1Q28b iii 25–26; iv 24–26) ]

26

[ 27 … [

[

… ] […]

]

]

[ 25 26

The function of the two groups is evidently the same, whatever their origin, earthly or heavenly; the priesthoods seem to fuse. Thus the communion with angels envisaged at Qumran is more than simply a sharing of worship; it is a communion of identity. When functioning liturgically, the priestly members of the community become the same as angels. In fact, by doing what angels do, living the angelic life, they actually become angels, in the limited liturgical context. We will return to this point presently. Schwemer is right to dismiss the argument about whether an eschatological focus is intended in 1Q28b. It is more a case of entering the sphere of the transcendent here and now; signifies this transcendence, locating God’s kingdom entirely “in der himmlisch-göttlichen Welt”.17 Present transcendence and eschatological fulfilment are not the same, although the one leads to the other. The same is true here as Schwemer remarks on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: “Die Gemeinde feiert […] gemeinsam mit den Engeln im Lobpreis den himmlischen Gottesdienst, sie ‘erhebt’ sich damit in den himmlischen Tempel. Gilt vom erwarteten eschatologischen Tempel: , so wird diese Königsherrschaft Gottes im Himmel schon gegenwärtig gefeiert und die Gemeinde partizipiert bereits jetzt an ihr”.18

15

Schwemer, König, 66 f. Also Jub 2, 1.2.1.4 above. 17 Schwemer, König, 64. 18 Schwemer, König, 76. On the tension between eschatology and present transcendence, see also Collins, Throne; Davila, Hodayot; Davila, Ascents. 16

2.1 Qumran

119

I suggest that the experience of communion with the angels holds in tension both eschatological expectation and experience of the heavenly reality while still on earth. Eschatological expectation is visible in the War Scroll, where angels and Qumran people join together in the eschatological battle. The eschatological battle could in fact be described as a forcible juxtaposition of heavenly and earthly realities, until the earthly reality is destroyed or remade. An apocalyptictype “flight into heaven” after the manner of Enoch would render the battle impossible. But sharing angelic worship is clearly not eschatological; if anything, it is atemporal, in that it involves the Qumran community in the ongoing worship of heaven.19 This too will presumably experience change at the eschaton, but its salient characteristic is that God’s praise continues “for eternal time and for all the perpetual periods.” The Qumran liturgical writings do not involve leaving earth behind in order to enter heaven; the blessing of the priests indicates that earth is being turned into an extension of heaven. Similarly, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice describe the heavenly worship of the angels, thus evoking it in the liturgical context on earth. Earth and heaven are thus interpenetrated.20 Dimant correctly notes that the camps of the angel of light and of Belial consist of both human and angelic beings.21 The “temple-like reality” (97) of community life supports the present argument that the heavenly sphere, and particularly the priestly service of angels in the heavenly sanctuary, is attained within the context of earthly life. The priestly work of Israel and angels in parallel is stated explicitly at Jub 30.18. Dimant draws attention to the importance of Jubilees at Qumran (fourteen copies found); she offers a list of precise parallels between the tasks of the angels and those of the Qumran community: e. g. offering bloodless sacrifices, existing in perfect purity, praising God, expiating (100–101). However, she concludes that this is a communion by analogy rather than an actual one, whereas I suggest that it is a communion of identity. Can we, then, speak of a mixing of human and angelic spheres? According to Newsom, a distinction remains: “The experience provided by the Sabbath Shirot serves to authenticate and reward human worship while at the same time allowing for a proleptic transcendence of its limits.” 22 But the proleptic element consists in anticipating the heavenly rewards of the eschaton. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice do not replace human worship exactly; rather, those who recite them are performing human worship by evoking angelic worship, blurring the boundaries between the two. The human sphere is not so much mixed with the 19 Cf. Klinzing, Umdeutung, 128, “Die nächsten Parallelen finden sich … bei der Vorstellung, daß in der eschatologischen Zukunft die Gerechten mit den Engeln vereinigt werden.” This may be so, but Engelgemeinschaft is also a present reality. See also Noll, Communion, 93. However, his blanket rejection of realized eschatology is overstated. 20 See Schwemer, König, 117. 21 Dimant, Men, 95. 22 Newsom, Established, 117.

120

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

angelic as dissolved into it. I would argue that 1Q28b iii 25–26 and iv 24–26 are clear on this point. Within the Songs, as we have them, the issue is not discussed beyond the comparison of human and angelic worship in 4Q400 2 6–8. This is scarcely surprising, since the focus of the songs is to evoke the heavenly praises, largely ignoring the human performers of the songs. The songs’ performance by human beings turns an act of human worship into an act of angelic worship, merging the human and angelic priestly communities. Reading them for their content alone, neglecting their liturgical, performative context, has led Newsom to ignore this aspect. The songs do also have a certain eschatological element: the performance on earth of songs evoking the heavenly praises only has purifying, soteriological relevance if the earthly context is still remembered. Davidson asks to whom the blessings pronounced by the chief princes in the sixth song are addressed; he concludes that it may be a case of deliberate ambiguity, that both the angelic worshippers in heaven and the Qumran community on earth may be addressed.23 Davidson speaks only of close association; but surely in this liturgical context alone, the distinction is effectively abolished. Note that is used adverbially at the climax of the seventh song when the princes sing together; this is scarcely a coincidental use of the name used by the Qumran community for themselves.24 A distinction resembling Fossum’s between exalted human figures, bearing the divine nature, and fully transcendental angels is fundamental to the interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls recently offered by Fletcher-Louis.25 His argument is that earlier interpretations of the Scrolls, particularly Newsom’s interpretation of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, have been overly dualist, assuming a parallelism between heavenly and earthly worship of God which is not justified by the texts. Much of the language of “holy ones”, previously interpreted as referring to angels, is seen by Fletcher-Louis as referring to exalted, angelomorphic priestly figures who bear the divine image and the glory of Adam by virtue of their liturgical roles in the worship of the Qumran community. His view of the crucial role of liturgy for the constitution of angelic identity for human beings is valuable and supports the concerns of the present work. However, I believe that Fletcher-Louis is setting up a false dichotomy with the diagrams of separate vs. overlapping spheres he offers. E. g. “There is relatively little indication that the Qumran community thought of heaven and earth as two separate but synchronized spheres in which the righteous on earth mirrored, but were subordinate to, the angels in heaven. Rather the overwhelming evidence is for their belief in heaven as a shared community between angels and men in which status and identity has become fluid between the two types of being.” (165) 23

Angels, 244. Schwemer, König, 91. 25 Fletcher-Louis, Glory, 20. Nogueira, Celestial, 176 n. 12, cites Fletcher-Louis but does not discuss his argument, though himself arguing for joint worship of humans and angels. 24

121

2.1 Qumran

His view of angelomorphic humanity in fact has much in common with the older terminology of realised eschatology. For example: “the transition from one sphere of life to another … I do not mean that it must be conceived in crudely spatial terms, that life with the heavenly host must be lived in a heaven distinct from earth. Evidently the Qumran community enjoyed this higher level of life right here on earth.”26 While angelomorphic human beings fit well in some contexts, they fit less well in others, in which I believe the angelic interpretation should be retained. For example, in the War Scroll he discusses col. 12 in such a way as to squeeze out the angels almost entirely (423–449): 1

For there is a multitude of holy ones in heaven and hosts of angels in your holy dwelling to [praise] your [truth.] And the chosen ones of the holy nation 2you have established for yourself among t[hem.] The book of the names of all their armies is with you in your holy dwelling, and the num[ber of the ju]st in your glorious dwelling. 3[Your] blissful mercies and the covenant of your peace you engraved for them with the chisel of life, in order to rule […] during all times eternal, 4to muster the arm[ies] of your [ch]osen ones according to its thousands and its myriads, together with your holy ones [and with] your angels, to have the upper hand 5in the battle [and destroy] the rebels of earth in the lawsuit of your judgements, while the nation of the chosen ones of heaven triu[mphs]. Blank 6 Blank 7 You, God, are awe[some] in the splendour of your majesty, and the congregation of your holy ones is among us for everlasting assistance. We will [treat] kings with contempt, with jeers 8and mockery the heroes, for the Lord is holy and the King of glory is with us the nation of his holy ones are [our] he[roes, and] the army of his angels is enlisted with us; 9the war hero is in our congregation; the army of his spirits is with our steps. Our horsemen are [like] clouds and fogs of dew that cover the earth, 10like torrential rain that sheds justice on all its sprouts. [

]

[ ] [

2 [

]

[…] [ [

1 ]

[ 4

]

] 5 vacat 6 vacat [ ]

[

] ] [

8 9

[ [ ]

3

]

7 [

]

] [ ] 10 [1QM 12.1–5, 7–10]

The “multitude of holy ones in heaven and hosts of angels in your holy habitation” (F-L’s translation) become the human elect in their angelomorphic mode and the earthly sanctuary, viewed as a heavenly world. The “hosts of angels among our mustered troops” (v.8 end) become (possibly) the priests blowing 26

Collins, Eschatology, 37.

122

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

trumpets. This violation of the obvious sense of the text is justified by a reference to the previously argued inclusion of human beings in the concept of the “holy ones” and consequent heavenly identity. However, although Fletcher-Louis repeatedly uses the term Engelgemeinschaft, such interpretations as these in fact displace the angels by the exalted human beings. Fletcher-Louis writes: “The true Israelite can be taken up from the level of humanity to the angelic and the divine … It is, therefore, not at all surprising that angelomorphic humans can be called ‘holy ones’ …” (61). Unfortunately he fails here to distinguish between the angelic and the divine, as Fossum does, explaining the prominence of the principal angel with the indwelling of the Divine Name. Elsewhere Fletcher-Louis assumes that the angelomorphic priests are in fact theomorphic and above the angels, e. g.: “At times this means the righteous have the rights, privileges and status of the angels … But at other times and for particular persons the righteous are more properly included within the grammar of God’s own life, embodying his Glory and receiving the honour (and worship) otherwise reserved for him.” (135)

The theology of the “glory of Adam” which is regained by privileged figures of the past and the Qumran community, and which is in fact the Glory of God, is doubtless a significant element in the theology of Qumran as a whole and this is well observed. But Fletcher-Louis overemphasizes it in order to support his argument that the theomorphic priests are above the angels, despite the fact that he initially cites angelomorphic texts to support his theory of priestly status, for example Jub 31, “May he draw you and your seed near to him from all flesh to serve in his sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones”. For example, in the thirteenth Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice (discussing 11Q17 ix and 4Q405 23 ii), he says that the community’s priesthood takes the place of the divine occupant of the throne-chariot in the climactic vision (375).27 This is principally based on the phrase “in the midst of the appearance of majesty and the likeness of the Spirit of (the) Glory”, which he takes to be an allusion to Ezek 1.28. It seems to me that the tenuous linguistic parallel with Ezekiel does not suffice to bear the weight of this far from obvious interpretation of a difficult, riddling text. Angelic glory is here abandoned in favour of divine glory, after the model of the prelapsarian Adam.28 In his conclusion Fletcher-Louis again fails to distinguish between angelic and divine nature: “the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are the fullest, most sustained expression of an anthropology which takes the righteous up into the divine life and that of the angels” (391 f.). He also fails to sustain his initial differentiation

27

But cf. p. 334, discussing the seventh song, where all the worshipping community participate in the divinity. 28 Fletcher-Louis, Glory, 382.

2.1 Qumran

123

between a two-storey universe and one of overlapping spheres. Here, for example he clearly himself assumes a two-storey universe: “texts such as Isaiah 6, Zechariah 3 and the characterization of Enoch in Genesis 5.22, 24 should all be taken as witnesses to the assumption that the worshipper, especially the true priest, is brought into a heavenly world populated by the angels. Why else is the chariot throne of the Tabernacle and Solomonic Temple, to which the priests (and king) have peculiar access, a construction of angelic or divine beings?” (277, italics original)

He cannot have the argument both ways. If Isaiah 6, with its temple imagery, refers to a heavenly world as he suggests, then there is a parallel heavenly temple after all.29 The key to correct interpretation, I suggest, lies in an assumption actually made by Fletcher-Louis, that earth and heaven meet in “a shared community between angels and men in which status and identity has become fluid between the two types of being.” (165) Rather than excluding angels and pinning all on a theomorphic priestly identity, I would see the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, with Newsom and Schwemer, as focusing on angels and therefore as evidence for a community of angels and human beings. Both Newsom and Fletcher-Louis point out the key role of the Temple as the locus of the meeting of earth and heaven; in the Songs, “the heavenly cult is modelled on the earthly one”.30 We have already noted Davidson’s assumption of deliberate ambiguity as to the recipients of the angelic blessings. For Fletcher-Louis, both the chief princes and the blessed are human beings (314). In my opinion it is precisely the fluidity that is crucial: the distinctions between angels and human beings are blurred in the liturgical experience which is the locus of meeting between the earthly and the heavenly spheres. In that sense the liturgical space becomes a functional equivalent for the Jerusalem Temple. The one liturgical space in which the presence of God is experienced and worship offered is both earthly and heavenly. As Fletcher-Louis says, “If Israel’s liturgy takes place in an eternal space and time then to enter that liturgy is to enter a heavenly ontology.” (426) Yet since the language of deification is certainly present, and the world-view that of an invasion of earth by heaven or a taking up of human nature into the heavenly sphere, it seems better to retain the concept of a heavenly temple. The concept of liturgical time is an important one (see 3.2.1 below). The liturgical space is the place where the boundaries between humans and angels, and to a certain extent God also, are dissolved; being in God’s space entails partaking of God’s holiness. Thus and even can have angelic or exalted human meanings. But rather than setting angels and human beings in opposition, the liturgical community simply blurs any distinction between 29

Memar Marqah IV.6, text 1.3.6 above (Moses priest in two sanctuaries), may indicate that the idea of parallel heavenly and earthly liturgy predates the Qumran secession. 30 Davidson, Angels, 242.

124

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

the two. Charlesworth speaks of “starting to become an angel”, that is, beginning a process which will be continued in heaven.31 Crucially, the occasion for this experience is the moment when the Qumran community praise God. Their identity, like that of the angels, is solely constituted in their relationship with the Almighty. 2.1.2 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are extant in ten fragmentary copies (one from Masada); they were probably composed no later than 100 BC.32 They contain songs prescribed for each of the first thirteen sabbaths of the year, of which the seventh is emphasized.33 They are distinctive in a number of respects. Firstly, while the angelic titles and are not unknown in other writings found at Qumran, they are conspicuously more common in the Songs of and for the Sabbath Sacrifice.34 Schwemer sets the archaic usage of angels in parallel with in Ps. 29, thus relating the Songs to an ancient Temple theology of God’s kingship.35 This usage led Newsom to conclude the non-sectarian provenance of the Songs.36 Schwemer draws attention to the fact that the seventh sabbath song gives the key for the relation between God and the angels, both called . 4Q403 1 i 31 says that the King of glory “makes holy with his holiness all his holy ones”, i. e. that the angels’ holiness is derivative. 4Q403 1 i 33–36 says that he is the God of gods ( ), his glorious divinity ( , a highly unusual abstract noun) is above the exalted divinities ( ) because he is king and created them by his word. God is king and creator and as such incomparably above the other inhabitants of heaven, exalted though they be.37 Secondly, the Songs offer possibly the earliest use of for angels, although angels performing priestly functions are well attested, e. g. offering prayers or incense.38 Thus the focus on knowledge, already noted, is clearly shown to mean priestly knowledge: 4Q400 i 17: “…] knowledge in the priests of the inner sanctum”.39 Otherwise the terms used for angels parallel those used by the Qumran community for themselves, including military terms: camps of the gods, 31

Charlesworth, Portrayal, 136. Charlesworth and Newsom, 4. 33 Newsom, Songs, 13. Newsom, Sectually, 170, gives a table showing the distribution of multiple copies of works found at Qumran. 34 Davidson, Angels, Appendices C and D, 333–342. 35 König, 59. 36 Sectually, 182 f. Cf. Falk, Daily, 129 f.: “the presence of should not be considered to be a reliable indicator of origin outside the Yahad.” 37 König, 101. 38 Falk, Daily, 136. 39 Newsom, Songs, 30. 32

2.1 Qumran

125

, 4Q400 2 2; muster, , 4Q402 4 9, plural 4Q405 fr. 20 ii – 21 – 22 14; banner [or division], , ibid. Newsom notes a thematic development within the collection: earlier songs have eschatological themes, while the second half focuses on the heavenly sanctuary and its angels.40 A characteristic feature of the whole collection is that, while formally the songs constitute praise of God, their interest is actually focused on the angelic priesthood itself.41 Omitting the actual words of the angelic praises is a means by which attention is turned to the angels rather than God.42 The “chief princes”, or , and “deputy princes”, , are conspicuous in the sixth, seventh and eighth sabbath songs. There are seven of each, presumably corresponding to the seven divisions of priestly angels and to the seven holy areas of the heavenly temple. These highest angels receive honour from angels and humans: 4Q400 2 2 (= 4Q401 14 i 8) They are honoured in all the camps of the gods and revered by the councils of men.

“They” are the “divinities of knowledge”, , and “most holy ones”, , of the preceding line: the exalted titles indicate that the angelic princes are meant. Note that the lesser angels and humans are set in parallel, underscoring the fact that they are a joint community; note also the uncontested veneration of the angelic princes.43 It is not easy to correlate these references with angelic classes known from elsewhere. It is tempting to equate the two highest ranks with the angels of the presence and angels of sanctification who are singled out as highest-ranking in Jub 2; but , who presumably correspond to the angels of the presence, are mentioned at the beginning of the first sabbath song, 4Q400 1 i 4, and it is not clear whether these are a separate group. Influence from Jub cannot therefore be proved.44 It is also tempting to equate the chief priests with the archangels, since this term is not used in the Songs, and in some traditions at least there are seven archangels (e. g. TLevi 8). On the other hand, the conjectured mentions of Melchizedek, 4Q401 11 3 and 4Q401 22 3, do not fit well with known

40

Newsom, Songs, 14 f. Newsom, Established, 105. 42 Newsom, Songs, 16. 43 Cf. Fletcher-Louis, Glory, 165. Fletcher-Louis also discusses 4Q418 81, which apparently contains another reference to veneration of angels: l. 11 “honour his holy ones”, (pp. 176–187). In this case I accept that his interpretation of “holy ones” as human is also possible, though his claim that worshippers “glorifying” angels are not found elsewhere is weakened by the passage just discussed. Hence his discussion of the difficult expression in 1QM xvii 6 f. should not reject a priori the possibility of veneration (p. 462 f.). 44 Newsom, Songs, 36. 41

126

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

schemes of archangels.45 Metatron is named as one of six archangels in Targum Ps.-Jonathan ad Deut 34.6, but Melchizedek is unknown in such a group.46 In 11Q13 (11QMelch) Melchizedek is a single chief angel, comparable to Michael; but nothing in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice suggests a single chief angel over the seven chief princes. No other angel names are preserved in the fragments. Thus if the angelic chief priests are equated with the archangels, Newsom’s conjectures involving Melchizedek must be rejected. Newsom distinguishes three sections: songs 1–5 contain most of the angelological information, e. g. about their priesthood and ordination, and a reference to the eschatological war in 4Q402 fr. 4. Songs 6–8 represent the climax. The framing songs 6 and 8 are similar, with extensive descriptions of praise, in song 6 by the chief princes, in song 8 by the deputy princes. Both songs repeat the number seven many times, e. g. in the sixth song each prince sings seven psalms. The seventh prince sings forty-nine, all those of his predecessors plus seven psalms of song of his holiness, (4Q403 1 i 1–9).47 The seventh song is badly damaged, but the seven introductory calls to praise are followed by a merkabah vision with attendant angels. Multiple are implied, and even plural which praise God are mentioned; Newsom notes the centrality of this cultic vocabulary in the context of the collection’s priestly ethos. It appears from songs 6–8 that the heavenly temple was envisaged as containing seven holy places with seven angelic priesthoods, each with chief and deputy high priests.48 Songs 9–13 are very fragmentary, but appear to contain descriptions of the structures of the heavenly temple and the praises offered by these structures. There are two descriptions of the merkabah, in songs 7 and 12. The final song describes the angelic high priests who perform the sabbath sacrifices.49 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are probably not connected with an actual earthly sacrifice.50 How, then, is the heavenly sacrifice to be envisaged? According to Falk the songs are intended to accompany heavenly altar service, implying sacrifice, though possibly of incense, since there is no mention in the

45 Newsom, Songs, 134 and 143 with Pl. II and III, republished with identical comments DJD 11, 205 and 213. See also Newsom, Established, 106. The texts read as follows: 4Q401 11 3: ] [ ; 4Q401 22 3] [, where the is doubtful. The context speaks of the ordination of angelic priests. The spelling in two words is attested at 11Q13 ii 5 (11QMelch). The most recent publication in Charlesworth and Newsom, 32, omits the conjectured [ , which might indicate greater reservations on the part of the editors. 46 Michl, Engel II (jüdisch), 77. 47 Schwemer, König, 86–88. The first two princes’ psalms are reconstructed. Schwemer notes that is a root characteristic of Temple worship. 48 Newsom, Established, 109. The seven priesthoods are to be understood as hierarchically ordered: Schwemer, König, 90 f. n. 129, compares the seven angels investing Levi in TLevi 8.4–10. 49 Newsom, Merkabah, 13–16. 50 Newsom, Established, 114; Davidson, Angels, 236.

2.1 Qumran

127

extant fragments of the altar of burnt offering.51 , whole burnt offering, does however occur in the 12th song (4Q405 23 i 5 f.); hence the absence of the word for altar may be accidental, especially in view of the poor preservation of the 13th song describing the offering. , sacrifice (of flesh), , offering, and , drink-offering, all occur within two lines in the 13th song, 11Q17 ix 4–5. This varied vocabulary suggests that the heavenly ritual is the exact counterpart of the earthly, including a spiritual equivalent to the blood-sacrifice. However, an alternative possibility exists, that the vocabulary of sacrifice is part of an extended allegory. We have already noted Nitzan’s remarks on the substitution of praise for sacrifice; although this is largely due to the ritual emergency the Qumran community faced, a tradition rejecting sacrifice certainly already existed. Prov 15.8 is quoted in CD, see above; Ps. 40.6–8, 51.16 f., 141.2, and Song of the Three 16 f. should also be noted, also TLevi 3, next footnote. Because of their heavenly focus, the songs do not discuss human sinfulness, though the propitiatory ministry of angels is mentioned at 4Q400 1 i 16, . This is the only extant occurrence of in the Songs. It is therefore possible that the sacrifice is envisaged as (also) offering the prayers of the community.52 A striking feature of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is that the actual words uttered by the angels are not mentioned, though there are possible allusions to liturgical formulae; see 2.1.4 below. Allison suggests alternative reasons: the songs may be in an unintelligible heavenly tongue, comparing TJob 50.2; thus the Songs would be a call to the worshipping community to do the same.53 He also notes several references to silence in heaven; because the divine realm transcends human understanding, its nature cannot be adequately conveyed by language. Allison points out that the “still small voice” of 1 Kgs 19.12 is referred in Hekhalot literature to the sound of the celestial choirs (195 f.); Tg Jonathan ad loc. speaks of angels of earthquake and fire, and after these comes “the voice of those praising silently”, .54 The phrase from 1 Kgs is found in 4Q405 fr. 20 ii – 21–22 8, [ ] , “sound of divine stillness”, referring to the angelic praises; also 4Q401 fr. 16 2 ; 4Q405 fr. 20 ii – 21 – 22 13 [ ] . The “still small voice” is associated with the movement of the wings of the cherubim, 4Q405 20 ii, 21–22.7–8: 51 Daily, 136. Altar: Löhr, Thronversammlung, 194. Cf. Nitzan, Prayer, 288: only a heavenly song of sacrifice. 52 Compare Rev 8.3, an angel offers incense together with the prayers of the saints; TLevi 3.4–6, the archangels offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord on behalf of human sin, “a pleasing odour, a rational and bloodless oblation.” NB Klinzing, Umdeutung, 146: “keine Spur einer rationalistischen Kritik am blutigen Opfer.” 53 Allison, Silence, 191. 54 Sperber, 261. Masson, Élie, argues that the expression means “silence” even in 1 Kgs 19.12.

128

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels [

]

8

[ ]

[

] [

[] ]

The [cheru]bs fall down before him, and bl[es]s. When they rise the murmuring sound of gods 8 [is heard], and there is an uproar of exultation when they lift their wings, the [murmur]ing sound of gods.

The other angelic beings whisper while the cherubim move with the chariot, roaring (or perhaps “being turbulent”). Schwemer (108) translates as “eine Stimme göttlichen Schweigens”, which seems preferable. Alternatively, if can be understood to indicate turbulence without great noise, the sense may be that the cherubim praise by creating a “still small voice” by moving their wings. The Biblical model is Ezekiel 1.24: “I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of mighty waters, like the thunder of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army …” This, however, suggests a loud noise, contradicting the implication of the citation of 1 Kgs 19.12. Tg Ezek 1.24 explicitly calls this sound praise. The fourth-century Christian writer Ephrem, who is familiar with Jewish traditions, offers additional evidence for a tradition that the angelic praises are silent or whispered, e. g. H Fid 3.9, S Fid 1.109–10 (where the angels are silent, the seraphim cry “Holy”, and cherubim and wheels are also mentioned). Praise by moving the wings appears to be implied by Parad 14.9: “Gespräch der Himmlischen, Gesang der Geistigen, die Seraphim mit ihren Rufen, die Cherubim mit ihren Flügeln. Es gibt auf Erden keinen Vergleich mit jenem Gesang”.55 H Fid 11.8 claims that the angelic language differs from all other languages, and that even the angels are strangers to the silence in which the Father and the Son converse. Allison may therefore be correct in suggesting that one reason the angelic songs are not quoted in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is that they, or some of them, consist of divine silence. What is the purpose of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice? Newsom suggests: “the vivid description of the heavenly realia create [sic] a virtual experience of presence in the heavenly temple. Consequently, those who experience the description of the merkabah share in an experience comparable in sacrality to the highly restricted entry of the high priest into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement”.56 This is an important point in that it links the priestly selfunderstanding of the Qumran community with their eschatological expectation of battle and judgement. The eschatological focus of the Day of Atonement, atoning for sins in the face of divine judgement, underscores the importance of 55 Ps.-Ephrem, Serm. Hebd. Sanct. 7.151 ff. pictures the angels whispering praises in the tomb of Christ before the Resurrection, i. e. it becomes an extension of heaven. It is called “a heaven on earth” at 7.25 ff. TAdam 1.4 speaks of the sound of the wings of the seraphim. Winkler, Sanctus, 161 f., notes a reference to the beating of the wings of the cherubim in the East Syrian anaphoras of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. See Winkler, Beobachtungen. 56 Newsom, Merkabah, 14 f.

2.1 Qumran

129

the work of the high priest. Newsom’s earlier suggestion, that the songs offer experiential validation of their priestly role in the face of their separation from the Temple and its sacrifices, may be linked to this.57 The Songs begin in the first week of the year, associated with consecration of priests as well as with the Day of Atonement. It is noteworthy that the first song speaks of the establishment of the angelic priesthood and invites an analogy between human and angelic priests. This follows on from our earlier considerations of timelessness and eschatological expectation. The stress on the priestly role, both of angels and of the Qumran community, is not only God-directed. Beside the timeless moment of worship there is the moment of atonement and intercession. It is scarcely to be doubted that the thirteenth song, with its mentions of sacrifice, would also have mentioned this; 4Q405 23 i 12–13 mentions God’s wrath and mercy. Thus if the priestly experience is reinforced by the evocation of the merkabah vision, this in turn reinforces the community’s self-understanding as chosen to atone for Israel in view of the Temple’s deficiency. The timeless moment of heavenly worship and the eschatological moment of atonement support one another in the songs; humans and angels are involved in both. How do the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice compare with later Hekhalot texts? Since Scholem’s initial enthusiastic assessment, others have become more cautious in positing a direct continuity.58 Baumgarten notes that there is no evidence in the former for any individual’s ecstatic trance or ascent into heaven; he speaks rather of “congregational mysticism”.59 Maier is sceptical regarding attempts by Scholem, Schiffmann and others to relate the Songs to later Merkabah texts, arguing that the similarities largely stem from their shared origin in Ezekiel.60 Similarly, Charlesworth and Newsom reject “a direct line of development from the Sabbath Songs to the Hekhalot hymns”, although they do recognise a significant relationship.61 Certainly the Songs’ failure to cite the words of the angelic praises marks a significant difference from the Hekhalot texts. Their linguistic similarity is stressed by Schiffmann, especially the lack of structured syntax and clear division of phrases.62 A further difference between Hekhalot literature and the Songs is that the former stress the priority of Israel over the angels, and the direct access of the mystics to God.63 This difference may not be as pronounced as Schwemer suggests: the direct access of the mystics to God 57

Newsom, Established, 115. Hamacher, Streit, offers a critical discussion of Scholem and subsequent scholarship. 59 Baumgarten, Merkabah, 201. 60 Maier, Liturgie, 572. 61 Charlesworth and Newsom, 10. Cf. Bockmuehl, Form, 14, “basic continuum of tradition”. Dimant and Strugnell, Merkabah, take Second Ezekiel (4Q385) as another early witness to Merkabah traditions. The fiery living creatures in the midst of the coals (fr. 4, l. 12) are a noteworthy development of the Biblical ideas. 62 Schiffmann, Merkavah, 20. 63 Schwemer, König, 76 n. 98. For priority over angels, see Schäfer, Rivalität, 228–232. 58

130

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

finds its counterpart in the direct access of the earthly priests to the heavenly sanctuary, on a par with the angels. Another difference is that Hekhalot texts are characterized by the “redundanten Aneinanderreihung des heiligen Namens Gottes und derjenigen der Engel”,64 while both are avoided in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, with the possible exception of Melchizedek. Newsom suggests that the praises by the merkabah and its constituent creatures derive from a tradition of exegesis of Ezekiel’s visions that already knew the (presumed) alteration of Ezek 3.12 to read , indicating that the cherubim carrying the throne are singing praises (see 3.1.1).65 She notes that in 4Q405 the cherubim are said to “bless as they rise up”, and speculates whether this may indicate a “double reading” of both the old ( ) and new ( )versions of the Ezekiel text.66 However, an important difference between the Songs and Ezekiel is that “the Sabbath songs do not associate the merkabah with a scene of revelatory disclosure. Instead, the merkabah is presented as the central cult object of the heavenly temple”.67 A consensus on the relationship between the Songs and Hekhalot texts remains elusive, with scholars’ assessment depending on their methodological approach to Merkabah mysticism as a whole.68 We have already remarked, however, that Morray-Jones’ approach, suggesting at least an inchoate Merkabah tradition at an early date, supports the acceptance of a link between the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the later texts, suggestive of a continuous stream of tradition, while fully acknowledging their differences. Overall the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice agree with the conclusions of the previous section, in that the holiness of the angels is seen as derivative of God’s holiness, and centred in their priestly knowledge and function. For example, Stuckenbruck correctly notes that venerative language is used of angels in 4Q400 2 1–9 and 4Q403 1 i 31–33, but that this is a qualified veneration based on their exemplary worship of God.69 Their holiness is acknowledged precisely because it is derivative of God’s holiness. This veneration magnifies the importance of the human priestly order also. “Der Priester als erster Diener des himmlischen Königs ist zugleich erster Teilhaber an seiner Macht”.70 The extremely high value placed on the angelic praises supports the observation that angels are envisaged as heavenly beings whose primary role is to praise God, although they also function as role models for human beings. This involves a certain tension between timeless worship and eschatological expectation. The details of the heavenly cult are not entirely clear: angels are definitely grouped 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Schwemer, König, 89. Newsom, Merkabah, 22. A similar double reading is found in the LXX version of Deut 33.2, see 1.3.2. Newsom, Merkabah, 29. Hamacher, Streit, 151. Stuckenbruck, Veneration, 157–164. Ego, Diener, 364, referring to 1Q28 iv 24 f.

2.1 Qumran

131

and ranked, though how these rankings relate to those found in pseudepigraphical writings cannot be determined. The exact nature of the heavenly sacrifice and the issue of silent praise (with its consequences for the secret nature of the priestly knowledge of the angels) are not clear either. Most crucially, as far as we can tell the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice represent a communal mystical experience whose constitutive element is the fact that it is a liturgical event. In fact, the liturgy in which human and angelic priests are equivalent is revealed as the keystone of an ordered creation, an “harmonisches Gefüge von himmlischen und irdischen Elementen”.71 This offers a convincing reason for the expansion of angel veneration, from within Jewish tradition, namely a key theological role which is new in this form. But the increased importance of both human and angelic priests in no way obscures God. By focusing on the worship of the heavenly temple, God as the recipient of worship is glorified and the kingly aspect of his nature is stressed.72 However, the liturgy is not only (statically) the link with heaven; it is (actively) the means of sanctification and of incorporation into heaven. This represents a further significant difference from later, esoteric mysticism, when the yorede Merkabah appear to descend singly or in small groups, surrounded by disciples who do not take part in the experience; e. g. the recall of R. Nehunia b. ha-Qanah from his descent to the Merkabah.73 2.1.3 Melchizedek The Qumran community were familiar with the category of divine being we have called principal angel, in the person of Melchizedek. In the Genesis apocryphon (1QapGen ar xxii 14–26) Melchizedek appears to be a human being. If Newsom’s two readings in 4Q401 11 3 and 4Q401 22 3 are accepted, then Melchizedek would be a high priestly angel in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Because of the danger of “creeping eisegesis”, whereby a conjecture imperceptibly becomes fact, it should be reiterated that the extant fragments do not contain the name Melchizedek at all, only the word “zedek”. In 11Q13 (11QMelch) Melchizedek is the leader of the “lot” of the good, including (angelic) armies, and opposed to Belial and his lot, including spirits. Thus “le rôle de protecteur d’Israel généralement dévolu à Michel est-il rempli par Melchisédeq dont la fonction première est celle de prêtre-roi.”74 As God’s “grand vizier” Melchizedek executes judgement and frees people from Belial. The context is the eschatological day of atonement, 71

Ego, Diener, 363 f. Schwemer, König, 49–55. 73 Hekhalot Rabbati chapter 18, Schäfer §§ 225–228, Synopse 98–101, translation vol. II, 180–185. But note Morray-Jones, Transformational, 21: the merkabah mystic performs an analogous function to the high priest in the temple. 74 Puech, Croyance, vol. 2, 549. Later Michael takes on sacerdotal functions, attributed by Puech to his identification with Melchizedek, e. g. in b Hag 12b, b Zeb 62a, b Men 110a. 72

132

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

and it seems probable, but not certain, that Melchizedek is the heavenly high priest who performs the rite of atonement, as well as the warrior king. If the expansion in 4Q544 2 3 is correct, opposing Melchizedek and Melkiresha, he again appears here as highest angel. A striking feature of 11Q13 is that Ps. 82.1 is interpreted such that the first , normally translated “God”, is taken to refer to Melchizedek (11Q13 ii 9–10). This psalm is associated with the Temple sacrifice of Tuesday, according to m Tam 7.4. If the Mishnah is reliable (it is not supported by a LXX psalm title, as are some of the other weekday psalms), then this attribution is highly significant. If the Temple usage of Ps. 82 (about which we have no information) also referred to a principal angel, then a “high” angelology was represented at the heart of the mainstream cult, and the Qumran community accepted this. If, on the other hand, the Temple usage referred to God, the Melchizedek interpretation of 11Q13 would represent a serious theological divergence on the part of the Qumran community from Temple practice. The reason for this can only be matter for speculation. According to Charlesworth and Newsom, this Melchizedek interpretation of Ps. 82.1 may underlie 4Q401 11 3.75 However, an allusion to Ps. 82.1 in this tiny fragment can only be supported if Newsom’s conjecture of ] [is accepted. Creeping eisegesis can overtake the most careful editor. There appears to be some evidence that the category of divine hypostases was familiar at Qumran. Schwemer notes a hypostatical usage of in the fifth song (4Q402 4 15 = Mas1k i 6).76 She cites Schiffmann in support;77 but Schiffmann is arguing on the basis of a textual version of 4Q405 20 ii – 21 – 22 7 which is now superseded. Schiffmann reads [ , whereas the GM edition (= Newsom’s 1985 text; Charlesworth and Newsom is identical) reads [] . “Those who serve before the Glory” is readily understood as a hypostasis or a circumlocution for the divine name, whereas “Praise the God of … you wonderful deputy princes, and exalt him according to the glory in the tent of the God of knowledge” (the full context in GM) is not. The text from the fifth song cited by Schwemer, however, reads For they are part of his glorious deeds, before they existed, they are part of his plan.

“The works of his glory”, to give a more literal translation, does indeed permit the Glory to be understood as a hypostasis. Similarly, in the fragmentary eleventh song, 4Q405 20 ii – 21 – 22 2 f., “the throne of his kingship” and “the chariots of his glory” occur, and . Schwemer is surely 75 76 77

Charlesworth and Newsom, 7. Schwemer, König, 85. Schiffman, Merkavah, 35.

2.1 Qumran

133

correct to understand both and as circumlocutions for the divine name (ibid., 106). Hypostases and principal angels thus do seem at least known at Qumran, though not commonly used; however, this evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the Qumran community knew the full range of angelic and hypostatic concepts known from the Pseudepigrapha. At most we may say that the Qumran evidence does not contradict the rest of the picture of Second Temple Judaism in this respect, although the emphasis clearly seems to lie on their own angelological ideas. 2.1.4 Qumran and later liturgy Although this is properly the subject of Chapter 3, a little needs to be said about elements of later liturgy found at Qumran. The most important of these is the Qedushah, a combination of Isa 6.3 and Ezek 3.12 representing the hymns sung by the heavenly angels, found in several places in modern synagogue liturgy. Scholars have seen traces of this in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Hymns Scroll. Schwemer sees a reflection of Isa 6.3 in 4Q403 1 i 31, the 7th sabbath song.78 The root appears three times, but there is no mention of anything approximating to “the whole earth is full of his glory”. The text is as follows: May the holy ones of God magnify the King of glory, who makes holy with holiness all his holy ones.

In fact, the line in question ought to have five occurrences of , but mysterious “misspellings” ( , ) reduce the number to three. Schwemer explains the apparent mistakes as alluding to a secret by gematria. Her argument is that elsewhere in the Songs formulaic expressions are avoided, and that thus this line must be an allusive treatment of the Qedushah which therefore already existed as a formula. This seems persuasive, since it accounts well for the artificial reduction to three repetitions of , representing the first half of the Qedushah, Isa 6.3. Schwemer sees a similar allusion to the second half, Ezekiel 3.12, in the continuation of the text in 4Q403 1 ii 15. Here the praises of the (multiple) chariots are mentioned, as are cherubim and ophannim: [… ] And the chariots of the inner shrine praise together, and their cherubim and the[ir] ofanim bless wonderfully […] 78 König, 97–98; also Baumgarten, Merkabah, 201; Falk, Daily, 138–146; Fletcher-Louis, Glory, 334.

134

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

According to Schwemer, this passage “läßt Ezek 3.12 anklingen” (98), by which she presumably means the reference to throne and cherubim. In fact it actually cites the key word of the liturgical response, , in the same way that the earlier passage cited . In fact, the two passages 4Q403 1 i 31 and 4Q403 1 ii 15 f. are also linked together by the occurrence of the word within l. 31, another keyword of Ezek 3.12. Taken together, Schwemer’s argument that a known liturgical formula underlies this passage of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice does indeed seem a “sehr wahrscheinliche Vermutung” (99).79 That it should be the seventh, central, Sabbath song that alludes to the Qedushah can scarcely be coincidental. But if the whole structure of this work is built around the Qedushah, albeit in a riddling way as befits the esoteric theology of the Qumran sect, this seems to me an almost unanswerable argument in favour of the Qedushah’s having its origin in the Temple worship, in the form Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12.80 As Schwemer says, the existence of a (liturgical) formula is presupposed by the allusive treatment. 81 Citations only have effect if they are recognisable as such. Falk refers to another allusion in the 12th song, but I cannot see this.82 There is a reference to the praise of the cherubim, i. e. to Ezek 3.12, but no “holy”. Reif comments: “The composition of such texts [angelic liturgy] in fact constitutes evidence that angels are being credited with the kind of ideal liturgical behaviour that would presuppose their original recitation of such formulae”.83 “Even though no form of the Qedushah appears in the Sabbath Songs, the content and style of the blessing in which the Yoser Qedushah is embedded is strikingly similar to the Sabbath Songs.”84 It is relevant that the earliest traces of Qedushah de-yotzer in Palestine reflect use only on the sabbath. Charlesworth and Newsom do not mention Schwemer’s posited allusive citation, and even suggest a polemical rejection of the Qedushah tradition by the author of the Sabbath Songs (11). Chazon reproduces essentially the same arguments, though without citing Schwemer.85 She notes that 4Q400 2 speaks deprecatingly of human praise com-

79

This finding of Schwemer’s gives additional support to chapter 3’s argument for a citation of Isa 6.3 in the Hymns Scroll. 80 Accepted by Maier, Liturgie, 574. This article is otherwise sceptical of continuity between Second Temple period Judaism and the later prayer books, as regards actual liturgical formulae; he accepts only thematic continuity. 81 Supported by Falk, Daily, 145. He suggests that the Songs draw on themes (holiness, kingship, praise with the angels) and form (doxology) used at the Temple, preserving elements of , is another indicator priestly liturgy (148 f.). The form of the calls to praise, beginning with of Temple focus (133). 82 Daily, 143. 83 Reif, Judaism, 49. 84 Charlesworth and Newsom, 10. 85 Chazon, Liturgical, 99 f.

135

2.1 Qumran

pared to that of the angels.86 Although the Songs do not quote Isa 6.3 or Ezek 3.12, there are clear allusions to both passages. Chazon suggests that allusion rather than citation maintains the proper distance between humans and angels (101). She follows Weinfeld in seeing traces of the Qedushah de-yotzer in 11QPsalmsa (below). Chazon also finds humans echoing angels, including allusions to Isa 6.3 and Ezek 3.12, in 4QBerakhot; however, these seem more tenuous. Weinfeld studies the Hymn to the Creator, 11QPsa xxvi 9–15, in which the angels sing at dawn, when God separates light from darkness. He finds reminiscences of the present-day morning prayer Yotzer ’or, which contains the Qedushah.87 The opening verse of the Qumran hymn reads as follows: 88

Weinfeld identifies the following elements as shared with forms of the Qedushah and its accompanying benedictions from early liturgies and Genizah fragments: , , . “The verse with which the ‘Hymn to the Creator’ opens thus constitutes a formula of the Qedushah type and shows that the Qedushah rite was already existent in the Second Temple period” (135). Weinfeld’s claim that this hymn proves use of the Qedushah is weakened by the fact that it contains no reference to Ezek 3.12, although the of l.10 recalls Ezek 1.24. What is more, Weinfeld fails to distinguish sufficiently between the belongs to the Q. de-Amidah, whereas various types of Qedushah.89 the theme of the Qumran Hymn to the Creator aligns it with the Q. de-Yotzer. It is methodologically unsound to confuse the two, when the history of liturgy is so obscure. What evidence there is points to the Q. de-Yotzer being earlier (see 3.1.1). We may supplement Weinfeld’s argument with a technique borrowed from Schwemer. The word appears three times in the verse; thus, as with the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, we may conclude that this verse constitutes a clear allusion to Isa 6.3, even though it does not quote it directly. The hymn is found in a collection of psalms, canonical and uncanonical, and thus may safely be accepted as intended for liturgical use. Weinfeld’s conclusion may be reformulated as follows: The songs of the angels in heaven were alluded to liturgically in Qumran, suggesting that some liturgical formula incorporating Isa 6.3 already existed, possibly in the Temple. This formula may have been a variant on the now standard form of Qedushah, involving Isaiah 6.3 and some reference to Ezek 1. The “sound of many waters” is there associated with the sound of the wings of the living creatures, and 86 This is the only passage in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice with first-person speech, comparing angelic and human responses to God. 87 Weinfeld, Angelic. 88 The Name of God is written in Palaeo-Hebrew. 89 See Heinemann, Prayer, 230–232; Spinks, Sanctus, 41–45.

136

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Weinfeld notes the tradition that this represents praise.90 Since the content of the Hymn to the Creator suggests a link with prayer in the morning, the hymn also supports the linking of the angelic praises with specific times of day. Section 3.2.1 will explore the idea that human praise at specific times is justified by the example of the angels.91 Chazon discusses 4Q503, Daily Prayers, with regard to the Qedushah.92 However, the similarity is limited to the concept of joint praise by humans and angels; neither Isa 6.3 nor Ezek 3.12 are alluded to. The text may possibly reflect some early form of yotzer ’or prayer in that it combines references to creation and light with praise of God by “holy ones” and “companies of light”. Warren suggests a “dispersed trisagion”, i. e. a “liturgically significant” threefold mention of , similar to those discussed here, in 4Q51 (4QSama), dated 1st century BC.93 This offers further support to our argument that such mentions presuppose a liturgical formula; however, the third is conjectural. 2.1.5 Conclusions The previous chapter noted that the angelology attested at Qumran was not necessarily distinctive. Nevertheless angelology had two significant functions in their theology as a whole. Firstly, angelological ideas perform a (retrospective) apologetic function, justifying the secession from mainstream Judaism, even though they are not themselves the theological point at issue. The Qumran community belong to the lot of the righteous, which includes angels and is headed by the variously titled chief angel (Michael, Prince of Lights etc.). Secondly, the angels function as role models for the Qumran community. This educative function is a crucial theological element which reappears again in Origen and Ephrem, as will be seen below, as in the Christian authors discussed in chapter 1. Whether considered with respect to the present experience of transcendence and the interpenetration of earth and heaven, or with respect to the ultimate eschatological fulfilment, angels are companions and models of right behaviour, e. g. ritual purity and heavenly singing. This presupposes the concept of a community between angels and human beings, strikingly visible at Qumran, although held by others also (e. g. Ps. 138(137).1 LXX). This represents 90 Weinfeld, Angelic, 136, citing Tg Ezek 43.2. See also 4Q405 20 ii – 21 – 22 7 f. (12th sabbath). The Genizah fragment he cites (137) is not relevant: “He comes from the way of the East, and His sound is like the sound of many waters; the earth shines from His Glory. Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the Glory of the Lord has shone upon you. Blessed are You … Creator of the luminaries.” This prayer incorporates Ezek 43.2 and Isa 60.1, as Weinfeld says, but it is plainly not the Qedushah de-Yotzer, but the main Yotzer prayer itself. 91 Renewal of luminaries in the morning: 1QS 10.1–4; renewal of creation linked to praise of angels: 1QH 11.3–14. 92 Chazon, Qedushah, 10–14. 93 Warren, Trisagion.

2.2 Origen

137

a somewhat paradoxical development in the history of angelological thought. In the early period, emphasis is on angels as messengers to human beings on earth, rather than angels as heavenly beings worshipping God, although these do coexist with the former, in the shape of the heavenly council, the , now understood as angels. In the second phase of angelological thought, the emphasis is more strongly on the heavenly role, which apparently generates a new function: angels are again directed towards human beings, but without leaving the heavenly sphere, and without altering the focus of interest on their heavenly worship of God. Instead of coming to earth in order to meet favoured human beings, these and the angels now share the heavenly sphere. As well as worshipping God, both groups venerate the highest, priestly angels who lead their worship. The close association of angels and priests at Qumran supports Chapter 1’s observation that the liturgical praising function of the angels reflects priestly interests, and may originate in the Temple. Thirdly, the angels represent the existence of an alternative “time out of time”, the heavenly sphere. Calendrical considerations are of great importance at Qumran, and right ritual observance is connected with observance of the right calendar. But following on from our observations of the timelessness of the liturgical moment, which is held in tension with eschatological expectations, it seems that one of the functions of angels is to represent to the Qumran community the essentially timeless world of heaven in which the human and angelic praises become one. Overall we may conclude that at Qumran, angels are linked with orthodoxy in the sense that it is the conformity to angelic behaviour that guarantees to the community that their praxis (halakah) is correct; thus incidentally justifying their secession from the Temple and confirming the validity of their own priesthood, as Newsom has observed.

2.2 Origen The inclusion of Origen among writers from Syria and Palestine requires some explanation. Origen’s early life was spent in Alexandria, and the De principiis was written there, between his first and second journeys to Caesarea.94 His settling in Caesarea in 234 deeply influenced the further development of theology in the region, through the school he founded.95 Thus the De principiis becomes part of subsequent Palestinian tradition. A rabbinic school was also 94 de Lange, Origen, 9: “We might even assert that they [Jewish communities in Alexandria] are the source of his early information about Judaism, including the knowledge of the Halakhah which he displays in the de Principiis.” His first visit to Palestine in 215 is another possible source. 95 Levine, Caesarea, 119–124.

138

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

developing there in the mid-third century, and Origen becomes the best-informed Christian writer about Judaism; he is also remarkably free of polemic.96 The Contra Celsum (written ca. 248) defends Jews against Celsus’ accusations, e. g. that they worship angels (C. Cels. 1.26, 5.6). The production of the Hexapla, that important scholarly tool, also depended on Origen’s contact with Jews. Origen’s use of allegory and symbolism when interpreting the Bible owes a great deal to Jewish exegesis, both Philonic and rabbinic. And in the Contra Celsum, Origen “plays rabbinic Judaism off against the hellenized Judaism with which Celsus was familiar”.97 Thus, in our region, a broad spectrum of Jewish thought comes to influence Christianity afresh, engaging mainstream thinkers directly rather than via the increasingly marginalised Jewish Christian groupings. Origen also shows familiarity with apocryphal writings, which are important for his thought, not least in the prominence of angels (e. g. Enochic books) and the pre-existence of souls (Prayer of Joseph, cited Comm John 2.31), but despite their Jewish origin, he probably encountered these in a Christian context.98 This section aims to present Origen’s thought on angels, based primarily on the De principiis.99 Origen’s writing tends to be driven by the particular opponent he is answering; thus Marguérite Harl detects differences between Princ. and other works on the question of the pre-existence of souls.100 Angels are prominent in Origen’s theology because for him, to speak of angels and of human souls is the same thing. A soul is “substantia et , quod latine … dici tamen potest ‘sensibilis et mobilis’ ”(Princ. 2.8.1). He goes on in 2.8.2: Quodsi recta ista videtur esse definitio, quod substantia rationabiliter sensibilis et mobilis anima dicatur, videtur haec eadem definitio etiam ad angelos pertinere.

Depending on their progress or lack of it, angels can become human beings or demons, and human beings can become angels (Princ. 1.8.4, Comm John 10.30 [GCS Origen 4, 203]); the various superior orders of angels are not creatures of a different nature to the lower angels, but ranks bestowed according to merit (Princ. 1.7.1, Comm. Matt. 17.2 [GCS 40, 580]), see 2.5 below. The driving force behind such a concept of creation is the problem of free will. Origen seeks to counter Gnostic and Marcionite arguments that distinguish between the creator God of the Old Testament and the higher, more just God of Jesus Christ. The apparent injustice of inequalities of birth and history is 96 de Lange, Origen, 7. Jerome is an exception; but the Judaism Jerome knew had already changed substantially. Barthélemy, Hoshaya, suggests that a Caesarean Jew reworked the Philo text brought by Origen from Alexandria, using Aquila’s Bible version, indicating interest in Philo by non-Christian Jews. 97 de Lange, Origen, 43. 98 Bammel, Zitate. 99 The fullest introductory treatment of Origen’s angelology is still Daniélou, Origène. Princ. is cited from the Görgemanns edition. 100 Harl, Préexistence.

2.2 Origen

139

resolved by considering them as the just rewards of previous sin. For in fact there were two creations (biblically anchored by Origen in the creation account of Genesis 1).101 First God created a finite number of rational natures (Princ. 2.9.1). When all but one, the soul of Christ, fell away from God, depending on their degree of fall they became angels, human beings and demons.102 Such an explanation of the existence of demons already formed part of the Jewish and Christian tradition. Origen’s innovation is to extend this to all created beings, forming a coherent cosmology. The material world of the second creation thus has from the beginning a remedial purpose, of returning the rational natures to their original closeness to God.103 The original equality of the rational natures also has an anti-gnostic thrust: Valentinians believed in “pneumatic”, “psychic” and “hylic” souls; only the middle category can exercise free will, while the others are saved and damned without reference to their merit. Thus angels form a key component of Origen’s theology, his explanation of evil and his expectation of ultimate restoration, being closest to the originally created naturae rationabiles and instruments of God’s will in achieving this restoration, being appointed over the nations (C. Cels. 5.30, Princ. 3.3.3), also teachers and guardians of souls. Both the holy angels and God himself inspire a human being to be good, for example the prophets (3.2.4). Thus although the angels are mediators of God’s will, they do not exclude direct contact. In C. Cels. 5.5 Origen stresses that Christians pray only to the Father through the Son, but that it is legitimate to secure the angels’ favour and imitate their superior holiness and perception of God as far as possible. 2.2.1 Christ suffering in heaven? Chapter 1 mentioned Origen’s teaching that the sacrifice of Christ also benefited angels. According to Princ. fr. 30, just as Christ was crucified here, so he may be crucified (now and in the future) in the heavenly places to combat the “spiritual hosts of wickedness”.104 101

The relevant part of Comm. Gen. is lost; however, this interpretation can be reconstructed from Princ. 2.3.6, where Origen distinguishes between “heaven and earth” (Gen 1.1) and the “firmament and dry land” (Gen 1.8–10). Also Princ. 2.9.1; 3.6.8. See Görgemanns, 321 n. 27. This double creation is found in Philo, Opif. 16. 102 Did other rational natures avoid the fall? Crouzel, Origène, 275; Harl, Préexistence, 242; Daniélou, Origène, 214; Görgemanns, 221 n. 11. However, neither John the Baptist (Comm. John 2.29–31 [GCS O.4, 86–88]) nor the rational natures who are embodied for the sake of service (C. Joh. Hieros. 17, below) are clearly stated to have avoided the fall. 103 Princ. 1.6.3 suggests, however, that demons can lose the faculty of free will because of their ingrained habit of sin. 104 From Justinian, Ep. ad Menam, cited Görgemanns, 772–4 n. 3, ad 4.3.13. Also Jerome, Ep. ad Avitum (124)12, Görgemanns, 772 n. 2; the seventh anathema of Justinian’s edict against Origen of 543, Görgemanns, 824.

140

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Here Origen’s model of the cosmos departs significantly from traditional belief. With the exception of the fallen angels, who by their fall stopped being angels and became demons, Judaism and Christianity held angels to be perfect servants of God, hence their function as role models for human beings; therefore they are not in need of redemption. This is not contradicted by the existence of Jewish traditions that attribute to the angels jealousy of humankind; these stories have the purpose of glorifying Israel, rather than a necessary function within the theology of redemption. But since Origen posits a universal fall (with the exception of Christ), universal redemption becomes necessary. We may compare Hom. Luke 10 [GCS 49, 60 f.]: …

Crucially, Origen believes he is following scripture: he next quotes Col. 1.20, Christ reconciled all things in earth and in heaven. Similarly, Hom. Lev. 1.3 [GCS 29, 285] offers the following: quia non solum pro terrestribus, sed etiam pro coelestibus oblatus est hostia Jesus, et hic quidem pro hominibus ipsam corporalem materiam sanguinis sui fudit, in coelestibus vero, ministrantibus – si qui illi inibi sunt – sacerdotibus, vitalem corporis sui virtutem velut spiritale quoddam sacrificium immolavit.

This links in with the belief that Christ became an angel to angels, as he had become a man for humanity: Comm. John 19.6 [GCS O.4, 305]105

Wenn wir über sie [sc. die Menschheit Christi] hinaussteigen, durchgehen wir nacheinander den ganzen Weg der Stufen, den er ist, so daß wir hinaufsteigen durch sein Engelsein und sein Die-übrigen-Kräfte-Sein.106

Barbel compares Philo, Somn. I.232 and 238, where Philo says that God appears to humankind in the likeness of angels, not as he truly is. He notes that there is no evidence for the idea that Christ became a demon to save the demons (297).107 This teaching of Origen’s recalls Asc. Isa 10, where Christ descends through the heavens, becoming like the angels of each heaven (1.2.3.1 above).108 Comm. 105

See also Comm. John 1.31, GCS O.4, 38 f.; Hom. Gen. 8.8, GCS 29, 83. tr. Barbel, Christos, 292. 107 In Ep. 124.12 Jerome suggests it, but admits that Origen doesn’t actually state it. 108 Origen’s references to an apocryphal work on Isaiah only relate to the Martyrdom (Sparks, 776); it is therefore uncertain whether he knew the text of the Ascension as we have 106

2.2 Origen

141

John 19.6 resembles Asc. Isa. in that increasing knowledge appears to be the key. Crouzel insists that the belief that Christ was man for humanity, angel for angels, appears in a specific context, that of theophany, and should not be referred to the sacrifice of the cross.109 Christ died for all the rational natures, Comm. John 1.35 [GCS O.4, 45]:

But this passage “affirme clairement l’unicité du sacrifice [sc. of the cross, , ibid.] … en même temps que la double efficacité” [for heaven and earth](256). Crouzel compares Princ. 2.3.5, where Origen says that Christ has never suffered in previous worlds.110 Harl stresses the tentative nature of Origen’s proposals and his use of “formules de prudence” to underline that the beginning and the end of creation are unknowable mysteries, citing Princ. 4.3.14, which interprets the seraphim covering the face of God in this way.111 Crouzel and Simonetti conclude that even the passages that assert a repeated 112 sacrifice can be harmonized with Comm. John 1.35, Origène veut affirmer la valeur universelle, cosmique et hypercosmique, du drame de la Croix. Il ne dit rien de plus dans ce que citent Jérôme et Justinien, et encore sur un ton très précautionneux, car affirmer que la Passion du Christ était rédemptrice même pour les créatures célestes était déjà assez hardi.

They are probably correct, despite the (hostile) contrary witnesses. This is a separate issue from the teaching that Christ became man for humanity and angel for angels. Angels, as simply an advanced class of souls, are in need of redemption like all other creatures; exactly how Origen envisaged the efficacity of Christ’s sacrifice for the non-human must remain an open question. 2.2.2 The substance of angels Are angels material or non-material? It appears that Origen believed the former. Three times in the De Principiis, Origen repeats that only the Trinity is absolutely incorporeal (1.6.4; 2.2.2; 4.3.15). The discussion in 2.2.2 specifically considers the rational natures: Si vero impossibile est hoc ullo modo adfirmari, id est quod vivere praeter corpus possit ulla alia natura praeter patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, necessitas consequentiae ac rationis coartat intellegi principaliter quidem creatas esse rationabiles naturas, materialem it. Hannah, Isaiah, 93, thinks it unlikely. The idea also appears in Epistula apostolorum 13, probably mid-2nd century, from Egypt. 109 Origène, 257. 110 Cf. Görgemanns, 313–15 n. 12 – suffering in future worlds remains possible. 111 Préexistence, 240 f. 112 vol. 4, 230.

142

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

vero substantiam opinione quidem et intellectu solo separari ab eis et pro ipsis vel post ipsas effectam videri, sed numquam sine ipsa eas vel vixisse vel vivere; solius namque trinitatis incorporea vita existere recte putabitur.

It is possible to separate mentally the naturae rationabiles from the material substance associated with them, but in fact they never have been without a body; and the reason given is that only the Trinity can be thought to be truly incorporeal.113 Bodiliness is a necessary attribute of creatureliness; it will always continue (4.4.8). Origen equates , used by philosophers, with the scriptural invisibilis (4.3.15). He calls the body of demons incorporeum (Praef. 8). The “spiritual body” of resurrected human souls (repeatedly discussed with reference to 1 Cor 15) is a shining one (e. g 3.6.4). Origen explains that this body is the same as the earthly body, but now perfected, rejecting the Aristotelian notion of a “quintessence”, of which it might be made (3.6.6). He continues: Omnis igitur haec ratio hoc continet, quod duas generales naturas condiderit deus: naturam visibilem, id est corpoream, et naturam invisibilem, quae est incorporea (3.6.7).

This appears to contradict the statement that only God is truly incorporeal. In fact the word “corporeal” is being used in two ways. On the one hand it means strictly “material, finite, created”, and so God is the only incorporeal being. But in 3.6.7 Origen uses it in the popular sense, as he has called it in Praef. 8, meaning “extremely subtle, invisible”. In Princ. 1.7.1 Origen says that the rational natures are incorporeal: Secundum dogma nostrum, id est secundum ecclesiae fidem, omnes animae atque omnes rationabiles naturae factae sunt vel creatae, sive sanctae illae sunt, sive nequam. Quae omnes secundum propriam naturam incorporeae sunt, sed et per hoc ipsum, quod incorporeae sunt, nihilominus factae sunt …

This should be taken in the looser sense of “incorporeal”. This is borne out by the context of 1.7, where Origen is discussing the luminaries and the moment at which their souls are joined to their bodies, by analogy with the joining of human souls and bodies. By comparison with a material body, a soul appears incorporeal. But souls, and by inference even the rational natures before the fall (see below), are corporeal and material compared with God. Despite the looseness of the terminology, Origen is on safe scriptural ground here. Wisdom 7.22–25 describes the spirit that is in Wisdom, and Wisdom herself, in ways that oscillate between corporeal and incorporeal understandings. The spirit is , subtle, and , mobile; but also , intelligent (intellectual). Wisdom is “more mobile than any motion” and “because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things”, which could imply a subtle but material element; but also “a breath, , of the power of God and a pure emanation, , of the power of the Almighty … a reflection of eternal light, 113

Cf. Lyman, Christology, 60 f. Philo, Conf. 174: angels are unbodied souls.

143

2.2 Origen

”; these expressions are more readily understood incorporeally. Wisdom’s exalted yet created status is expressed through the play on the two meanings.114 However, one passage causes difficulty. C. Cels. 6.71 pours scorn on the Stoic doctrine that the Logos is a “corporeal spirit”, and continues: … …

[GCS O.2, 141] We, on the other hand, seek to demonstrate that the rational soul is greater than all corporeal nature, and that it is an invisible substance, and incorporeal – … Let the Stoics, then, consign all things to destruction by fire; we, however, know no incorporeal substance that is susceptible to fire, nor (do we believe) that the human soul, or the substance of angels, or of thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, can be dissolved into fire.

This apparently contradicts Princ. 4.4.6, where Origen indicates his preference for the Stoic theory of matter as a single basic substance that can be altered. Perhaps here intends a matter so subtle that it is not subject to destruction by fire. In Princ. 2.3.6 Origen rejects the Platonic concept of Ideas (Forms). He quotes John 17.14 and 16, “I am not from this world”, and continues: Cuius mundi difficilem nobis esse expositionem idcirco praediximus, ne forte aliquibus praebeatur occasio illius intellegentiae, qua putent nos imagines quasdam, quas Graeci nominant, adfirmare; quod utique a nostris rationibus alienum est mundum incorporeum dicere, in sola mentis fantasia vel cogitationum lubrico consistentem; et quomodo vel salvatorem inde esse vel sanctos quosque illuc ituros poterunt adfirmare, non video.

The expression mentis fantasia alludes to the Middle Platonic doctrine of the Ideas as the thoughts of God. Origen rejects the world of the Ideas because it is solely a mental construct. The “other world” to which Christ belongs is more real than this. Philo locates the Ideas within the Logos (Opif. 6.25); a passage from C. Cels. reflects this idea: “ (C. Cels. 6.64)

”

The expression “idea of ideas” is Philonic; Origen is asking whether the Christian Logos can be said to contain the totality of ideas, like Philo’s Logos. He does not answer the question here; but Princ. 1.2.2, discussing Christ as the Wisdom of God, states that Wisdom contains in semetipsa universae creaturae vel initia vel rationes vel species, quoting Prov. 8.22. Wolfson gathers seven passages in 114 Stead, Substance, 177: “of some 20 epithets, … only two or three clearly require a physical interpretation”.

144

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

which Origen gives varying answers to the question of the Logos and the Ideas, including the two cited here; he does not appear to have come to a definitive conclusion.115 In De orat. 27.8 Origen discusses the two principal meanings of , incorporeal (i. e. the Platonic Ideas) or corporeal (the Stoic primary also matter), but does not state his own view.116 He seems to have used in a variety of ways: above clearly indicates a non-material sense. Origen was also evidently familiar with the idea (of Stoic origin) that God, though simple, could have multiple titles ( ) to refer to his different energies or operations towards the world. Comm. John 1.19 (112), 1.20 (119–124) discusses the scriptural titles of the Son, and although the term is not used, the idea clearly underlies the passage; hence we have good reason to believe that Origen could take to mean an incorporeal, simple nature, as opposed to the equally incorporeal, multiple , which are proper to the Son (presumably relates to the Son as he is in himself, to how he relates to the world), but not to the Father, whose higher divinity is purely simple. Thus Comm. John 1.20 (119) says:

Note also the characterization of the Father as “beyond all these” in C. Cels. 6.64.117 It follows that the “other world” of Christ’s kingdom, to which the angels belong, is indeed in some sense material, belonging to this world, i. e. creation. This would indicate that the rational natures were embodied even before their fall. Crouzel states: Dans la préexistence, … les intelligences, que la baisse de leur ferveur refroidira en âmes, étaient menées par leurs esprits et vêtues de corps éthérés. Ce dernier point n’est guère affirmé directement dans ce qui subsiste de l’oeuvre d’Origène. Il est supposé, d’une part par l’affirmation que l’incorporéité absolue est le privilège de la Trinité seule, ensuite par la mention des corps éthérés des anges et des corps sombres des démons, ainsi que par les spéculations d’Origène sur les corps ressuscités.118

Even after their fall, angels have a subtle and bright substance (compare Princ. Praef. 8 on the corpus spiritale).

115

Wolfson, Philosophy, 272–280. Comm. John 13.22 (132) does, however, say that when God is called “light”, this can be understood in two ways, physically and spiritually, i. e. intelligibly ( ), which is what scripture calls invisible, , and the Greeks incorporeal, . 117 Stead, Substance, 161, sees a hesitation about applying the term to God, following the Platonic idea that God is beyond , i. e. beyond substance / beyond being. 118 Crouzel, Origène, 128, my emphasis. Cf. Daniélou, Origène, 216: the glorious body is an intermediate state, the ultimate state will be pure spirit. 116

2.2 Origen

145

2.2.3 Angels as guardians and educators The material creation has a remedial purpose, returning the rational natures to God. The primary means by which God accomplishes this is Jesus Christ, whose soul is the only rational nature that did not fall away from God in any degree. After him come the angels, in particular those angels who exercise their office as a service to humankind, rather than as a direct consequence of their own fall. Jerome seems to mean this when he says, C. Ioh. Hieros. 17: In libris enim et angelos et thronos et dominationes, potestates et rectores mundi et tenebrarum et “omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in praesenti saeculo sed in futuro” dicit animas esse eorum corporum, quae vel desiderio vel ministerio susceperint.119

As Görgemanns points out (203 n. 16), “desire” indicates a moral lapse, “service” indicates God’s instruction that they should serve humankind, as with the (animate) luminaries, 1.7.5. This does not contradict the idea of a universal fall; it would indicate that the “serving” angels are embodied in a rank lower than their fault would require, for the sake of service to others yet lower.120 Angels are dependent on the power of Christ. Hom. Luke 13 [GCS 49, 77 f.]: Before Christ came, the angels had little power to help those who were entrusted to them. Hom. Ezek. 1.7 [GCS 33, 331]: the angels follow Christ’s example and descend to help humankind; Christ distributes them as guardians. The angels of the nations play an important part in the divine economy: their task is to lead the pagans to God. C. Cels. 5.30 discusses the Tower of Babel and assigns the nations to angels of varying degrees of sternness, depending on how far they had departed from the east, where God had originally placed them.121 The angels of the nations also punish Israel, God’s portion, e. g. the exile in Babylon. But the sufferings of Israel are for the sake of those who belong to the angels of the nations: for God will take revenge by tearing away from these angels as many people as he can (C. Cels. 5.31). Hom. Gen. 9.3 [GCS 29, 91] says that Christ has dispossessed the angels of the nations; compare Comm. Cant. 2 [GCS 33, 133]: the angels protect the bride before Christ comes. The coming of Christ takes away the power of the angel who is able to harm the uncircumcised; thus Christians do not need this protection, though the Jews did (C. Cels. 5.48). Angels of the churches are like a second, invisible bishop, Hom. Luke 13 [GCS 49, 80]. Guardian angels are prominent in Origen; they can be lost through sin (Princ. 2.10.7). Origen may have believed that his own guardian angel was the “angel

119

Görgemanns, 202. Compare Philo, Gig. 12. 121 Philo, Conf. 174–182 mentions angels and powers in connection with punishment for the tower of Babel. 120

146

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

of great counsel”, Christ.122 Comm. Matt. 13.27 f. [GCS 40, 254] discusses whether guardian angels are assigned at birth or baptism. Guardian angels offer the prayers of their protegés in heaven, through Christ the High Priest, and also join their own prayers to these (C. Cels. 8.36). Human beings are assigned to angels whose duties are most like their characters, Hom. Num. 14.2 [GCS 30, 124 f.]. Similarly demons: Princ. 1.6.3 discusses the possibility that, after one or several aeons, even these … reparati et restituti [erunt] eruditionibus primo angelicis tum deinde etiam superiorum graduum virtutibus, ut sic per singula ad superiora provecti usque ad ea quae sunt “invisibilia” et “aeterna” perveniant, singulis videlicet quibusque caelestium virtutum officiis quadam eruditionum specie peragratis.

The education, eruditio, administered by the angelic powers is the means by which the demons are restored. The same can evidently be assumed for humankind. Those who have not reached a full understanding in this life will be taught the word of God by angels in the heavenly Jerusalem (Princ. 2.11.3). Origen explicitly draws a parallel between the role of angels in preparing the world for the coming of Christ, and their role in beginning the education of the soul, which is continued by Christ. (Comm. Cant. 2, GCS 33, 157). The educative function of angels is scripturally rooted in the idea of angels as instructors of the prophets (Zechariah, 2 Esdras). The highest class in this graded education is taught by Christ, until the souls are able to become capax dei (referring to God the Father). Princ. 3.6.9: Post “actores” enim et “procuratores” Christus dominus, qui est rex omnium, regnum ipse suscipiet, id est post eruditiones sanctarum virtutum eos, qui eum capere possunt secundum quod sapientia est, ipse instruet, regnans in eis tamdiu usquequo eos etiam patri subiciat …, id est ut, cum capaces dei fuerint effecti, sit eis “deus omnia in omnibus”.

Despite the fact that Origen here distinguishes between capax Christi and capax Dei, the subordinationism is scriptural, with its reference to 1 Cor 15.28. Princ. 3.6.6 explains that the process of improvement is quicker in some than in others. The moment when the rationabiles animae return to the situation where “God is all in all” is the moment when their bodies are changed to glorious spiritual bodies; i. e. the moment of resurrection; they then remain in this state without change (ibid.).123 But in Comm. Matt. 17.30 [GCS 40, 671 f.], Origen warns against asking whether some departed souls have already become angels: this is dangerous speculation. 122 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Panegyric 4. Compare C. Cels. 8.27, the “angel of great counsel” guides the most advanced souls. Trigg, Angel, 46–50. 123 Görgemanns, 661 n. 19, notes that this contradicts 1.6.2 and 3.6.1 and 3, where the possibility of a new beginning (sc. of the cycle of fall and rise) is suggested. Görgemanns conjectures that either two alternative suggestions are posited in 3.6, or Rufinus altered the text. Roukema, Liebe, concludes that ultimately God’s love will bring the cycle to an end.

2.2 Origen

147

Besides teaching, angels function as passive role models for human beings. For example, in the prologue to Comm. Cant. [GCS 33, 78 f.], Origen describes Jacob as the model of a contemplative, the highest stage of the soul, because he saw “the paths of the angels, the ladders from earth to heaven”: Quippe qui et Istrahel ob divinorum contemplationum natus sit et qui “castra” caeli viderit et “domum Dei” atque “angelorum” vias, “scalas” a terris “in caelum” porrectas prospexerit.

The contemplative watches the angels ascending, i. e. drawing nearer to God, and hence imitates them. The educative function of angels appears also at the day of judgement, which in Origen’s thought is simply one stage in the process of perfection. The reaper angels and those who sort the fish they have caught (Mt 13.47–50), throwing the “children of the evil one” into the fire, are weeding out evil thoughts and words (Comm. Matt. 10.12, GCS 40 14–15), a painful process of purification for the souls, but not destruction. The judgement affects not only human souls, but angels.124 Guardian angels that have failed in their duty are punished (Hom. Num. 20.3–4 GCS 30, 194–7). Their punishment is to lose their contemplation of God, for a time or for ever (Hom. Luke 35, GCS 49, 198 f.). According to Hom. Ezek. 1.7 [GCS 33, 331] demons have power over idolaters; when they convert to Christ their angel takes over: Tu heri sub daemonio eras, hodie sub angelo. On the day of judgement the nations are redistributed (cf. Deut 32.8 LXX): each angel becomes the prince of those souls he has won for God (Hom. Num. 11.4, GCS 30, 84 f.). Worthy souls are transferred to higher-ranking angels or to Christ. Quippe si isti reges fiunt eorum, quos regunt et proficere faciunt, ipsi ergo offerunt quosdam quidem pontifici [sc. Christo – like tithes], quosdam vero filiis pontificis, id est superioribus virtutibus et archangelis, quosdam etiam Levitis, id est paulo inferioribus …

Lower-ranking souls do not see God, but only the angel to whom they belong (Hom. Num. 11.5, GCS 30, 86). Hom. Luke 3 (GCS 49, 20 f.) says that we cannot see the angels beside us, being unworthy. In the coming age, after the judgement (i. e. not in the case raised in Comm. Matt. 17.30), the saints who have become angels will also be sent to serve those who are not yet perfected (Comm. John 10.30, GCS O.4, 203). In Hom. Luke 35 GCS 49, 196–202, judgement is described slightly differently, in terms of Lk 12. 58 f. / Mt 5.25, going to court (to the “prince”) with one’s adversary. Each person has a good and an evil angel.125 The evil angel is the “adversary”, the “prince” one of the angels of the nations. 124 This logical consequence of Origen’s cosmology may have a distant antecedent in the judgement of the fallen Watchers in 1 Enoch. 125 Also Hom. Luke 12 [GCS 49, 75], Princ. 3.2.4. This is a rabbinic concept, e. g. b Shab 119b.

148

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Christ has freed us from his power, but the adversary wishes to return us to this prince. Apart from treating stars as living beings comparable to angels, in common with received tradition (e. g. Philo, Opif. 73), Origen has this to say of them in Book 3 of his Commentary on Genesis (preserved as Philokalia 23.20, SC 226, 200). In the context of a rejection of astrology, he says that stars are signs that only angels can read; the starry sky is the Bible of the angels, the means whereby God communicates with them. Astrology came into being when the fallen angels communicated to human beings their own ability to read these signs (compare 1 Enoch 7–8). Angels are set over natural elements and human arts such as poetry, geometry, medicine.126 The latter are called by Origen “the wisdom of this world” and are in themselves neither good nor evil; he distinguishes from these “the wisdom of the princes of this world”, astrology and pagan religious beliefs, which are evil. Origen has little to say about sacraments, but he does associate them with angels. Angels are present at baptism, Hom. Ezek. 1.7 [GCS 33, 332], Hom. Josh. 9.4 [GCS 30, 350]. Angels are also present at the eucharist and take pleasure in hearing the scriptures read; indeed there are two churches present, of humans and angels (De or. 11.5, 31.5). Although this is in accordance with received tradition, the practical importance of the sacraments is effectively neglected in comparison with the educative work of the angels. 2.2.4 Angelic classes Origen uses the names of angelic classes mentioned in the New Testament, but evidently does not intend the same thing by their names as do Jewish writers.127 This can be seen in the case of the thrones, where all connection with the heavenly throne of God is lost: Princ. 1.8.4 explains thrones as follows: neque quae nominantur sedes, id est iudicandi vel regendi potestas … The context is Origen’s declaration that angels have earned whichever rank they hold, by some action which it is not proper for humans to enquire about; thus powers have power, dominions have dominion etc.128 Because Origen cannot easily find a verb for sedes, he paraphrases. This alteration rationalizes the Biblical mystical tradition centred around visions of the divine throne chariot. To judge at least by the exclamations of those who condemned this idea of Origen’s, the traditional 126 ‘Mais si l’origine des anges relève chez Origène du système, l’étude de leurs fonctions se rattache à la tradition’. Daniélou, Origène, 221. 127 Princ. 1.5.1 claims not to know the origin of these angelic titles, nescio unde sumentem [sc. Paulum]. This may mean that Origen does not know in which Jewish writing they first appear. However, it seems more likely to be a rhetorical device implying the unimportance of such sources. 128 Similarly Princ. 1.5.3, the angelic titles are ranks not different natures.

149

2.2 Origen

conception seems to have been that the names of the angelic classes denote different beings, not titles of rank deriving from function only.129 A parallel discussion is found in 1.5.3: Tum deinde etiam hi, qui sancti “principatus” appellantur, consideremus si statim ut creati a deo sunt, principatum exercere coeperunt in aliquos, qui eis essent subiecti … Similiter autem et “potestates” qui appellantur utrum tales in hoc ipsum creatae sunt, ut exercerent potestatem, an meritum aliquod istud est et praemium virtutis, per quod ad potestatem istam dignitatemque venerunt. Necnon et hi, qui “throni” (vel sedes) appellantur, an istam beatitudinis sedem stabilitatemque simul cum substantiae suae prolatione meruerint …; vel quae appellantur “dominationes” hoc, quod dominantur, non per profectus sui meritum eis fuerit additum, sed conditionis praerogativa donatum sit … ?

The italics show that the three titles meaning loosely “power” are again associated with the exercise of power. The explanation for the thrones differs from 1.8.4, but still evidently refers to a power of stability possessed by the angels, not to the throne of God. In Comm John 2.23 [GCS O.4, 79] Origen further develops the position of Princ. 1.8.4, that the names of angels are those of ranks not species:

“

”

“

… …

”

“

”

“

“

”

”

Further support is offered by the fact that the names of the greater powers are not titles of natural species, but of ranks, which this and that rational nature receives from God. For a ‘throne’ is not a species of living being, nor ‘dominion’ nor ‘principality’ nor ‘power’; these are names of the businesses to which those so addressed have been appointed; the [respective] subjects are simply men, but it is characteristic of the subject to be a throne, or a dominion, or a principality, or a power. [Origen has previously argued that “men” in Scripture can refer to angels] … for all rational beings are called men because they are made in the image of God.

The single spiritual reality of the natura rationabilis made in the image of God simply exercises different functions, as angel or human. As regards the terminology of angelic orders, Origen is largely scriptural, as the (not exhaustive) table shows:

129 E.g. Theophilus of Alexandria’s remarks, Ep. Syn. and Ep. Pasch. 2, cited in Görgemanns, 276–8. Stead, Substance, 94 f., considers the consequence of the Aristotelian principle that only material beings can differ numerically: if angels are immaterial, each angel must constitute a separate species.

150

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Princ. 1.5.3

sancti angeli sanctae potestates

beatae sedes gloriosae virtutes

magnificae dominationes

Princ. 1.6.2

ordinem angelicum

virtutes

principatus potestates

throni

Princ. 4.3.14

exercitus sanctorum angelorum

sanctae sedes

dominationes

dominatio [sg.]

principatus potestates

C. Cels. 4.29 C. Cels. 6.71 Comm John 1.15 Comm. John 1.31

(yet others)

Comm. John 10.39

Origen’s statement in Comm. Rom. 3.8 that the Son and the Spirit are the two cherubim of the mercy-seat has been treated in 1.2.3.1.130 Photius’ report that the cherubim are of the Son appears to be a reference to Princ. 1.3.4, which actually mentions seraphim.131 Origen cites his Hebrew teacher for the tradition that the seraphim of Isaiah 6 are the Son and the Spirit, Princ. 1.3.4, 4.3.14.132 But he does not usually mention cherubim or seraphim when enumerating angelic ranks, but cites only the Pauline termini together with the blanket term “angels”. Since he mentions this interpretation of Isa 6 several times, it seems that cherubim and seraphim are taken out of the ranks of angels by their association with the Trinity.133 Note that Hom. Isa 1.2 and Princ. 4.3.14, as well as attesting the Trinity in the Old Testament, show the Son and the Spirit hiding the face of God, i. e. obscuring the mystery of the world’s beginning and ending, which they alone are privileged to share with the Father.134 Kretschmar notes that 130

Hom. Luke 3 [GCS 49, 20] distinguishes the Son and the Spirit from the cherubim. Trigg, Angel, 36, following Nautin, Origène, 132 f. These may reflect the Philonic . 132 Princ. 4.3.14 asserts that the seraphim cover the face and feet of God (also C. Cels. 6.18, Hom. Isa 1.2 [GCS 33, 244 ff.] – also says the seraphim are the Son and the Spirit). Origen gives no source for this teaching, which if originally Jewish would seem to indicate Shi‘ur Qomah speculation of some kind. 3 Enoch 22B.5 says that God covers [his own] face. For the usual interpretation of Isa 6, see Comm John 6.2. 133 Nautin, Origène, 133: Origen understands seraphim as a scriptural expression for Son and Spirit, not a type of angel. Cf. Trigg, Angel, 38 n. 11: “If Origen intended to deny this identification, he was uncharacteristically reticent”. 134 A trace of this may perhaps be seen in Greg. Naz., 2nd Theol. Or. 3, which speaks of God’s inmost nature as hidden by the cherubim, even from angels and archangels. 131

2.2 Origen

151

Origen’s trinitarian interpretation of Isa 6, which sets at least the Son and the Spirit on the same level, is at odds with subordinationist theology elsewhere in his work.135 C. Cels. 6.18 speaks of the mystery associated with cherubim and seraphim; Origen says he has deliberately refrained from discussing them. Although Origen speaks of a hierarchy of angelic beings, there is no fixed order, though at Comm John 1.34 he explicitly ranks gods, thrones and dominions highest. The use of “gods” as an angelic title is also found in Clement.136 Origen’s terminology is restrained compared to contemporary Jewish tradition, and is best explained by his emphasis on scripture. Because the ranking of angels is determined by their merit and their degree of fall, logically all souls which are returning to God, the ultimate goal of creation, must pass through all the degrees of angels as they are perfected. C. Cels. 4.29 quotes the scriptural term and names thrones, dominions, powers and principalities ( ) as things which humankind can become equal to ( ). Lastly, they become like God; Origen cites 1 John 3.2. This progress is in imitation of Christ.137 Christ became man, but also took on the nature of all the choirs of angels, Comm. John 19.6 [GCS O.4, 305]. Similarly Hom. Gen. 8.8 [GCS 29, 83], Comm. John 1.31 [GCS O.4, 38 f.]. 2.2.5 Conclusions Chapter 1 noted that Philo links angels with the daimones of Platonic philosophy; Origen borrows this use of angelology. While his system has recognisably Platonic and Stoic features, its central characteristic is the concept of the rational natures, originally alike but differentiated by their fall into angels, human souls and demons. This resembles Philo’s teaching that angels are (human) souls without bodies. We also noted Decharneux’ distinction between two types of angels in Philo, those which are pure spirit and those which belong to an intermediate category between spiritual and material.138 By making use of the existing conceptual category of angels, Origen can hold fast to the principle of subordinating his theological speculation to scripture. Thus angels bridge biblical tradition and philosophy, with the help of the paracanonical apocryphal writings. Origen and Philo share the concept that God (the Father) is simple, and that multiplicity belongs on the level of the Logos and the subordinate divine powers. But for Philo the Logos is not fully divine, and the two highest below the Logos can be described as the cherubim of the mercy-seat. For Origen, the Son and the Spirit may be spoken of allegorically as cherubim or seraphim; but 135

Studien, 64–68. named with angels Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.3. 7.10 defines “gods” as the spirits of the righteous made perfect. 137 Recheis, Engel, 103. 138 Decharneux, Anges, 157. 136

152

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

they are within the category of divinity, although subordinate to the Father. The multiplicity inherent in the of the Son is here located more explicitly within the divine nature. But Origen is doing more than simply Christianizing Philo. His doctrine of two creations and a universal fall explains why angels are like souls, and why they differ; Philo simply accepts the existence of angels and adapts them to suit his own purposes. Origen departs from the tradition that angels are perfect, and while this is philosophically more satisfying, it is the weakest point of his theology as far as orthodoxy is concerned. The theological function of angels in his work is therefore twofold. Firstly, they represent one class of the fallen rational natures, and hence an explanation for evil and inequality in the world. Secondly, they are the key means whereby God brings about the restoration. This involves competition with the role of Christ. Christ is central in that he initiates the restoration and strengthens the hand of the guardian angels. But the extensive role given to the angels in educating souls, until they are ready for Christ’s higher teaching, in practice relativizes the importance of the incarnation and crucifixion. Judgement, too, is relativized, appearing as only one stage in the soul’s progress. The importance of the sacraments is also diminished. The reason for Christ’s various modes of appearing (the titles such as Word, Wisdom, Shepherd discussed in Princ. 1.2 and Comm. John 1.22 f.) is an educative one: he appears to people in ways corresponding to their ability to grasp him, within the broader distinction of man for humankind, angel for angels. This is a theme which Origen has made fully his own, fitting it into the scheme of education by angels, then by Christ, culminating in return to God. But the underlying concepts of imitation of Christ and restoration of the image of God in the soul belong to existing tradition. McVey has drawn attention to the similar treatment of this theme by Ephrem.139 Section 2.1 noted that angels were already seen as role models in Qumran; angelic instruction is found in Zechariah and 2 Esdras, as well as non-canonical works. Hence angelology is not simply a device whereby to import philosophy into Christian theology; its prominence is partly suggested by the respect with which Origen treats extracanonical writings, and also by his use of the Septuagint as his Bible text. Origen’s use of angelology points to his rootedness in Syrian and Palestinian traditions of thought, though it may not be possible to determine whether he encountered them in Alexandria or Palestine. Many apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works originated in the region, producing a religious culture in which angelology was already prominent and the subject of creative discussion. His treatment of cherubim and seraphim depends on Jewish traditions transmitted by his “Hebrew teacher”, and his textual work depended on the already existing Jewish versions. Origen apparently believed that angelology would add support 139

McVey, Saint.

2.3 Ephrem

153

to the scriptural foundation of his theology; posterity, however, disagreed. Significantly, the two Origenist controversies of the fourth and sixth centuries took issue with angelological questions in particular; angelology was now perceived as dangerous. This reflection of a Jewish theological trend in Christianity, but with a time-lag of approximately two centuries (see 1.5), indicates the continuing influence (possibly unconscious) of the other religious tradition.

2.3 Ephrem Ephrem was born ca. 306 and taught in Nisibis. In 363 Nisibis was ceded to the Persians and Ephrem moved to Edessa, where he died in 373. It would appear to be during this period that Ephrem first engaged seriously with Greek theology, as well as continuing the concern for orthodoxy that is visible from the early homilies on faith; the commentary on the Diatessaron and prose refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan date from his time in Edessa, as do the hymns on faith.140 According to the Syriac Vita, 33, Ephrem taught the benat qeiama to sing his hymns while he accompanied them on the harp.141 Bardaisan’s son Harmonius is said to have composed hymns, of which Ephrem took over the metres for his own orthodox hymns (Sozomen, H. E. 3.16). The same theme of liturgy for polemical purposes is seen in John Chrysostom’s processions against Arians in Constantinople. Ephrem’s hymnody had a great influence in the west through the kontakia of Romanos the Melode.142 Geographically speaking Ephrem belongs to Northern Mesopotamia, but culturally he looks to Syria.143 Nisibis lies on the border between Osrhoene and Adiabene, which had close links with Palestine, possessing royal tombs in Jerusalem; there was traffic between the Mesopotamian and Palestinian Jewish communities. Hence Ephrem was well placed to encounter Syrian and Palestinian culture. For example, Nat 1.53 suggests familiarity with Enoch traditions.144 We begin with Ephrem’s angelological vocabulary, focusing on Ephrem’s homilies and hymns on faith, indisputably genuine works from the beginning and ending of his career. Greek and Syriac Christian writing differs in that the former tends to be analytical and philosophical, the latter primarily symbolic and synthetic.145 Nevertheless, the two cultures are not entirely closed to one another; we have already traced characteristic concerns of Syriac asceticism in 140

Murray, Ephraem, 756. On orthodoxy Griffith, Marks, 136. Benedictus, vol. 6, Rome: Vaticana 1743, p. LII. 142 Brock, Romanos. 143 The trade route from Antioch to Babylon ran via Edessa. 144 Winkler, Sanctus, 69 f. Kronholm, Motifs, 27, 215–224, stresses the significance of Jewish thought for his exegesis, including Enoch (154–163). 145 Brock, Luminous, 143. 141

154

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Greek writers.146 Ephrem appears not to have known the Cappadocian fathers, because his terminology for the nature of God is not fixed.147 2.3.1 Vocabulary Ephrem’s angelological vocabulary is summarised by Cramer in a table (66). is reserved for heavenly beings, as with Aphrahat. For Ephrem, like Aphrahat, and are synonymous; he can use either when referring to the same Biblical passage.148 However, except when citing Scripture, when he uses as the cognate to , is by far his preferred term. He makes use of the root meaning of for a play on words, e. g. on the sleep of sin; similar passages from Aphrahat were cited in the last chapter. But while Aphrahat needs to qualify it with an expression such as , Ephrem can use it alone: Nat 21.11, “(Wachende) Engel mengten sich unter die Wachenden” [sc. the shepherds] .149 With four exceptions, Ephrem follows Aphrahat in using only in the plural, expressing the singular with (e. g. H Fid 8.15).150 Ephrem’s abandonment of means that the messenger function of angels is less prominent than in Scripture. In apocryphal and rabbinic writings also, the heavenly function of angels increasingly supplants the messenger function; Ephrem is reflecting the inherited tradition. Gabriel is mentioned about twice as often as Michael, and only Gabriel is entitled and . These expressions, which come to mean “archangel”, are not found in Aphrahat; in Ephrem’s usage the sense of “chief angel, important angel” predominates, rather than “member of the class of archangels”, as in later Syriac writings. Ephrem also mentions other heavenly beings: cherubim, seraphim, wheels and creatures. In the genuine writings Ephrem generally works with only three orders: Watchers, cherubim and seraphim, eg. Epiph 6.20: “Aus dem Munde aller, der Irdischen und der Himmlischen ohne Unterschied – Engel ( ), Cherubim und Seraphim, * Getaufte, Gezeichnete und Hörende, – laßt uns alle laut rufen …” The cherubim and seraphim are evidently types of angel, 146 This is the position of Drijvers and Murray, and also Beck, Theologie, 36, who concludes from H Fid 30.1–4 that Ephrem was aware of the Aristotelian categories. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 166, follows Vööbus in stressing separation. 147 Beck, Theologie, 108 f.: “Bei Ephräm dagegen hat das hypostasis überhaupt kein Äquivalent und kyana = physis ist vollkommen doppeldeutig”. On and hypostasis see below. 148 Unfortunately, Beck also translates as “Engel”. 149 Beck considers only Nat 5–20 to be certainly authentic; Nat 21 could be altered, or a cento (Preface to tr. of Nat, VI). But this use of is found in authentic works also; see below. 150 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 70.

2.3 Ephrem

155

since they are set in parallel with the Watchers.151 The list of angelic classes given in S Fid 1.33–41 is as follows: angels ( ), cherubim ( ), seraphim ( ), ministering angels ( ), hosts of heaven ( ). The last expression should possibly be understood as a summing-up, comprehending all the previous classes; certainly there is no clear sense of an ascending hierarchy, although they are mentioned as part of the cosmic hierarchy culminating in the Son. The , cognate with Hebrew galgallim, are mentioned in connection with the throne chariot.152 They are named alongside angels, seraphim and cherubim at S Fid 1.112. These angelic wheels, not found elsewhere in Christian literature, reveal Ephrem’s contact with Jewish ideas.153 The word is scriptural: Ezek 1 ophannim is rendered in the Syriac; angelic ophannim are attested several times in the Babylonian Talmud and were hence part of contemporary Judaism. It is just possible that translates galgallim. Angelic galgallim are extremely rare: they are not found in Qumran,154 their chief attestation being in Hekhalot texts. The distinction of two types of angelic wheels seems to be characteristic of Hekhalot texts; if so, Ephrem would be aware of quite esoteric forms of Judaism. But even knowledge of angelic ophannim shows awareness of what might broadly be described as Merkabah thought. This is supported by his two mentions of the living creatures, , H Fid 17.8 and 55.2, and of the chariot or throne (often, e. g. H Fid 4.18, 17.8, 55.2–4, C. Julianum 3.17, Eccl 11.4, Azym 13.8, 16.16 f., Crucif 5.1, Virg 21.10). Since Revelation was not read in Syria, it seems likely that Jewish tradition is Ephrem’s source. Another expression found twice in Ephrem is , “hosts of heaven”,155 a Jewish expression relating angels to the stars. “Ob und in wie weit hlwt’ = ‘Heerscharen’ als Bezeichnung für eine selbständige Gruppe zu werten ist, bleibe dahingestellt. Es scheint eher […] für die Engel im allgemeinen zu stehen.”156 Cramer remarks that Ephrem avoids the angelic classes mentioned in the Pauline letters; a passage in the Armenian commentary on Paul’s letters suggests that Ephrem understood “thrones, dominions” etc. in a non-angelic sense (ibid.). This also suggests influence from Jewish tradition, which tended to avoid angelic titles from apocryphal texts; it is striking since from Ephrem’s point of view they are perfectly scriptural. The Jewish viewpoint is here colouring his thought to such an extent that he departs from Christian tradition. 151

Differing from Origen, but conforming to Jewish tradition. In the spurious Sog. 3.4, “chariot wheels endowed with speech”, , are mentioned, which suggests (partially) human form. 153 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 75. 154 Alexander, OTP 1, 249, suggests that galgallim and ophannim are distinguished in the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, referring to 4Q405 20 ii – 21 – 22 9; but the word galgallim is not used, only ophannim and “holy angels”. 155 S Fid 1.41, cited below; Comm. Diatess. 14.17. 156 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 82. 152

156

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

2.3.2 The substance of angels Ephrem’s treatment of this topic differs characteristically from Origen’s. For Ephrem, angels are made of fire and spirit, S Fid 6.341, H Fid 55.5. This is simply a given, biblically anchored in Ps. 104.4. The question is, does he envisage this “fire and spirit” as a sublime form of matter, or is this a poetical expression for an immaterial spiritual reality? Alternatively, does he fail to commit himself on this point? Beck has concluded that Ephrem’s angels are material, although of a very fine substance; he is followed in this by Cramer.157 It is proposed here to review the evidence for this conclusion: I suggest that both material and non-material understandings are possible, depending on the context. Ephrem’s symbolic language is difficult to pin down, perhaps deliberately. A key criterion for orthodoxy, according to Ephrem, is attitude to the ontological gap between God and creation.158 Thus he warns against prying into things that are too great to understand: investigation implies being greater than the thing investigated, which is impossible in the case of God (H Fid 9.16). He repeats that even angels do not look into the mysteries of the divine nature. Ephrem distances himself from apocalyptic by stressing that angels cannot know the nature of the Father or the Son (S Fid 1.43 f., 6.273 f.); in that respect they are no more privileged than human beings.159 However, angels do have an , “mittleren Reichtum”, which means that their knowledge of the Son (knowledge about the Son, not understanding of his inner nature) is greater than that of humankind: H Fid 10.4. This distinction between two types of knowledge is important. Within creation, knowledge proceeds on the basis of a certain relatedness between subject and object. Such natural knowledge is impossible with regard to God, who can be known only by revelation, supremely in the Incarnation of the Son. H Fid 41.6: Was nicht * mit uns verwandt und verschwistert ist, – wer kann das untersuchen, * wer kann das erforschen! – Ihm (selber) gefiel es und er offenbarte, * wie seine Natur sei; – ihm gefiel es und er wurde klein * und er ließ sich herab, – um uns sich selber zu zeigen * und seinen Sohn mit uns zu vereinigen – und seinen Geist in uns zu mischen * und seine Liebe uns zu zeigen. –

–

– –

– –

– –

157 158 159

Beck, Theologie, 107. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 117. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 26 f. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 121.

157

2.3 Ephrem

God therefore reveals himself to humankind by means of symbols and types. 160 means “secret, mystery, symbol, sign”, and the plural means “the mysteries, the Eucharist”. “Symbol and reality (shrara, literally ‘truth’) are intimately linked, for inherent in the symbol, or raza, is the ‘hidden power’, has a long or meaning (hayla kasya) of the reality”.161 The term history in Syria: it is the name of Elchasai. The symbols are found in scripture and in nature, pointing to truths about God.162 Their “mittlerer Reichtum” means that angels occupy an intermediate position in the hierarchy of knowledge, H Fid 5.2: “Das Wissen der Menschen – ist neben dem Wissen der Engel – wie schwache Dämmerung. – Doch auch das Wissen der Engel – ist neben dem Wissen des Geistes – wie ein geringer Schimmer.” –

–

–

–

Human beings can, however, acquire understanding by a process of purification: “Blessed is the person who has acquired a luminous eye ( ) with which he will see how much the angels stand in awe of you, Lord, and how audacious is man” (H Fid 3.5).163 Thus right understanding is connected with understanding of the angels: these show the correct response to God, not irreverent curiosity but awe. Even the nature of angels passes human understanding, how much more so God’s nature, H Fid 26.3: Zu verborgen sind für uns die Naturen der Seraphim – daß wir erforschen könnten, wie die sechs Flügel ihm angefügt sind, – und was die Flügel sind und woraus sie sind, – und wie ein Geist es notwendig habe, mit Flügeln zu fliegen. – Ist das (nur) Gleichnis? – Ist es Wirklichkeit? – Wenn Wirklichkeit, dann sehr schwierig, – wenn (nur) Bild und Name, (auch) dann sehr schwer. – – –

– –

– –

Cramer understands this passage as stressing the weakness of human understanding, which cannot even encompass creatures.164 It seems to me, however, 160 or . Closely linked is , Greek . Bou Mansour, Pensée, 34 f., concludes that has a more restricted meaning, tying the thing signified closely to its antitype. 161 Brock, Luminous, 41. 162 E. g. Virg 20.12. 163 Tr. Brock, Luminous, 73. Beck translates “das unsichtbare Auge”. The adjectival participle can mean “clear, serene, pure, single-minded”. Prayer is described as a luminous mirror that reflects the face of Christ (Eccl 29.9). In the five Hymns on the Pearl, is used both of the pearl and of Christ, the Luminous One (Beck “den Klaren”) (H Fid 81.3). 164 Engelvorstellungen, 59.

158

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

that the force of the passage lies in the stress on their nature as spirits. The hidden nature that can only be discerned with the luminous eye not only belongs to God. Created beings, both angels and perfected humans, share in it; the spiritual nature of angels is hidden from unenlightened human understanding because they are like God, in a derivative sense. A person with a “luminous eye” may, however, speculate within the bounds of the lesser kind of knowledge, e. g. why a spirit should find it necessary to use wings. What, then, is this hidden angelic nature? What exactly does Ephrem mean by “fire and spirit”? H Fid 10.8–10: 8 In deinem Brot ist verborgen nicht zu essender Geist – in deinem Wein wohnt nicht zu trinkendes Feuer. – Geist in deinem Brot, Feuer in deinem Wein, – erhabne Wunder, die unsere Lippen empfingen. 9 Da der Herr herabstieg auf die Erde zu den Sterblichen, – schuf er sie zu einer neuen Schöpfung, wie Engel; – denn Feuer und Geist mischte er in sie, – daß sie unsichtbarer Weise aus Feuer und Geist würden. 10 Der Seraph berührte die Kohle nicht mit seine Fingern; – den Mund des Isaias allein berührte sie. – Nicht nahm er sie noch aß er sie. – Uns aber hat der Herr beides gegeben. – – –

–

–

– – –

–

This discussion of Christ’s presence in the eucharistic elements both describes Christ as spirit and fire and says that those who eat are turned into spirit and fire. The paradox turns on the idea that in the physical elements these spiritual realities (inedible because intangible) can nevertheless be eaten and drunk. Moreover, the change effected in human beings is not a corporeal change. Christ is definitely not material, which suggests that the fire and spirit are non-material too. In his discussion of this passage, Bou Mansour compares H Fid 40.10: “Le symbole (raza) de l’Esprit est en lui (le feu) aussi bien que le type (tupsa) de l’Esprit Saint”.165 –[

]

Therefore the spirit in the bread carries the meaning of the Holy Spirit, among others; the fire in the cup could conceivably carry the meaning of God as a “consuming fire” (Deut 4.24, Heb 12.29). The “spirit and fire” symbolise the non-material Trinity; if angels are “fire and spirit” but material, this leads to a difficulty with the idea of human beings attaining perfection. If they become like angels, they will be “fire and spirit”, and yet subtle matter; if they become like Christ, they will be not be material. Unfortunately Ephrem does not discuss 165

Pensée, 399.

2.3 Ephrem

159

the relationship between divinization and becoming angels. But the complex of meaning around the “luminous eye” and the hidden, spiritual nature of angels, discussed above, tends to suggest a spiritual world in the sense of a hidden reality not accessible to the material. Ephrem can contrast the “spiritual ones” ( ), the angels, with the “embodied ones” ( ), humankind, e. g. Eccl 20.10, . He mentions them as a special case of embodied but invisible beings, in Pr Ref II.21.166 But they also resemble the divine nature. In C Haer 32.14 Ephrem says that God’s nature is not subject to change, and does not become larger or smaller; this is because it is simple and not composite, . But in Pr Ref I 8.40–9.15, Ephrem says much the same of the angels: they do not grow or diminish because of their spiritual character, . The inference is that angels are similar to God in a way human beings are not. The way Ephrem divides the four elements among angels and humans in H Fid 30.2 indicates the embodied nature of both, while stressing the superior nature of the angels: Die Naturen der Wachenden (sind) Feuer und Geist; die Naturen der Leiber sind Staub und Wasser. – Die Natur des Herrn des Alls, wer könnte sie wahrnehmen, – die Natur, vor deren Erklärung die Naturen versagen. – –

Perhaps the more obvious reading of this passage is that fire and spirit are material, although more subtle than dust and water; Ephrem here comes closest to asserting that angels have a material substance.167 He distinguishes three levels of being: in the case of the lower and higher creatures, the four elements can be used (metaphorically) to describe their nature. The point of the comparison is that it is impossible to talk about God’s nature, even metaphorically. It is true that Ephrem uses the word , “body, flesh, carcase”, and not , “a body, a solid”. But bodiliness does not necessarily entail materiality. Ephrem is clearly aware of the distinction between “embodied” and “material”, and of the metaphorical nature of language used of angels, e. g. H Fid 26.3 above. Cramer’s discussion of C Haer 48.17, which asks why angels do not need to see with a bodily eye, while the (embodied human) soul does need sensory organs, concludes that angels possess “echte [i. e. material] Sinnesorgane”(120). I do not see that it follows at all from the text. Beck comments that these are questions that

166 ed. Mitchell et al. Ephrem says, against Bardaisan, that a line has no substance in the way a horse has, which has length and breadth even when pictured in the mind; and this is true of invisible things, or angels, also. 167 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 117. Beck, Theologie, 107, speaks of a “gewisse Ähnlichkeit” between Ephrem’s “fire and spirit” and the Stoic pneuma.

160

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

remain unanswerable for Ephrem;168 we should perhaps say that here he reaches the boundary of the heavenly mysteries and cannot ask further questions. An example of non-material bodiliness, also expressed in terms of three levels of being, is H Fid 19.4.169 This speaks of the fiery hands and spirit fingers that would be necessary to touch the Son “vor dessen Unsichtbarkeit – auch unser Gedanke wie ein Körper ist.” Clearly the three levels of being (human, angel, God) are not to be thought of as material, finer material, spirit, but material, spirit, even higher spirit, since human thoughts, which are indisputably incorporeal, seem like a body ( ) compared to the Son. The angels are thus on a plane with human thoughts: spirit, but less fine than the nature of God. The use of fire and spirit in H Fid 10 in the context of the sacraments points in the same direction. 10.9 was quoted earlier; but 10.17 says also “Feuer und Geist in unserer Taufe. – Im Brot und im Kelch Feuer und heiliger Geist”. The other key term for this question is . But can mean “substance, existence, person, hypostasis”, including the persons of the Trinity, as well as material things. Beck argues that the development in the meaning of is later, and that use of it to mean “hypostasis” indicates a spurious text.170 Burkitt remarks: “I have translated knoma by “substance”, but this meaning shades off into “individuality”, and no doubt this was the aspect of the word that made it appropriate to render Hypostasis or Person in the Trinitarian sense”.171 He notes the use “David his knoma”, i. e. “David in his own person”. On the other hand, Burkitt believes that “there is in knoma always the notion of reality, i. e. of materiality”, and refers to the qnoma of fire hidden in wood (II.174.20). In the discussion of corporeality and space in which he mentions the bodies of angels (II.8.38–29.30), Ephrem discusses whether space has a body ( ) and a substance ( ); the fact that he uses both “body” and “substance” seems to indicate some difference between the two. A (solid) body cannot occupy the same space as another body, whereas in the case of fire and wood, two substances can coexist. It seems to me that the force of in these passages does indeed shade off into individuality, as Burkitt says, implying something like “essence” or “reality”, whereas the corporeality is expressed by . Space and lines have no because they are merely notional; nonmaterial but really existing beings like angels could be said to have but no . It must, however, be conceded that Ephrem does not say this explicitly. Nevertheless, Ephrem certainly uses to indicate something incorporeal, e. g. Comm. Gen. I.16, 19 “qnoma d-nafšeh bzw. qnom nafšeh in der 168 169 170 171

In his edition of Haer. ad loc., 169 n. 18. Cf. Beck, Theologie, 88. Theologie, 21 f. Introductory essay to vol. II of the Pr Ref, p. cxv.

161

2.3 Ephrem

Bedeutung subsistentia propria”.172 Similarly, S Fid 4.131 uses of the Trinity, where one might rather expect , nature. Beck distinguishes: is the inner nature which it is forbidden to investigate, while is the “objektiv existierende Ding”, i. e. even a non-material reality.173 But in S Fid 4.129 f. investigating the is forbidden, i. e. its meaning is equivalent here to . Beck’s explanation for the contradictory use of is that “Ephraem als Semit wenig Sinn für ein geschlossenes System besaß”.174 This is clearly unsatisfactory. It seems better to abandon Beck’s and Cramer’s attempt to tie Ephrem to a theory of subtle spiritual matter, with its associated strict differentiation between and . Rather, I suggest that Ephrem is simply not interested in defining exactly what a nature is, either of God or of angels. On the question of and , Bou Mansour makes an important link with the concept of the name.175 In S Fid 2.585–605, Ephrem considers the fact that Father and Son have one will but two names. Die Wurzel des Namens is das (benannte) Ding; * daran sind die Namen gebunden. – Denn wer wird einen Namen geben * einem etwas ohne eigne Ding(lichkeit). (585–588) – –

Clearly then, is being used of the incorporeal Trinity, and in a sense which comes close to “hypostasis” or to Burkitt’s “individuality”. Similarly, “Ephrem semble dire que par les noms du Père, du Fils et de l’Esprit, l’homme ‘possède’ (qna) les qnome” (171). This refers to to S Fid 4.45–48: Du hast gehört: Vater, Sohn und Geist. * Mit den Namen lerne auch die Dinge kennen! – Nicht (nur) vereinte Namen sind sie; * durch die Wirklichkeit sind die Drei vereint. – –

In fact the function of the names is to distinguish the (4.46). In H Fid 76.7–9, the names both separate the and unify the one nature, : 7 Trenne die Namen * des Vaters und des Sohnes – und setze sie wiederum gleich; * denn der Vater ist Gott – und der Sohn ist Gott. 8 Denn Gott ist * der Name des Vaters – und Gott hinwieder * der Name des Sohnes, – wie geschrieben steht. 9 Getrennt ist er durch den Namen, * weil er der Sohn ist, – und gleich ist er durch den Namen, * weil er auch Gott ist. – Lob sei seinem Namen! [

]

–

–

–

9 –

172 173 174 175

Beck, Theologie, 20 f. Beck, Reden, 9–11. Reden, 11. Pensée, 169. He translates

as “hypostasis”.

162

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Although neither of the key words is used in this passage, the underlying concept clearly corresponds to that expressed by Greek theologians with and . Bou Mansour suggests that occasionally and come close to being synonymous; he calls the “aspect mystérieux du qnoma” (176). Si qnoma traduit, comme le dit Beck, une diversité dans l’unité de la Trinité, pourquoi ne peut-on pas supposer que kyana puisse exprimer l’unité, mais réalisée dans la multiplicité des personnes? Ne séparant jamais radicalement qnoma et kyana, Ephrem a évité de concevoir l’unité comme unité d’uniformité, lui préférant une unité qui englobe ses éléments constitutifs.176

Bou Mansour also warns against making too clear distinctions in Ephrem’s thought with regard to the three elements of name, and (186). For Ephrem, polyvalence is an important theological tool. We have dwelt on this question at some length, because it seems to me that Beck’s and Cramer’s interpretation is too narrow. Ephrem’s use of language is not that of strict philosophical definition, even in Pr Ref. By describing angels as “fire and spirit”, Ephrem combines a word for a material element (though a subtle and mysterious one, connoting heat, light, purification, danger), with the word “spirit”, which although it can mean “breath, wind” largely implies non-material things, particularly the “element” (by analogy) proper to God. Thus he suggests allusively and metaphorically what technical prose can barely encompass, namely that angels are in some senses embodied (fire) and in some not (spirit); that in some ways they are comparable to human beings, in others to God. The language of embodiment is necessary to stress that angels are finite and created beings, by contrast to the Son: H Fid 30.2: “Die Natur des Herrn des Alls, wer könnte sie wahrnehmen!”. H Fid 75.25 f. says that although the senses ( )of angels are fine and spiritual ( ), they cannot comprehend God. However, this does not involve a definitive answer on the issue of materiality. Ephrem’s metaphorical language leaves the matter open; some passages lend themselves more to a non-material sense, some to a material. Ephrem varies the traditional idea that angels are fire and spirit according to the need of the argument of the moment. He can call angels , which can only mean “spiritual entities”. But he can also set two opposed pairs of apparently material elements side by side in H Fid 30.2, because an additional play on words is present: the “Watchers”, the wakeful ones, the immortal ones, are opposed to the persons of flesh, the (dead) bodies; at the same time the word for the dead carcase conceals an allusion to the resurrection of the immortal Watcher, Christ (see below). Ephrem’s theology is located in the webs of such superimposed allusions. His polyvalent use of language represents a theologi176

Bou Mansour, Pensée, 180 f.

163

2.3 Ephrem

cally consistent rejection of precise definition, since even the nature of angels surpasses human understanding, much more so the divine nature. These are things which can only be spoken of in terms of .177 But the issue of angels’ substance is clearly a significant element of his angelology, despite the fact that Ephrem cannot be tied to a single answer. 2.3.3 Angels and humans The principal function of angels vis-à-vis humans is to act as role models.178 They function in a similar manner to the saints, or venerated Biblical figures in Jewish tradition (e. g. Sir 44–50, 1 Clem 17). Ephrem cites them alongside prophets and kings as working for the salvation of humankind before Christ, yet unable to bring it about (Eccl 20.10, Virg 39.15). This is because angels are immortal, and hence unlike Christ unable to offer their souls (or life, )in place of Adam’s (Nis 36.2). Their similarity with humankind is founded on their shared nature as creatures (H Fid 46.8 “Genossen”, ). The Incarnation adds a new dimension: Fürwahr es ist die Nacht, die die Engel mit den Wachenden vereint! Es kam der Wachende (Engel), um Wachende im Erdenrund zu schaffen. Die Wachenden wurden * zu Genossen der (wachenden) Engel. – Die Lobsingenden wurden * zu Gefährten der Seraphim. (Nat 21.4) – –

–

Insofar as human beings receive the Christ, they become companions of angels.179 Nat 6.24 goes even further: human beings become angels (Watchers): Der wachende (Engel) erstand * aus dem Grab, – weil er wachend schlief; * und er kam und fand – die schlafenden Völker. * Er jubelte und rief * und weckte sie auf. Die Schläfer dankten * dem wachenden (Engel); denn er schuf (sie) zu Engeln auf Erden. –

– –

–

– – –

This includes all the associated ideas of immortality, attentiveness and freedom from sin (next section). Cramer notes that the use of the same word for angels, humans and Christ indicates that they possess “wakefulness” in different 177 It is in this sense that Brock has described his work as “symbolic theology” and speaks of its “essential fluidity”: Brock, Poet, 53; 55. Similarly Bou Mansour takes polyvalence to be characteristic for Ephrem’s symbols: Pensée, 15. 178 e. g. Comm. Diatess. 14.19: if angels are saddened by our sin, so should we be. 179 Since Nat 6.24 takes these sentiments further, we are justified in citing Nat 21.

164

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

degrees; thus becoming like angels implies becoming like Christ (155). This happens in an entirely orthodox manner, beginning with baptism: Hier dagegen, aus dem (Tauf)wasser, – ist es eine Erzeugung, der die geistigen (Engel) gleichen. (Epiph 8.9) – Der Freigeborene, der durch das (Tauf)wasser sich in jenen Engel gekleidet hat … [sc. Christus] (Epiph 4.8)

Becoming like angels implies doing what they do, which is to praise and sing (Nat. 2.1, Nat. 21.4). Thus in a few places Ephrem associates angels with the liturgy, e. g. Epiph 6.20, where human beings, watchers, cherubim and seraphim unite in singing. This is particularly true of the , linked with the ceaseless worship of the through their function of “standing” in wakeful adoration. In heaven they form a church together (Parad 11.2). The distinctive function of angels as role models, by contrast to the saints, is thus their liturgical function. Ephrem’s angels, as at Qumran, are heavenly praising beings rather than messengers. Thus imitation of angels entails a focus on heavenly worship as the ultimate goal of perfection in the faith. Because angels are identified by their liturgical function, Ephrem can equate them with priests, Nis 42.10:180 [Paulus] hat gesagt, daß die Apostel Engel richten werden. – Mit (dem Namen) Engel bezeichnete er die Priester, wie geschrieben steht. –

The reference is to Mal 2.7; the same interpretation is found in Aphrahat, 22.16. Cramer points out that in Hebrew is rendered in the Peshitta (162 f.), i. e. the meaning “messenger” is no longer possible, since in Syriac exclusively designates angels. Moreover, C Paul arm 70 interprets 1 Cor 11.10 “because of the angels” as referring to priests. These few passages (another is C Paul arm 175) indicate that Ephrem was aware of a tradition of interpretation which is found at Qumran and is prominent in John Chrysostom (see Chapter 3). Imitating the angels is seen above all in virginity, which implies , “friendship with angels” (Pr Ref II 183.38). Angels marvel at Elijah’s virginity (Parad 6.24). Unsurprisingly, in his homily on hermits and monks Ephrem often draws comparisons with angels, e. g. their lack of possessions and

180

Also Comm Paul arm 55.

165

2.3 Ephrem

their concentration on praise of God.181 More than others, the monks have angels for their companions: Wohin je einer von ihnen kam, ward der Friede ringsum herrschend; bei einem einzigen Freunde Gottes lagert sich ein Heer von Wachenden. Obwohl er allein wohnt, sichtbar dem Körper nach, ist er in seinem Herzen unsichtbar vereint mit den Scharen der Himmlischen. (S Erem 161–168).182 – – – [?

]

–

The means by which human beings become angels, as in Nat 6.24, are the sacraments. By eating the “bread of angels” in the Eucharist, they are recreated as angelic beings: H Fid 10.8–10, quoted above. The great dignity given to humankind by the incarnation of Christ can be described by means of a favourable comparison with angels: Der Seraph berührte die Kohle nicht mit seine Fingern; – den Mund des Isaias allein berührte sie. – Nicht nahm er sie noch aß er sie. – Uns aber hat der Herr beides gegeben. (H Fid 10.10)

In Ephrem’s symbolic world the coal represents Christ (Nat 6.13, Comm. Diatess. 1.5).183 Thus in this passage, “we”, the Christians, are privileged above both the angels and the Jews, in that Christians receive the Lord into their bodies in the eucharist. The heavenly element, which in Isa 6 purifies human nature from the outside, is now received into human nature and transforms it. This transformation is spelt out in the previous verse: Da der Herr herabstieg auf die Erde zu den Sterblichen, – schuf er sie zu einer neuen Schöpfung, wie Engel; – denn Feuer und Geist mischte er in sie, – daß sie unsichtbarer Weise aus Feuer und Geist würden. (H Fid 10.9)

Ephrem rejects the story of the fall of the Watchers, and denies that angels are responsible for human sin (Haer 7 and 19). Angels’ primary purpose is to serve: 181 Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 159, distinguishes between hermits ( ) and members of the . Beck notes that in this late work, “Die ihidaye sind nicht mehr die singulares und caelibes des Aphraat und des früheren Ephräm; sie sind … eindeutig zu Eremiten geworden.” Beck, Asketentum, 359. 182 Tr. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 160. Text Zingerle, vol. 1, 7. 183 In some Syriac liturgies, the word , coal, is hence used to denote the consecrated bread. Also Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hom. Cat. 16.36: the burning coal of Isaiah 6 prefigures the eucharist. Compare the Syriac Liturgy of S. James: Ministri Ecclesiae tremite, quia ignem vivum administratis. Potestas quae vobis data est excellentior est illa quam habent Seraphim (Hammond 77b). The allusion to the Seraphim suggest that the ignis vivus is the coal. In Greek S. James, Christ is addressed as (Hammond 26c), and before communion the priest says [ ] (Hammond 50d).

166

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Der Engel, das lebendige Werkzeug deines Dienstes, – das von seinem Schöpfer erschaffene Werkzeug (Eccles 26.7) –

Ephrem repeats the rabbinic axiom that angels only stand, never sit (C Haer 32.6). The expression he uses, “den dienenden Wachenden”, , suggests the Hebrew “ministering angels”, . But in contrast to the Jewish tradition, Ephrem nowhere mentions angelic intercession for humankind. This is significant, given the otherwise pronounced Jewish flavour of his thought. The reason may be that in Christian thinking, Christ is the heavenly intercessor, so that angelic intercession loses its significance. Certainly there are few Christian passages concerned with angelic intercession, compared to the number of Jewish ones.184 Despite Ephrem’s mentions of angelic harps and singing, e. g. Parad 11.2, 14.9, H Fid 51.5, he shares the Jewish idea that the highest praise of the angels is silent. This is favourably contrasted with the rashness of human speaking (H Fid 3.9): Glücklich, wer einsah, * daß die Engel ( ) schweigend dich loben, – und rasch mit sich selber stritt, * wie verwegen seine Zunge sei!

Similarly, S Fid 1.109–114, 127 f., 131 f.: 185 Schweigend beten die Engel ( ) an; * laut rufen die Seraphim ihr “Heilig”; die Cherubim tragen in Ehrfurcht; * die Räder eilen im Lichtglanz. Sie alle beten von ferne * durch den sichtbaren (Sohn) den unsichtbaren Vater an. (…) Wenn (also alle) Geschöpfe zu schwach sind, * Seraphim und Engel versagen, … zu welcher Höhe strebst du dann, * du staub(geformter), irdischer (Mensch)!

The silence of the angels underscores the theological point, which is the rashness of human endeavours to pierce the divine mystery. Bou Mansour points out that apophaticism is an integral part of Ephrem’s symbolic discourse, to prevent idolatry [and heresy].186 Mais chaque fois que l’apophatisme est pris en considération, la face positive de l’homme comme image et de son discours sur Dieu sont justement réévalués. … L’apophatisme joue, dans le discours symbolique comme dans tout discours, le rôle d’une mise en garde qui empêche la réduction du mystère. (536 f.)

Bou Mansour assesses positively the polyvalence (polysémie) of Ephrem’s symbolic language, by contrast to Beck and others.

184 185 186

ApocPaul 43–44; Origen Princ. 1.8.1, C. Cels. 5.4. See also H Fid 22.9–10. Bou Mansour, Pensée, 536.

167

2.3 Ephrem

2.3.4 Angels and Christ Christ can be called and , but never any qualification. Comm. Diat. 17.13 calls Christ

alone, without :

Et in lotione (pedum), non fecit initium a Simone, principe discipulorum. Si enim caput angelorum reliquisset in illo (antiquo) tempore dignitatem suam, quomodo potuisset caput discipulorum consistere in gradu dignitatis suae? Didicit autem imitari caput discipulorum caput angelorum. Dignitas excelsa naturae Domini nostri dignitate humilitatis humanitatis suae indutus erat in tempore lotionis (pedum).187

We have noted that does not yet mean “archangel” in Ephrem’s time. Christ is called “head of the angels”, in the sense that he rules over them; compare the titles (Nat 1.41) and (S Dom 29). But Ephrem clearly does not regard the Son as an angel. Nat 23.8 (echoing Isa 63.9 LXX):188 Nicht Seraphim sandte er uns, * nicht Cherubim stiegen zu uns herab. – Nicht kamen dienende Engel, * nein, der Erstgeborene, dem sie dienen, (kam). –

– –

The title of the Firstborn could conceivably be taken to mean that the Son is an angel; but S Fid 1.27–40 underscores the Son’s uncreated nature and superiority over the angels, explicitly against the Arians: Alle irren in der Erkenntnis * dessen, den (nur) der Eine kennt. – Nicht ist er vom Geschlecht der Geschöpfe, * daß diese ihn wie einen Genossen untersuchen (könnten). – Nicht ist er von der Art der (aus dem Staub) Geformten, * daß der Mensch von ihm erzählen (könnte). – Er ist auch nicht verwandt den Engeln, * daß diese ihn wie einen Verwandten erforschen (könnten). – Nicht ist er Gefährte der Cherubim; * denn diese tragen ihn als (ihren) Herrn. – Inmitten der Seraphim schwebt er nicht; * ist doch sein Ehrenplatz zur Rechten. – Bei den Dienenden findet er sich nicht; * denn zusammen mit dem Vater wird ihm gedient. – – – – –

187 188

Leloir, 202–4. If spurious, it still accords with the genuine S Fid cited next.

168

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

– –

In the light of this passage, angelic titles used for Christ can only be understood metaphorically. Christ as “Watcher” is commonly used (Nat 1.62 f., 6.23 f.; Epiph 4.8; H Fid 55.4; Eccl 42.3 f.; Nis 31.7). The word “Watcher” contains two meanings.189 Firstly, the contrast between waking and sleeping represents the contrast between heavenly purity and earthly sin. Thus Adam can be called before the Fall (Comm. Gen. II.12), and Nat 1 describes Christ as because he has come to wake humankind from the sleep of sin: Die wachenden (Engel) freuten sich heute, * weil der Wachende kam, um uns aufzuwecken. – Wer sollte in dieser Nacht schlafen, * in der die ganze Schöpfung wacht. – Weil Adam in die Schöpfung gebracht hatte * den Schlaf des Todes durch die Sünden, – stieg der Wachende herab, um uns aufzuwecken * aus der Erstarrung der Sünde. (Nat 1.61–62) –

– –

– –

Compare the refrain of Nis 66: “Dir sei Lob, O Wachender, der herabstieg zu den Schlafenden, seine Stimme erhob am Kreuz und sie weckte!” This wakefulness implies more than absence of sin; it implies a focusing of the attention on God. That is why heavenly beings are Watchers: they are attentive to God by their very nature.190 Adam too was originally directed towards God, and human beings can regain (by grace) what angels have by nature; they can be awakened. The second meaning is the contrast between immortality and mortality. Nat 6.24:191 Der Wachende erstand * aus dem Grab, – weil er wachend schlief; * und er kam und fand – die schlafenden Völker. * Er jubelte auf und rief * und weckte sie auf. Die Schläfer dankten * dem Wachenden; den er schuf sie zu Engeln auf Erden.

The typically Ephremian paradox of the waking sleeper indicates that, while Christ died, the immortal, heavenly life within him was still awake, bringing about the resurrection. Because Christ then “woke” the nations, i. e. gave them a share in that eternal life, he has made them become angels on earth; angels are called because they are immortal. The different meanings of , attentiveness, immortality, purity, wakefulness, are all held together.

189 190 191

Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 96–108. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 155. Syriac 2.3.4 above. Act. Thom. 60 is similar.

2.3 Ephrem

169

H Fid 55.4 describes the throne chariot seen by Ezekiel, on which an rides. This refers not to an angel, but to Christ.192 The Peshitta version of Ezek 2.1, “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord”, reads:

Now Ephrem uses as a title of the Son, reserving for the Father. Thus the Peshitta text would suggest to him that the figure in the chariot is the Son.193 While the Glory can elsewhere indicate a subordinate divine figure, it is not clear that Ephrem, if he knew such ideas, would have described it as an angel. Ephrem does not use hypostases. However, even if Ephrem would have used the word for the Glory of God in human form, there is a long-standing Christian tradition of interpreting OT angel appearances as appearances of Christ, so that Ephrem may have encountered a tradition which described the Glory as , and interpreted it christologically. The praises of the angels are offered to Christ, who remains in his divine nature in heaven, even during the period of the Incarnation, as Ephrem points out in a list of paradoxes in H Fid 4.7–8: the angels are confused and do not know where to offer their praise, because “sie forschten nach dir im Himmel, – sie sahen dich im Abgrund.”194 The Son mediates the angelic praises to the Father: S Fid 1.113 f.: “Sie alle beten von ferne * durch den sichtbaren (Sohn) den unsichtbaren Vater an” (cited above). This may reflect an angelomorphic Christology. 2.3.5 Angelic rankings Ephrem may be the first to base the angels’ ranks on their degree of knowledge, an idea found in Ps.-Dionysius.195 However, it appears also in Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 6.6 (text 1.2.3.2 above), which is approximately contemporary. Cyril’s text is less explicit than Ephrem’s on the difference of rank. Such ranking according to knowledge is especially close to Gnostic and Platonist concepts of a hierarchy of being. It is not strictly true to say, as Cramer does, that Clement of Alexandria speaks of “Belehrung der niederen Engel durch die höheren”. In heaven, human souls will first minister as deacons, then be classed in the presbyterate (Strom. 6.13–14). However, a change of degree for angels is not mentioned. In 7.13 also, the true gnostic is said to pass through “the spiritual essences, and all rule and authority, he touches the highest thrones”; again this concerns perfected humans,

192 193 194 195

Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 134. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 102. Compare S Fid 1.36, above. Possibly spurious; the passage interrupts the alphabetical order of the hymn. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen, 168.

170

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

not a change of rank for angels.196 Origen, on the other hand, distinguishes the angelic ranks by function, not knowledge. Ephrem’s ranking of the angels according to their ability to understand does seem to be the first to anticipate one element of Ps.-Dionysius’ hierarchy.197 In Ps.-Dionysius, the highest three classes of angels receive knowledge direct from God, the two lower groups of three receive from those above (Hier. Cael. 7.3, 8.2). The same idea is found in H Fid 5.3: Wenn die Engel wünschen – Wesensaussagen über den Sohn kennen zu lernen, – reichen sie die Fragen – an die, die höher stehen als sie. – Auch diese Großen – werden belehrt durch den Wink des Geistes. – Den Stufen der Engel entsprechen – die Fragen der Engel. – Es gibt keinen unter ihnen, der es wagen würde – etwas anzustreben, – das sein Maß übersteigt. –

– –

–

– –

– –

– –

The movement in this passage is upward from below rather than down from above, but the underlying idea is the same. Cramer rejects Michl’s suggestion that Ephrem also anticipated the nine angelic orders known from Ps.-Dionysius.198 The Celestial Hierarchy presents the nine orders of angels as part of a cosmic order with the ecclesiastical hierarchy on earth: le Principe initiateur … nous a révélé les hiérarchies célestes et a institué notre propre hiérarchie, pour qu’elle participât au même sacerdoce qu’elles par son assimilation, selon les moyens humains, à leur saint ministère deiforme. (1.3).199

The principle of ecclesiastical hierarchy imitating angels is found already in Clement, Strom. 6.13. Note the word “priesthood” describing the work of angels and human beings, itself “deiforme” ( ). The three groups of three angels each mediate knowledge to their inferiors. S Fid 1.63–66 shows an ordered angelic hierarchy, even without the nine orders of Ps.-Dionysius: Befehle empfangen auch die Himmlischen ( ) * von Himmlischen, ihren Gefährten. Denn sie geben und empfangen Befehle, * einer vom anderen, entsprechend ihren Rangstufen.

196

197 198 199

Cf. Recheis, Engel, 68–71. The passage from Eklogai 57.4 cited by Recheis, , again refers to human beings in process of perfection. Beck, Reden, 108, “erste Ansätze”. Similarly, on human knowledge, Epiph 9.4. Michl, Ephräm. de Gandillac’s ed.

171

2.3 Ephrem

The angelic hierarchy in S Fid 1 (2.3.1 above) is part of the cosmic hierarchy: all created things are ordered like a body and dependent on the Son, who is far above all creatures (S Fid 1.82 f., 113 f.). Nat 4.199–201 says the following of the incarnate Son: Die Engel haben als Engel * ihn gesehen. – So wie einer ihn erkannte, * sah ihn jeder. – Jeder hat entsprechend dem Maß * seiner Einsicht – wahrgenommen * jenen Allerhöchsten. – In seinem Vater allein ist das Maß, – das vollkommene, seiner Erkenntnis; * denn (nur) er weiß, wie groß er ist. – – –

– –

–

Thus Ephrem envisages a hierarchy based on the degree of knowledge of the divine mystery, from humankind through lower and higher angels to the Spirit, then the Son, and finally the Father. This stress on angels seeing Christ as an angel, according to their ability to understand, is reminiscent of the tradition of Christ’s descent through the heavens in Asc. Isa. 10, which we also detected in Origen. Rather than being an illusion produced by the Son to hide his descent, as in Asc. Isa., Ephrem portrays the angels’ perception of him as an angel as the consequence of their imperfect understanding, which is theologically more satisfying. 2.3.6 Conclusions 2.3.6.1 Jewish influence We have traced wide-ranging Jewish influence in Ephrem, from his choice of angelic titles to his focus on the angels’ liturgical duty and their function as role models.200 His use of angelic language for Christ seems driven by the semantic content of , with its connotations of wakefulness, purity and immortality. It was suggested that his innovation of basing angelic ranking on their degree of knowledge was influenced by the tradition behind Asc. Isa. 10, a Jewish Christian work. Ephrem’s rejection of the idea that Gen 6.2 refers to angels, in Haer 7 and 19, represents a rejection of the apocalyptic writings, specifically 1 Enoch, reflecting the rabbinic attitude.201 He also rejects the apocalyptic angelus interpres who reveals the divine secrets. This is anathema to Ephrem; the central element of his theology is reverent silence before the divine mystery. However, he shares the concept of angels as beings whose primary function is heavenly praise, rather than messages to earth. Ephrem rejects rabbinic traditions about the day on 200 201

Kronholm, Motifs, 215–224, offers a list of shared elements. Kronholm, Motifs, 167 f.: Ephrem knows of Enoch’s ascent.

172

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

which the angels were created; but we found evidence that he knew Merkabah traditions of some kind. He strikingly avoids the Pauline angelic titles, which are sanctioned by Christian Scriptural use, but would seem to a rabbinic Jew tainted by their association with the forbidden apocrypha. This suggests that the most important source for Ephrem’s angelic ideas is Jewish tradition. Cramer believes that Ephrem’s works reveal an avoidance of apocalyptic in favour of rabbinic thought.202 However, it is better not to distinguish so sharply between the two. Rabbinic ideas about angels resemble those in apocryphal writings, with few exceptions: the superiority of Israel is stressed more strongly, and guardian angels are more prominent.203 It seems better to accept that Ephrem is familiar with Jewish angelological thinking from a wide range of sources. Séd finds a close resemblance to rabbinic ideas in the Hymns on Paradise, but concludes that there was no direct contact between [Christian] “rédacteurs des ‘légendes’” [at a determinable point in time] and the authors of midrashim.204 It seems better, however, to conclude that Ephrem himself knew Jewish traditions of his own day, but handled them selectively in accordance with his own pronounced sense of orthodoxy. Murray raises the question of the source of the midrashic traditions Ephrem shares with Judaism and rejects the possibility of personal contact because of hostility between Jews and Christians.205 This is perhaps a little pessimistic: converts, if no-one else, could have brought up-to-date information on Jewish thought. It is also possible that Ephrem was not aware of the Jewish origin of his material, but thought of himself as simply drawing on church tradition. 2.3.6.2 Theological function The principal theological function of angels vis-à-vis humans, in Ephrem’s writings, is to act as role models. Angels show that the right kind of knowledge of God is not only permitted, but praiseworthy: the angels are ranked according to their understanding of the divine nature. The key to this right understanding is what Brock has termed the “luminous eye”, which implies singleness of heart and purity. This luminous eye can perceive hidden truths about the inner nature of things. But the hidden nature thus discerned not only pertains to God. Created beings, both angels and perfected humans, share in it; the spiritual nature of angels is hidden from unenlightened human understanding because they are like God, in a derivative sense. Ephrem’s descriptions of Paradise reveal that the hidden reality perceived by the “luminous eye” extends to the whole of the redeemed creation. The mysterious terminology of “fire and spirit” refers to this 202 203 204 205

Engelvorstellungen, 171. Schäfer, Rivalität, 41–74. Séd, Paradis, 501. Murray, Symbols, 336.

2.4 Conclusion

173

hidden, spiritual reality perceived by the “luminous eye”. This explains why it can be used on all three levels of being (human, angel, Christ): each can partake of fire and spirit insofar as it belongs to the hidden reality of God. The function of angels is also educative: humankind should imitate angelic praise, in order to become like them. They serve as a subordinate tool used by God to fulfil the redemption of humankind which has been brought about by Christ. Like the angels, who praise in silence as well as singing, human praise should culminate in silence. Silence is the highest form of praise because it is closest to the divine speech. Hence Ephrem’s insistence on the rashness of human endeavours to pierce the divine mystery. Even the name of angels points to the goal of the Christian life: attentiveness, immortality, purity, wakefulness, are all held together in the one word . The extensive mentions of angels in Ephrem’s writings help to bridge the difficulty entailed by speaking of what may not be spoken. The cumulative effect of mentions of angels and exclamations over the mystery of their nature is to generate an air of numinous and mysterious worship, which is the activity Ephrem recommends. His writing is not unlike liturgical writing, both Christian and Jewish, in this respect, and reflects the liturgical context for which his hymns were intended.

2.4 Conclusion Our overview has drawn out two recurring themes. Firstly, the educative function of angels is common to Qumran, Origen and Ephrem: angels are a means whereby God advances the salvation of his people. For the two Christian authors, this function is subordinate to the function of Christ, although in Origen Christ and angels appear in competition, to a certain extent. This tension recalls rabbinic notions of rivalry between angels and humankind, e. g. for possession of the Torah. We noted that Qumran angelology is associated with priestly theology through its link with liturgy and the idea of a heavenly Temple. The two most important Biblical passages for speculation on angels in the heavenly Temple, Isa 6 and Ezek chapters 1 / 10, are geographically linked with the Temple. Thus at Qumran we have three overlapping spheres of thought: liturgy, priestly theology, and angelology, which suggests that one reason for the importance of angels at Qumran is the importance of priestly ideology and ritual. This represents a strong contrast to angels in rabbinic thought: although they are often mentioned, their theological significance is far less than that of the Torah. Presumably this is because Torah study and synagogue liturgy were sometimes regarded as rivals, while the Temple liturgy with which angels are associated had long since disappeared.206 206

Rivalry: b Ber 8a, b Kidd 40b, cf. b Shab 10a. Reif, Judaism, 95–102.

174

Chapter 2: Theological functions of angels

Secondly, all three bodies of work share the assumption that angels are heavenly beings whose primary function is liturgical praise of God. The educative function vis-à-vis humankind is a secondary one. The concept of heaven as a world somehow both removed and accessible is treated differently in each case. In Qumran, it was suggested, humankind is taken into heaven by means of the liturgy, which temporarily removes the distinction between humans (priests) and angels. A liturgical and priestly association is also visible in Ephrem, though far less prominent than in Qumran; he also refers specifically to Isa 6 with the imagery of the coal for the eucharistic elements. This liturgical link is comparatively unimportant in Origen, although he does mention the possibility of priestly angels officiating in heaven, Hom. Lev. 1.3; this accords with his comparative lack of interest in the sacraments. In Ephrem, access to the heavenly reality is via acquirement of the “luminous eye” in imitation of the angels. In Origen, ultimate restoration is through instruction by angels and eventually by Christ. Here the liturgical element is replaced by a more cognitive approach to salvation. Origen and the Qumran writings share the concept that human beings can become angels as part of their journey to God. However, they treat it in characteristically different ways: in Qumran it is linked with priestly identity, in Origen with the heavenly education that culminates in knowledge of God. These points of contact between Origen, Ephrem and Qumran suggest that a rudimentary theology of angels formed part of the theological inheritance of all three, the doctrinal pool out of which orthodoxy is formed. Thus right belief about God implies an associated right belief about angels. For example, the discussions of angelic substance in Origen and Ephrem are linked with considerations of God’s nature. Both Origen and Ephrem think of materiality in terms of three stages: bodies, souls or angels, and God.207 Princ. 1.7 and H Fid 30.2 and 19.4 may fruitfully be compared. According to Princ. 1.7, souls are incorporeal compared with bodies and corporeal compared with God. H Fid 30.2 compares the angelic nature favourably with human nature, but God’s nature is beyond human comprehension. According to H Fid 19.4, human thoughts are like bodies compared to God’s invisible nature. The two Christian authors come to different conclusions as regards angelic terminology and scripture. Origen uses only the Pauline terminology of principalities and powers.208 Ephrem, probably because of his reliance on Jewish angelological traditions, avoids them. Both for Origen and Ephrem we saw a possible influence from Asc. Isa. 10: for Origen it was the teaching that Christ became an angel for angels in order to save them, for Ephrem it was the idea that the ranking of angels depends on their degree of knowledge of God. Asc. Isa. provides a link to a further complex of ideas related to the educative function of angels, in that it has an angelic Christol207

Turmel, Histoire, 423–6, discusses angels’ corporeality in the fourth and fifth century Greek Fathers. 208 Cherubim and seraphim are apparently not angels.

2.4 Conclusion

175

ogy. Angelic Christology can be linked to use of the term Logos for Christ, in that the term Logos can be said to “angelize” Christ, since Philo’s Logos is like an angel. Terms such as Logos or Wisdom have to do with educating humankind in the ways of God: this is especially clear in Clement of Alexandria, who entitles Christ the Logos the Instructor, , of humankind, teaching the Greeks through philosophy, given them by angels (Strom. 7.2).209 In Clement, however, the angels are peripheral compared to Christ’s teaching role. Thus Origen’s stress on the educative function of angels may have one root in his Christology, even though his angelology in some ways appears to influence his Christology. What of the link between angels and orthodoxy? For Qumran, tying their practice to the imitation of angels raises the stakes in the matter of orthodoxy, since the angels are perfect servants of God, and by implication the Qumran community also. Criticism of the Temple cult is rendered easier by placing the real focus on the liturgical action of heaven. For Origen, orthodoxy is guaranteed in that the soul is instructed by angels as it advances. This seems to presuppose, not so much a number of beliefs competing in a horizontal plane, but a vertical model of degrees of error and sin, through which the soul progresses. For Ephrem, orthodoxy is a burning concern in his controversies with Arians, Jews and others. The angels are a model of right belief and practice in that they do not pry into the divine mystery. In Qumran there are traces of veneration associated with the imitation of the angels. In Origen and Ephrem the emphasis is more strongly on the angels’ created status, and veneration is not an issue. For Ephrem and the Qumran community, angelic practice is more prominent, for Origen angelic knowledge; but all three concur in saying that the angels are the perfect exponents of how humankind should relate to God.

209 Strom. 1.17 says that philosophy, though stolen by fallen angels, is nevertheless good; the theft is permitted by divine providence. This is an instance of the continuing influence of Enochic angel ideas. It contradicts other statements that the obedient angels of the nations are the source (e. g. 7.2). See Bauckham, Fall, 323–5.

Chapter 3

Angels and human prayers The church is not a gold foundry nor a workshop for silver, but an assembly of angels. John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 50.4

The previous chapter concluded that angels function as role models for human beings, specifically as regards the correct worship of God. Thus contemporary liturgies will certainly have had a formative influence on the writings we have examined. This chapter aims to explore the role of liturgy in constituting communion between humans and angels, standing at the interface between earth and heaven and at once defining and transcending the boundary. First we will consider the use in Jewish and Christian liturgy of the angelic song praising God’s holiness. Secondly, we will explore the question of liturgical time as sacred time, because of the conscious association of human times of prayer with the times the angels offer prayers in heaven. The prominence of angels in both Jewish and early Christian daily prayer both presupposes and encourages awareness of their presence accompanying human worship. Such awareness in turn underscores the importance of worshipping God in an orthodox manner. Borrowing the words of the angels is a safe way of ensuring that liturgical formulations are orthodox.

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus The history of the Qedushah and sanctus represents an important element of the study of angels and their relation to ideas of orthodoxy. Once the question of right relation to God is posed primarily in terms of orthodoxy (as opposed to ritual uncleanness), the contrast with the perfect angelic worshippers (“I am a man of unclean lips”) sharpens awareness of unorthodoxy, at the same time as the contrast is transcended by asserting that angelic and human worshippers unite in the angelic song. Isaiah’s vision is associated with the Temple, and the Qedushah itself may originate in Temple worship. How, then, did it become such an important element of synagogue worship?

178

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

… während aber der Tempel in seiner Eigenschaft als mythischer Raum, in dem sich himmlischer und irdischer Bereich durchdringen, eine solche Kultusgemeinschaft von Engeln und Menschen begründet, konstituiert umgekehrt in der Synagoge gerade die gemeinsame Keduscha von Engeln und Menschen einen solchen heiligen Raum.1

Once the geographically located point of access to the heavenly reality is lost, joining the heavenly praises becomes a means of gaining access to heaven from earth. As will be seen in 3.2, the timing of this joint praise is crucial. Reif questions the claim that the earliest Christian liturgy was based on Jewish forms of prayer, citing Goldberg’s opinion that rabbinic and synagogue worship is not liturgy in the Christian sense.2 However, the case of the Qedushah seems an example of Christians taking over a building-block of Jewish worship, accepting the tradition that it reflects the liturgy of heaven. Winkler’s recent publication on the Christian sanctus offers a masterly discussion of textual traditions.3 However, on one issue I differ from Winkler. She believes that the expanded form “heaven and earth are full …” indicates use of the Christian liturgical sanctus.4 It will be shown below that this form is actually of Jewish origin, though now found only in Christian texts. Spinks’ 1991 publication needs updating with regard to the Qumran texts; he appears not to have seen Newsom’s edition of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, and claims that “the fact remains that the qeduššah itself is not yet attested in the Qumran liturgical literature”.5 Beside Schwemer’s suggestions presented in 2.1.4, there is further textual evidence in favour of a liturgical Qedushah at Qumran. Heinemann, Prayer, offers an advance in methodological considerations over earlier Jewish liturgical study. Previous scholars attempted to reconstruct original forms of synagogue prayers, e. g. Finkelstein concluded that the Amidah began in the second century BC as a single benediction, and that the other benedictions were added at securely dated points.6 By contrast, Heinemann speaks of a long period of oral use in which a variety of different texts were used for worship: It is precisely the later prayers […] which were instituted with a more or less fixed wording. This would account for the fact that it is the less important prayers which are recorded in their entirety in the two Talmuds […] The major prayers having been known since earliest times in numerous formulations, there would be no reason to record one single version, nor would there be any need to do so since every Jew knew at least some formulation of these prayers.7

1

Ego, Himmel, 71. Reif, Judaism, 10. Also pp. 95–102: according to some rabbis, study is superior to prayer. 3 Winkler, Sanctus. 4 E. g. p. 77, referring to 2 Enoch 21.1. 5 Spinks, Sanctus, 27 f. 6 Finkelstein, Development, 131 f. 7 Heinemann, Prayer, 65. 2

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

179

Contrast Finkelstein’s position on the Amidah with Heinemann’s more cautious statement that “already during the Second Temple period, the number and structure of the benedictions in the amidah for Sabbaths and festivals was fixed precisely” – i. e. not the wording.8 Later he speaks of an intermediate stage whereby themes, but not words, were fixed. A note on terminology, which varies in the literature. I take sanctus as meaning Isa 6.3 only, Trishagion to mean the “farced” sanctus from the Christian Orthodox liturgy, and Qedushah to mean a Jewish liturgical element comprising Isa 6.3 with some addition, usually Ezek 3.12, making what I call the “nucleusQedushah”; in other words a liturgical juxtaposition of Scriptural texts. I avoid Trishagion or Qedushah as designating the “holy, holy, holy” of Isa 6.3. It will be noted that the sanctus alone is therefore not a functional equivalent of the Qedushah, but only sanctus plus benedictus (see below). This chapter was at an advanced stage of work when Winkler’s book on the sanctus appeared, supporting my own conclusions as to the variable two-part structure of the Qedushah. Winkler, however, does not address the responsorial nature of this liturgical element, which I suggest was a motor in its original development as a juxtaposition of two texts. Winkler can speak of a Qedushah without a “Blessed” element, i. e. Isa 6.3 only. I suggest that a different explanation is preferable for the frequent citations of Isa 6.3 alone in the Hekhalot literature. 3.1.1 The Jewish Qedushah The Qedushah in present-day usage always contains Isa 6.3 and Ezek 3.12, and has additional elements depending on where it is found: Q. in the prayer yotzer ’or Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12 Q. of the Amidah Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12 + Ps. 146.10 (Q. of the Musaf (additional service for sabbaths and festivals) Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12 + Dt 6.4 + Num 15.41 + Ps. 146.10)9 Q. de Sidre Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12 + Exod 15.18 plus the Aramaic Targums to all three verses.10

It is posited here that the nucleus of the Qedushah are the words, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory”, answered by the response, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from its place”.11 This equates to 8

Heinemann, Prayer, 22, referring to T Ber 3.13. Baumstark, Trishagion, 22, notes that expansions with Ps. 146 and Num 15 are not found in Christian texts. 10 Elbogen, Liturgy, 54 f. 11 The BHS conjectures that (MT and versions) is a scribal error for . This assumes that the visually similar crept in because the rest of the phrase is identical with the familiar acclamation. If correct, this would represent early evidence for liturgical use of Ezek 3.12. See Halperin, Faces, 44 f. 9

180

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

the Q. de-yotzer, probably the oldest version.12 However, it will be seen that varying versions of the basic “Holy” + “Blessed” structure were originally in use concurrently. This interpretation of the Qedushah as a call and response finds support in 3 Enoch chapters 34.2 and 35.4, where angels are grouped into “those who say ‘Holy’” and “those who say ‘Blessed’”. Similarly in 3 Enoch 39 the ministering angels recite the “Holy”, and many other groups of named angels fall prostrate and respond “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for ever and ever.”13 This is a liturgical response which in present-day synagogue liturgy answers the reciting of the Shema.14 Ezek 3.12 is given in the parallel passage 3 Enoch 48B 2, and also in 3 Enoch 1.12: And when I opened my mouth and sang praises before the throne of glory the holy creatures below the throne of glory and above the throne responded after me, saying, Holy, holy, holy, and, Blessed be the glory of the Lord in his dwelling place.

Note that here too the context is that of a responsorial liturgy. Q. de-yotzer belongs to the blessings before the Shema in the synagogue liturgy. The blessings after the Shema end with a reference to the song of Moses from Exod 15.1–18, the last verse of which is cited. This song was traditionally uttered responsorially by women and men.15 This too supports the suggestion that the responsorial element is central to the character of the Qedushah. The Shema is spoken by the reader and the congregation respond ‫״‬ , as the angels respond to each other in the Qedushah. Responsorial singing was a feature of Temple worship (e. g. Ps. 136, Ps. 42–3, Ps. 46), and was taken over into the practice of the synagogue: j Ber 8.9 (fol. 11 d) quotes R. Hiyya bar Abba (3rd generation of Amoraim) ruling that responsorial use of Ps. 118.26, whereby one group speaks the first half of the verse and the other group the second half, fulfils the obligation to recite the Hallel: They asked before R. Hiyya bar Abba, from where do we know that if somebody heard but did not answer, that he fulfilled his duty? He said, because we see great rabbis acting ac-

12

Heinemann, Prayer, 230 f., dates it to the Tannaitic period. The Q. de-yotzer in Seder Amram Gaon (the earliest extant prayer book, ninth century) portrays the heavenly beings speaking responsorially. 13 The Mishnah cites this as a congregational response in the Temple ritual for the Day of Atonement (m Yoma 3.8, 4.1, 6.2). It is comparable to the doxologies dividing the books of the psalter and most closely resembles Ps. 72.19: . Note the similarity with Isa 6.3. 14 Schwemer, König, 63, suggests that the Song of the Three Children, containing and , presupposes the Temple doxology (abbreviated ‫״‬ ), giving a possible date of the mid-second century BC. DeutR 2.36: Moses heard the ministering angels singing it, and brought it back; this implies great antiquity. 15 Horbury, Septuagintal, 258.

181

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

cordingly. They stand in the congregation where some say (Ps. 118.26) “Blessed is he who comes”, and the others say “in the name of the Eternal” and all have fulfilled their duty.

16

The task at this point is therefore to gather evidence for the use of Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12 for the period before 3 Enoch was written, the text just quoted as evidence for a responsorial Qedushah. Like 3 Enoch, other Hekhalot texts quote Isa 6.3, both in conjunction with Ezek 3.12 and with other formulae. Morray-Jones notes the importance of Isa 6, as well as Ezek 1, for Hekhalot literature as a whole.17 This link between the two Biblical visions of God / his glory enthroned further supports the specific liturgical juxtaposition of Isa 6.3 with Ezek 3.12. For example the text ma‘aseh merkabah, published by Gershom Scholem, contains a prayer beginning, “Blessed art Thou YHWH my God and my maker great and terrible …” and concluding: And the great Seal shall be on all the limbs of my body as it is written, and I shall cry, “Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of Hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory. Blessed art thou, Yahweh, Life of the Worlds.”18 [?

]‫׳‬ ‫׳ ׳ ׳‬

This passage is interesting in that here a human being, praying in an earthly context, sings the angelic song. Spinks calls the whole prayer “a berakah which includes qeduššah”;19 however it does not conform to Heinemann’s definition of a liturgical berakah, which takes the form “Blessed art thou, O Lord …” with a “main content clause” continuing in the third person, usually an active participle.20 The present prayer is also much longer than the brief style of a berakah. Nevertheless, the close similarity of the last two lines to the nucleus-Qedushah does seem to indicate the existence of such a fixed style of prayer which the author has included in the longer prayer. It shows a divergent form like that represented by 1 Enoch 39.12–14, discussed below. Hekhalot rabbati conjoins at one point Isa 6.3, Ezek 3.12 and Ps. 146.10, Ps 93.1, Ps. 136.1321. Each Biblical verse is spoken by a different group of heav16 17 18 19 20 21

Guggenheimer, 596. Paradise I, 182. Scholem, Gnosticism, 110. In Schäfer’s ed. this text is found at § 569, p. 218. Spinks, Sanctus, 39. Heinemann, Prayer, 77 f. Schäfer § 146, Synopse, 65, translation Bd. II, 75.

182

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

enly beings, respectively seraphim, hayyot, the raqia’, the earth, and the seas and rivers. Later only Isa 6.3 and Ezek 3.12 are juxtaposed22. Here the speakers are on the one hand various groups of angels, who speak the Isaiah verse, and the hayyot, who speak the Ezekiel verse. This represents precisely the nucleusQedushah of the synagogue liturgy. In both cases we have definite responsorial usage. The “holy, holy, holy” alone occurs many times (especially §§ 94–105). In § 101 the cherubim, ophannim and hayyot open their mouths to say the “holy” at the same hour at which Israel says the “holy” (see 3.2.1). The worship of heaven and earth are seen as linked. The same work also offers an interweaving of Ezek 3.12 with the liturgical response “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for ever and ever”:23

The many occurrences of “holy, holy, holy” sprinkled in the text are not necessarily appropriate to the context in which they are set.24 Rather than a truly responsorial use of these verses, we have here an example of ecstatic redundancy, such as is typical not only for the Hekhalot texts, but also for the angelic liturgy of Qumran. However, such mystical word-painting, evoking the numinous atmosphere of heaven, actually presupposes the existence of a liturgical formula based on Isa 6.3. Logically, these citations of Isa 6.3 alone are therefore secondary to the liturgical Qedushah. I suggest that, even when the worship is purely heavenly, the fact that the angels are envisaged as singing responsorially is a strong indicator for liturgical use of this material on earth. The extent to which the Merkabah visions reflect real ecstatic experiences is discussed by Schäfer;25 I will not offer an opinion except to say that the more sceptical one is, the stronger is the case for the use of synagogue worship as a model. Even authentic ecstatic experiences are likely to draw on elements familiar from worship for their formulation. Thus the relation between mystical experience and ordered liturgical worship is reciprocal; the incorporation of the Qedushah into public liturgy appears to indicate that the mystic’s experience was thought worthy of reproduction in public worship, because of the link between earth and heaven (Hekhalot rabbati § 101). Heinemann stresses that both q. de-amidah and q. de-yotzer originated in Palestine, although they were only recited there on Sabbaths and festivals, and it was from the Babylonian liturgy that they found their way into the daily prayers. 22

Schäfer § 188, Synopse, 81–83, translation Bd. II, 127. Schäfer § 553 and § 555, Synopse, 209. 24 Spinks, Sources, 175. Elior, Earthly, 254–265, distinguishes shared prayer (human and angelic use of Qedushah together) and heavenly prayer (not tied to fixed times) in the Hekhalot literature. This is unnecessary if the earthly Qedushah is understood as entering into the timeless, constant praise of heaven. By Qedushah Elior means Isa 6.3 alone, whereas the present argument concerns responsorial use of Isa + Ezek. 25 Schäfer, Aim. 23

183

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

He explains the restriction on use of the Qedushah with its origin among the mystical circles of the yorede merkabah; the Talmudic sages did not wish these teachings to be popularised.26 However, evidence now to be discussed suggests that a liturgical form of the Qedushah was in use in Tannaitic times, and not only in esoteric circles. Analysing the origins of the synagogue liturgy is difficult because of the paucity of texts from the earliest period. There is only one reference in Tannaitic writings to the Qedushah, Tosefta Berakhot I.9. The passage discusses the style of benedictions beginning baruk and then mentions the case of R. Judah, who would respond together with the prayer-leader, instead of responsorially, in the case of the blessings “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts” and “Blessed be the glory of the Lord”: H. These are the benedictions which one begins with [the benedictory formula:] “Praised [be Thou, O Lord our God]”: 1. [V. lacks: All benedictions begin with “Praised …” –] except the benediction which immediately follows the shema’, 2. and a benediction which immediately follows upon another benediction [in a series], I. for [in those cases] one does not begin them with “Praised …” [since the recitation of the formula at the beginning of the series of benedictions suffices], J. and one does not respond together with the prayer-leader [in the synagogue … but rather in responsorial fashion]. K. R. Judah would respond together with the prayer-leader [in the Qedushah …], “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory” [Isa 6.3] and “Blessed be the glory of the Lord” [Ezek 3.12]. L. All these [responses] R. Judah would recite together with the prayer-leader. 27 [

] ‫׳‬

28

‫׳‬

‫׳‬

‫׳‬

‫׳ ׳ ׳‬

Note that here the Ezekiel passage is only referred to by the single word ; however the variant readings offered by Codex Erfurt and the editio princeps of the Tosefta have: [

‫׳‬

]

This passage represents an extremely important piece of evidence in that it offers the juxtaposition of Isa 6.3 and Ezek 3.12 in the nucleus-Qedushah, and also responsorial use. Heinemann comments, “Scholars are in disagreement as to whether this solitary Tannaitic passage … refers to the Qedushah in the amidah, or in the Yoser … But there is reason to believe that both forms of the Qedushah came into being during, or even before, the Mishnaic period, the only question 26 27 28

Heinemann, Prayer, 231 f. Zahavy, 3 f. Lieberman, 3–4.

184

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

being to what extent either had been accepted as an integral part of the statutory worship in all places during this period.”29 Falk makes a persuasive case that much of the pattern of prayer evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls takes its origin from liturgical practices from the Temple, e. g. set times for prayer. But he is hesitant about the possibility of identifying specific prayers. Instead he speaks in terms of a parallel development between the Qumran sect’s adapting of mainstream Jewish prayers, and the similar process of developing daily synagogue services.30 For example, the high priest in the Temple spoke Eight Benedictions after reading from the Torah on the Day of Atonement. Clearly there is a similarity between the Temple prayers for this one day in the year and the later daily and Sabbath synagogue worship pattern; but we cannot trace direct continuity. This series of benedictions is independent of and older than the series of seven for Sabbaths and festivals, itself older than the Eighteen (although the seven benedictions were probably already fixed while the eight benedictions were still in yearly use at the Temple); but there is no indication that the Eight Benedictions contained a Qedushah (M Sotah 7.7). Probably the oldest version of the Qedushah is found at 1 Enoch 39.12–14 (first century AD): Those who do not slumber but stand before your glory, did bless you. They shall bless, praise and extol (you), saying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of the Spirits; the spirits fill the earth.” And at that place (under his wings) my eyes saw others who stood before him sleepless (and) blessed (him), saying, “Blessed are you and blessed is the name of the Lord of the Spirits forever and ever.”

Note that this passage exhibits the same “Holy” + “Blessed” structure as 3 Enoch 39. The expression “Lord of Spirits” is characteristic of the Similitudes of Enoch. It seems likely that this passage, together with 3 Enoch 39 and the prayer in ma‘aseh merkabah, offers evidence for the existence of a type of Qedushah which has not survived in liturgical use, in parallel to Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12.31 A Qedushah combining Isa 6.3 and the Temple response “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for ever and ever” (3 Enoch 39) suggests the fusion of liturgical traditions. If the Qedushah originates in Merkabah circles as Heinemann suggests, the existence of such a Qedushah as this would show that they felt free to draw on the traditions of Temple worship. However, the earlier we feel able to date the liturgical use of a Qedushah, the less important seems the need to define these Merkabah circles. If, as seems increasingly likely, we can approach a firstcentury AD or earlier date for the Qedushah, what remains is that the Qedushah 29

Heinemann, Prayer, 24. Falk, Daily, 254 f. 31 Winkler, Beobachtungen, 238, notes that the Watchers sing the Qedushah in the Similitudes; she further conjectures that Aphrahat equates Watchers with cherubim. Given the wellattested confusion of cherubim and seraphim, I suspect that the Watchers in this context simply mean the highest-ranking inhabitants of heaven. 30

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

185

stems from a tradition within Judaism concerned with heavenly realities and the song of the angels. This later crystallises into the esotericism of the Hekhalot texts; but it is available to the whole breadth of styles of Judaism (including the Christian Book of Revelation). A fusion of Merkabah motifs and Temple liturgy such as 3 Enoch 39 offers evidence for a “second-stage” development of the Qedushah text, in which the structure and theme, but not the wording, are fixed. And since the first-century 1 Enoch has a variant Qedushah which is so similar, this suggests that the variant Qedushah in 3 Enoch 39 reflects a much older tradition. There are a number of pseudepigraphical passages that contain (part of) Isa 6.3 alone, e. g. 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena of Jeremiah) 9.2–6, Ladder of Jacob 2.18, various endings of Apocalypse of Moses (Greek Vita Adae), Apocalypse of Abraham 17–18, TAbraham rec. A.3, TIsaac 6, TAdam 1.4.32 They are not relevant here, since they neither offer evidence for a liturgical context, nor for a juxtaposition of Isa 6.3 with another text. At most they offer supporting evidence that the angelic singing of “holy, holy, holy” is widely considered to be characteristic of heaven. To sum up: the two passages of t Ber 1.9 and 1 Enoch 39 combine to offer reasonably securely dated early evidence for a liturgical use of some form of responsorial Qedushah. The dated evidence is the more trustworthy in that it stems from two independent textual traditions, one of which is handed down through the Christian church, the other in rabbinic scholarship. Such a connection between two very different types of text suggests an underlying practice which is at least moderately widespread and old. This use of some form of Qedushah was also evidently continued over the period of perhaps a century which separates 1 Enoch from the Tosefta passage.33 This means that other examples can function as additional illustrations, even if we cannot date them with confidence. For example, LevR 2.8 speaks of 496,000 ministering angels singing “Holy, holy, holy” from dawn to dusk, and “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place” from dusk to dawn.34 In addition, the widespread evidence of interest in angels and their song provides a good cumulative case for the contention that, even as early as the end of the Second Temple period, at least some groups of Jews were using some form of Qedushah in their liturgy.35 It is even possible 32 TAdam 1.4 i combines Isa 6.3 with a mention of the beating wings of the seraphim, referring to Ezek 1.24. Might this allude to another variant Qedushah? Winkler, Beobachtungen, 231 f., notes Armenian anaphoras which speak of the beating wings of the seraphim. 33 The Tosefta is traditionally attributed to R. Hiyya b. Abba, early third century. The passage cited refers to R. Judah (b. Ilai), mid-second century, i. e. it cannot be dated earlier than this, though it may be later. 34 This is told to illustrate why God does not need the Temple service; but it presupposes the existence of a liturgical formula. 35 Winkler, Sanctus, 107: “spätestens um die Zeitenwende entstanden”.

186

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

that the Qedushah was used in the Temple, although we have no evidence.36 The scene of Isaiah’s vision is after all the Temple, and angels are mentioned in numbers of psalms, which are Temple songs (e. g. Ps. 103, Ps. 148, which speak of the praises of the angels). Finally, the material surveyed in this section bears out Flusser’s suggestion that use of the Qedushah came about through the idea that heavenly and earthly worship are linked by singing the “holy, holy, holy”.37 Singing the angelic song in human liturgy both affirms and enacts the idea of linking heaven and earth. 3.1.2 “Heaven and earth are full of your glory” Are the words “heaven and earth are full of your glory”, found in all Christian liturgies, a specifically Christian version of Isa 6.3? Or are they a Jewish form of words that happens to have been preserved in the Christian tradition? Here are some examples: 2 Enoch 21.1 (J) … cherubim and seraphim standing all around his throne, six-winged and many-eyed; and they cover his entire throne, singing with gentle voice in front of the face of the LORD. Holy, Holy, Holy, LORD Lord Sabaoth, Heaven and earth are full of his glory.

Testament of Isaac 6.24 When he [the LORD] had concluded all this discourse, the heavenly beings began to cry out, saying, “Most holy, most holy, most holy is the Lord, Sabaoth! Heaven and earth are filled with your sanctified glory.”

AposCon 7.35.3 And holy seraphim, together with the six-winged cherubim, singing to you the triumphal song, with never-silent voices cry out, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, the heaven and the earth are full of your glory! And the other throngs of the hosts, archangels, thrones, dominions, sovereignties, authorities, powers, crying out, say, Blessed be the glory of the Lord from its place!

AposCon 8.12.27 Innumerable armies of angels worship you – archangels, thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities, powers, eternal armies; the cherubim and the six-winged seraphim, with two covering up their feet, and with two their heads, and with two flying; and saying together with thousands on thousands of archangels, and ten thousand times ten thousand angels, incessantly and loudly crying out – and all the people together, let them say – “Holy, holy, holy is Lord Sabaoth, the heaven and the earth are full of his glory! (He is) blessed forever!” Amen.

36 37

Schwemer, König, 58; also Hayward, Chant. Flusser, Sanktus, 137.

187

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

One might of course explain these as Christian interpolations. However, it is here contended that a Jewish Qedushah existed containing the words “heaven and earth”, expanding Isa 6.3. Flusser quotes a fragment from the Thanksgiving Scroll from Qumran containing the words “he[av]en and earth are full of thy [gl]ory”.38 The Garcia Martinez edition presents the following text for 1QHa viii 8 10–11:39 [ …]

[ ]

[…

]

[ ]

Although the “Holy, holy, holy” does not appear, the reading of the second half of Isa 6.3 seems secure. The verse can be interpreted in two ways: either the author of the hymn happened to arrive at an independent formulation of “heaven and earth are full of your glory”, or the hymn is partially quoting Isa 6.3, and thus evidence for a modified text of the passage at an extremely early date. Puech dates the script of 1QHa to the second half of the first century BC at the earliest, but the composition of the hymns to the second half of the second century BC.40 Given the immediate proximity of the word [… ] , which would represent a loose verbal echo of the missing part of Isa 6.3, I am inclined to accept the idea that Isa 6.3 underlies this verse. The Qumran song compositions are full of Biblical allusions, so that a citation seems more likely than an accidental similarity. Now 1QHa viii is a hymn; therefore the author possibly uses “heaven and earth” because he is quoting a liturgical version of Isa 6.3. In 2.1.4 we accepted Schwemer’s suggestion that the seventh Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice contains allusions to Isa 6.3 and Ezek 3.12, implying use of the nucleus-Qedushah in the later canonical form. It is also striking that AposCon 7.35 combines the “heaven and earth” expansion with Ezekiel 3.12, which is not a part of Christian liturgy. This offers further support for a Jewish tradition using “heaven and earth”, indicating that this part of AposCon 7.35 ff represents a Jewish prayer without Christian alteration.41 Further evidence comes from later Jewish liturgy: the Aramaic Targumic version of Isa 6.3 preserved in the q. de-sidre: “And they receive the words one from the other and say: Holy is He in the highest heavens, the abode of His dwelling; Holy is He over the earth, His mighty handiwork; Holy for ever and ever is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His radiant glory.” The Aramaic text is as follows:42

38

39 40 41 42

Sanktus, 131. He is quoting Licht’s edition, 16.3, p. 201 f., which presents the text ] [ ] [ The columns have been reordered since Licht’s edition. Puech, Croyance vol. 2, 396. Kohler, Origin, 80, stresses the Jewish character of the prayer. Sperber vol. 3, 12–13.

188

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

This Targum introduces the idea of “holy in heaven” and “holy on earth”, a possible source for the expanded Qedushah.43 Flusser also considers the possibility that the Targum to Ezek 3.12 may be influenced by this Tg Isa 6.3: for the words “from its place” are translated, “from the place of the dwelling of his shekhinah, ”. Here is the text in full:44

Such a link between the two verses suggests that a liturgical combination of Isa 6.3 and Ezek 3.12, containing the words “heaven and earth”, was already familiar when the Targum was composed.45 Tg Jonathan was recognized as an “official” Targum in Babylonia in the second or third century AD. The Qumran fragment, if our argument is accepted, pushes the date back to the second century BC. The consequence for our original question must be as follows: the “heaven and earth” expansion of Isa 6.3, despite appearances, is not specifically Christian. Thus whether the Christian sanctus originated in Syria or Egypt, it would indicate that the form of the Jewish Qedushah in common use there contained the expanded text of Isa 6.3; at least in those synagogues from which Christian writers drew their sources, such as the oral or written precursor of AposCon Book 7. 3.1.3 The Christian sanctus The earliest evidence for liturgical use of the sanctus is from non-eucharistic contexts: Rev 4.8, 1 Clem 34, and from Syria / Palestine, AposCon 7.35.46 Each of these offers a different version of the “Blessed” half of the text, none of which is the later standard benedictus. Revelation 4 has the response of the 24 elders, “You are worthy ( )”.47 1 Clem replaces “heaven and earth” with “creation” 43

Sigal, Early, 79, suggests Jer 23.24, “I fill the heaven and the earth” as the source of Tg Isa 6.3. 44 Sperber, 270. 45 Cf. Flusser, Sanctus, 145, downplaying the similarity between Tg Isa 6.3 and Tg Ezek 3.12, since “dwelling of his Shekhinah” is a common Targumic phrase. 46 Also Western traditions: Passio Perpetuae 12.2, Tertullian De or. 3.3, the Te Deum (fourth century). 47 Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 49 f., treats these as separate hymns. Jörns, Hymnische, 31, rejects any link between v. 8 and vv. 9 ff., on grammatical grounds: + Ind. Fut. can only indicate a single occasion. However, John’s idiosyncratic Greek (here corrected in some MSS. to subjunctive) renders such categorical statements doubtful. Even if Jörns’ insistence on a future is accepted, reading “when the creatures shall give glory … then the elders shall fall down”, rather than “whenever …”, the link between the creatures singing the “holy” and the

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

189

( ) and quotes Dan 7.10, “ten thousand times ten thousand” – before Isa 6.3. AposCon 7.35 has Ezek 3.12. Debate on the origin of the anaphoral sanctus (i. e. its use within the eucharistic prayer) has focused on Egypt (Dix, Kretschmar, Taft) and Syria (Auf der Maur, Spinks, Winkler).48 A key factor has been seen in the presence or absence of the benedictus: in the Egyptian tradition, the benedictus is absent, and the sanctus closely linked to the following text; this has been thought to represent the earliest tradition. However, if our considerations of the Jewish Qedushah are correct, they have the following implications for the Christian sanctus: The structural similarity between sanctus + benedictus and the nucleus-Qedushah understood as a call and response would suggest that sanctus + benedictus is the original form and not a later development. As Winkler says, man kann sagen, daß das “Heilig” (Is 6,3) mit dem “Gepriesen” (Ez 3,12 + Varianten) als festes Formelgut anzusehen ist und ein genetischer Zusammenhang zwischen der jüdischen Qedušša … und dem christlichen “Sanctus” mit dem “Benedictus” vorliegt … Ist dieses “Gepriesen” ganz allgemein als ein späterer Zusatz zu Is 6,3 zu deuten? Oder muß gar der bisherige Konsens über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Sanctus mit dem Benedictus aufgekündigt und neu überdacht werden? 49

For example, Spinks suggested that the use of Ps. 118.26 (= Mt 21.9) is christologically motivated, replacing an earlier use of Ezek 3.12.50 But Ps. 118.26 was used liturgically by at least some Jews: j Ber 8.9, quoted above. Winkler examines forms of the Qedushah found in Ethiopic texts and discovers a wide variety of textual combinations, e. g. in a version of TIsaac 6, a combination of Isa 6.3 with Rev 4.8 and Ezek 3.12.51 A combination of Isa 6.3 with Dan 7.10 is found in 1 Enoch 39–40 and the Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles.52 This is the form found in 1 Clem, and both 1 Clem and the Anaphora have Dan followed by Isa. The benedictus in the Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles is a combination of Mt. 21.9, Ps.72.19 and Ezek 3.12, particularly close to the nucleus-Qedushah.53 Winkler points out that the Hosannas of Mt 21.9 are missing; i. e. Mt 21.9 = Ps. 118.26.54 But is the textual similarity close enough to tie in Ezek 3.12? “Blessed”

elders replying “Worthy” is clearly stated in vv. 9–11. Jörns rightly recognises 4.9 and 10–11 as antiphonal (32, compare 41, 75). He strangely fails to see that 4.9a refers to the praise of 4.8. Hence he can claim (179) that the hymns in Revelation are authorial compositions and were not used in worship. 48 Summary in Johnson, Origins. 49 Winkler, Sanctus, 113, italics original. 50 Spinks, Sanctus, 120. 51 Winkler, Sanctus, 59. 52 Winkler, Sanctus, 84. NB 1 Enoch is canonical in the Ethiopian church. 53 Text Winkler, Sanctus, 93. The sanctus and benedictus are separated by the narrative of institution with epiclesis; but this is secondary. 54 Winkler, Sanctus, 94.

190

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

and “glory” occur in Ps 72, leaving as significant element only “from his place”, not attested in the Ethiopic. The text is as follows: Gepriesen sei der Name des Herrn und: Gepriesen sei der, der kommt im Namen des Herrn, und: der Name seiner Herrlichkeit soll gepriesen sein. So sei’s. So sei’s. So sei er gepriesen. (Winkler, 93)

Winkler seems to be on safer ground with her conclusion that the close similarities between 1 Enoch 39–40 and the sanctus-benedictus of the Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles (comprising citations of Isa 6.3, a variant form of Ezek 3.12 and Dan 7.10) prove that the benedictus of the Ethiopic anaphora cannot be a secondary interpolation. However, even if Ezek 3.12 is missing, a benedictus comprising Ps. 118.26 and Ps. 72.19 would represent a combination of entirely Jewish elements. The picture outlined in the previous section, of various competing forms, indicates that the Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles could represent a perfectly Jewish variant Qedushah. A Qedushah containing a Daniel-reference is also suggested by AposCon 8.12 (text above), originating from fourth-century Syria; this may be the work of the Christian redactor. Spinks offers a Genizah text with Dan 7.10 in the context of the Qedushah.55 The words “gathering together in harmony”, in connection with the citation of Isa 6.3, held to be liturgical on independent Jewish evidence, suggest that 1 Clem 34 also represents evidence for a liturgical context. Winkler’s evidence supports this. The wide geographical spread of the three Daniel versions (Rome, Syria, Aramaic-speaking area (for 1 Enoch)) suggests that a Daniel-Qedushah may have been a common alternative to Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12. Daniel-allusions are found in the environs of the sanctus in the early liturgies of Serapion (Egyptian) and Addai and Mari (Syrian).56 An important difference between sanctus and Qedushah is the context. The Christian eucharistic prayer seems to many liturgists to be a kind of meal blessing or birkat ha-mazon. The most obvious difference is that the birkat ha-mazon is a grace said after the meal, the eucharistic prayer a blessing said before partaking.57 According to Spinks, although the birkat ha-mazon may underlie some prayers, e. g. Addai and Mari, the existence of other prayer models might better explain the wide divergence of structure among the earliest Christian prayers.58 The Qedushah is not linked with meals, but with prayers of praise (yotzer), of petition (‘amidah) and with reading the Torah. Spinks raises this point and notes that the Hekhalot hymns are strewn with Qeduššot whether appropriate to the context or not. He concludes, “May not the influence of this [Merkabah] 55 Spinks, Sanctus, 42. The Daniel-reference precedes the Isaiah-reference; but Winkler, Beobachtungen, 217 f., gives evidence for Ezek followed by Isa. 56 Taft, Interpolation I, 292 f., compares Hippolytus (ApTrad) 4. 57 Lk 22.20 indicates that the blessing of the cup was a post-meal blessing. 58 Spinks, Sanctus, 111.

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

191

movement have suggested the inclusion of the sanctus even in a berakah uttered over a meal?”59 However, the general impression of ecstatic stammering given by the Hekhalot texts is not really a close parallel to the Christian eucharistic prayers. The earliest texts (Justin, Didache, Apostolic Tradition) are quite terse; the longer texts from the Apostolic Constitutions are nearer to synagogue prayers than Hekhalot literature. Didache 8 enjoins use of the Lord’s Prayer instead of the prayer of the “hypocrites”; Heinemann observes that the Lord’s Prayer conforms to the Jewish markers for private prayer.60 However, the Didache attests that awareness of the Lord’s Prayer as stylistically a private prayer was quickly overcome by a sense that this was the distinctive Christian prayer. It appears that the new context of public worship overrides the sense of a prayer’s original liturgical style. It is possible that the inclusion of an apparently foreign element, the sanctus, in the context of the meal blessing has a similar origin.61 However, a better explanation for the alteration in context follows from Fiensy’s observation that creation themes are prominent in early Christian eucharistic prayers.62 The eucharistic prayer in AposCon 8.12 ff. may be based on the yotzer ’or. It is possible that the inclusion of creation themes in eucharistic prayers suggested the familiar words of the yotzer ’or, and thus led to the inclusion of a Qedushah-equivalent in the alien context of a meal blessing. Moreover, angelic participation in the eucharistic assembly is a common patristic theme (3.2.2 below). The idea of the angelic presence may have contributed to including the angelic song at the climax of the eucharistic action. Ephrem H Fid 10.8–10 is the earliest witness to the tradition associating the burning coal of Isa 6 with the consecrated host.63 We have no way of estimating the age of this tradition; but it could also explain how the angelic hymn was first associated with the eucharistic prayer. 3.1.4 benedictus or stand-alone sanctus? We have discussed Winkler’s evidence from Ethiopic texts for a two-part Christian equivalent to the Qedushah. There is also good evidence from Syria-Pales-

59

Spinks, Sources, 175. Heinemann, Prayer, 192. Private prayer: e. g. simple, brief style; no form of “liturgical Berakah”. Compare public recitation of the “private” Lord’s Prayer with the incorporation into public worship of the blessings recited at the beginning of the morning service, originally private prayers said on rising. The Talmud bears witness to the way in which prayers formulated by famous rabbis were adopted into general use. 61 Spinks, Sanctus, 110 f. 62 Fiensy, Prayers, 153. He cites Liturgy of St. James, Addai and Mari, Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 23.6). Also Justin Martyr (Dial. 41), 1 Clement 20, Theophilus Ad Autolycum 1.6 ff. 63 Brock, Holy, 23. 60

192

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

tine that the sanctus + benedictus structure is early. Both prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions reflect a “holy” + “blessed” structure. AposCon 7.35.3 has: And holy seraphim, together with the six-winged cherubim, singing to you the triumphal song, with never-silent voices cry out, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, the heaven and the earth are full of your glory! And the other throngs of the hosts, archangels, thrones, dominions, sovereignties, authorities, powers, crying out, say, Blessed be the glory of the Lord from its place!

64

This has Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12 and a clearly responsorial context. AposCon 8.12.27 differs:65

“Holy, holy, holy is Lord Sabaoth, the heaven and the earth are full of his glory! (He is) blessed forever! Amen.”

The speakers are angels and “all the people together”, but the two parts are not divided responsorially. The key word “blessed” is present, but otherwise the second part differs from Jewish forms of the Qedushah. It is a quotation of Rom 1.25, Paul may be citing an existing liturgical element here.66 “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” is quoted in Book 8, with the rest of Mt. 21.9, as an acclamation by the people before reception of communion. But we are here concerned with Christian equivalents of the Qedushah, texts juxtaposed with Isa 6.3, which is not the case there. However, it is useful evidence for separate liturgical use of this verse (= Ps. 118.26) by Christians as well as Jews. Two other texts offer the words of the benedictus in the same position: the Testamentum Domini expands the eucharistic prayer of the Apostolic Tradition, but without introducing the sanctus, although it is already in common use by the time TD was written (early 5th century); “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” is quoted before the communion, as a versicle spoken by the priest to which the congregation responds “Amen, amen”.67 The Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom has the text both after the sanctus and as a congregational response before communion. Spinks wonders whether this may have been its 64 65 66 67

text Metzger vol. 3, 76. Lodi, 391. Baumstark, Trishagion, 23. Rahmani, 44 f. …

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

193

original place.68 Taft suggests that the benedictus was attracted to the anaphora by a christological understanding of the sanctus.69 Another Christian text from the region that indicates use of Ezekiel 3.12 is Asterios Sophistes, whose Easter Homily 15 (c. AD 335–41) reads as follows: Therefore, since the seraphim and the six-winged ones, all the rational spirits who celebrate the liturgy together with them, behold the body of Christ radiating over them, they praise and glorify Christ for the sake of the astounding miracle, not because of the human nature in itself but for the sake of him who bears it – and they sing – holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth. Others cry out, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from [his] place – that is, from this adored body.”70

…71

Note the responsorial pattern indicated by – .72 This text shows Ezek 3.12 interpreted in a Christological fashion, referring it to the “adored body” of Christ. Thus we see various patterns of Christian Qedushah coexisting in the fourth century: AposCon 7.35 representing the eventually normative Jewish pattern of Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12, being used by Christians; Asterios representing the same text, adding an explicitly Christian interpretation;73 AposCon 8.12 representing a Qedushah quoting (probably) a Christian scripture. The Liturgy of S. James is mid-fifth century at the latest, and presents the benedictus which becomes standard, another Jewish liturgical text given a specifically Christian interpretation. However, the Egyptian liturgical tradition, and some early witnesses from Syria, have the sanctus alone.74 According to Kretschmar, the source is Origen’s mentions of the seraphim in Princ.; Taft follows him and concludes that the Egyptian sanctus tradition is independent of developments elsewhere.75 But it is noteworthy that where the stand-alone sanctus appears it is often as a congregational response to the priest’s prayer of thanksgiving. Where the sanctus is combined with the benedictus it always involves a congregational response. Responsorial use of the sanctus would indicate a possibility that the Jewish responsorial Qedushah is nevertheless its model. From the Egyptian tradition, the anaphoras of S. Mark and Egyptian Basil have a responsorial sanctus; from 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Spinks, Sanctus, 120. Taft, Interpolation II, 112. tr. Spinks, Sanctus, 68 [altered]. Auf der Maur, Asterios, 84. The structure is threefold, with a third group quoting Ps. 24. Taft objects that its position in the anaphora is not proved: Interpolation II, 99. Taft, Interpolation I, 285. Taft, Interpolation II, 95.

194

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

Syria, Addai and Mari and the Syriac Anaphora of the Apostles have a standalone sanctus as a congregational response. The description by Cyril of Jerusalem is a summary (Myst. Cat. 5.6), and there is no way of telling whether the sanctus may have been spoken by the people.76 Spinks remarks, “His mention of ‘hymns’ in the plural might imply that some other chant was associated with Isa 6.3 – perhaps Ezek 3.12, or even the benedictus – but the fact remains that he does not actually quote any other chant” (117).77 The Liturgy of S. James follows Cyril closely and contains the benedictus, which could support this conjecture. The Syriac Anaphora of the 12 Apostles reads only “holy, holy, holy …”, as does the earliest manuscript of Addai and Mari. Despite this, Spinks conjectures from the presence of the entire sanctus in the liturgy of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the same manuscript as Addai and Mari, that a third-century sanctus existed with the following form: “holy, holy, holy [is the] Powerful Lord of whose glories heaven and earth are full” (117 f.).78 I doubt, however, that Theodore should be used in this way to determine the form of sanctus (+ benedictus?) alluded to in Addai and Mari. Winkler cites anonymous 5th / 6th century Syriac hymns which have the Isa 6.3 + Ezek 3.12 pattern; but this is not an anaphoral context.79 I will not offer an opinion here on the issue of the geographical origin of the sanctus; Taft states that a definitive answer is not possible.80 Nor will I discuss Winkler’s theory as to the association of the sanctus with Christian rites of initiation. She rightly points out that Qedushah and sanctus make clear the numinous character of all liturgy.81 The aim of this section has simply been to show that, in view of the Jewish evidence, the sanctus + benedictus pattern may well be original, and the stand-alone sanctus may have developed from it, in view of its use as a congregational response, rather than the other way around, as had been assumed. “[Es] erhebt sich grundsätzlich die Frage, ob das Sanctus ohne dem [sic] Benedictus überhaupt noch als Kriterium für das hohe Alter des Sanctus in der Anaphora erachtet werden kann.”82 The evidence shown here regarding the stand-alone sanctus as a congregational response supports Winkler’s conclusions. It is this responsorial form that ties the sanctus + benedictus to the worship of heaven: underlying the responsorial form is the notion of human participation in angelic worship. 76 Taft, Interpolation II, 85–7, finds a reference to the (anaphoral) sanctus in Eusebius, H. E. 10.4.69–70, dated 317. If correct, this would be the earliest reference we possess; but it is not a complete eucharistic prayer. 77 Kretschmar, Studien, 167, suggests that thanksgiving, institution, anamnesis and fraction could not have simply been absent from the liturgy described in Myst. Cat. 5. He explains that these have now become silent prayers of the priest. Kretschmar does not mention the benedictus. 78 Theodore ad loc. adds hosannas and benedictus on festivals. Macomber, 363 n. 9. 79 Winkler, Sanctus, 101 f. 80 Interpolation II, 114. 81 Winkler, Sanctus, 170. 82 Winkler, Sanctus, 123.

195

3.1 Qedushah and sanctus

3.1.5 The Trishagion This is an expanded sanctus in the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom: . It reflects interest in extending the angelic element of the liturgy, using Isa 6.3 in a new context. The expansion has clear Jewish roots. Flusser offers parallels from the Talmud and the Byzantine piyyut-poet Yannai: 83 b Hull 91b “Drei Abteilungen von Dienstengeln stimmen täglich ein Loblied an; eine spricht: heilig, eine spricht: heilig, und eine spricht: heilig ist der Herr der Heerscharen”.84 ‫׳‬ Piyyute Jannai “heilig über die, die in Einfalt wandeln, heilig über die, die gerecht handeln, heilig über die, die die Wahrheit sprechen”. 85

/

/

This last is a dubious parallel, since it refers to human beings and not to God; it seems closer to serial blessings like the Beatitudes.86 A better parallel, which like the Trishagion has three phrases of increasing length, is 3 Enoch 40.2: Those that say “Holy” receive three crowns: one for saying “Holy”, one for saying “Holy, Holy”, and one for saying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, YHWH of hosts.” 87

[ ]‫׳‬ ‫״ ״ ״ ׳‬

‫[… ׳‬

] ‫׳‬

‫׳‬

It seems likely that there is a relation between the Talmud passage and this passage in 3 Enoch; but 3 Enoch 40.2 is significantly different and more similar to the Trishagion.88 Sigal suggests that AposCon 8.12.28 is similar to the Trishagion:89 “And afterwards let the high priest say: For thou art truly holy, and most holy, the highest and most highly exalted for ever. Holy also is Thy only begotten Son …” Actually the third “holy” begins the christological passage and does not belong with 83

Flusser, Sanktus, 145. Seder Rab Amram Gaon shows a similar division of the Qedushah: ‫׳‬ [ ] ‫׳‬ Coronel, 4. 85 Zulay, 78 = . Before and after Isa 6.3 is quoted in full. 86 Flusser’s attempt to prove a parallelism between the Trishagion and a sabbath prayer based on the Shema fails to show any real correlation. Flusser, Wurzeln, 248–250. 87 Odeberg. 88 Similar to b Hull 91b is Hekhalot Rabbati § 188. Here the creatures under the throne respond, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His [dwelling] place.” 89 Sigal, Early, 83. 84

196

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

the others. Fiensy considers the relationship between AposCon 7.34 and 8.12.90 He argues that 7.34 is based on the seven Jewish Sabbath and festival benedictions, because the themes of six of these benedictions appear in the same order in AposCon 7.33–38 (the priestly blessing being omitted). This argument is entirely convincing. However, if we consider chapters 33–38 solely with regard to the Seven Benedictions, the author’s editorial action is obscured. In particular, the fact that 7.35 follows on directly from 7.34 is obscured by Fiensy’s comparison only of 7.34 with 8.12.9–20. There is no semantic indicator within the text to divide the chapters from one another. The following structure is thus revealed: firstly a long section praising God for creation, culminating in the creation of humankind (Gen 1.26 is cited in both 7.34.6 and 8.12.16); secondly a passage extolling God’s power and mercy, associated with the citation of Isa 6.3 (7.35.3 and 8.12.27). Admittedly the similarity in the second half is much less than in the first: in 7.35 the sanctus comes near the beginning, in 8.12 at the end; in Book 7 the emphasis is on God’s power over living creatures etc., in Book 8 on his power to save Israel. But the presence of the sanctus in both does suggest that the long prayer in Book 8 is based on the two chapters together. The beginning of the Christological passage, picking up on the “holy” of the sanctus, is the text quoted above.91 It culminates in the institution narrative, it is functionally a post-sanctus and a Christian text. We must conclude that this text, despite its proximity to the quotation of Isa 6.3 in 8.12.27, cannot be understood as a Jewish original or parallel for the Trishagion, although it may be one of its Christian ancestors. Kretschmar links the Trishagion with a christological interpretation of the sanctus, itself based on an early interpretation of Isa 6 that what Isaiah saw was Christ.92 He notes that it is in competition with the sanctus, especially if the latter is interpreted in a trinitarian way; since he believes that this interpretation is an import from Alexandria, he suggests that the Trishagion is the older element in the Syrian liturgy. If our earlier conclusions on the sanctus + benedictus are correct, this cannot be the case. However, there does seem to be a parallel between the development of the Trishagion and the multiplication of citations of Isa 6.3 in Jewish Hekhalot literature. The Jewish parallels that we have cited support a shared interest in further “angelizing” the liturgy.

90

Fiensy, Prayers, 137 ff. and 189–97 (synopsis). This pick-up of “holy” is typical of Syro-Byzantine prayers; the Egyptian rite picks up on the word “full”. Spinks, Sanctus, 88. 92 Kretschmar, Studien, 175 f. Compare John 12.39. 91

3.2 Sacred time, sacred space, sacred beings

197

3.2 Sacred time, sacred space, sacred beings 3.2.1 The sanctification of time Fundamental to the idea of the sanctification of time are the Jewish concepts of the sabbath and the liturgical year of recurring festivals. We noted evidence that the Qedushah was restricted to sabbaths and festivals; this points to an understanding of heavenly time as an endless sabbath, which Christian thought adopted. Singing the songs of the angels, joining heaven and earth, involves entering that sacred sabbath space. The geographical link between heaven and earth is the Temple, which stands both in the heavenly and the earthly sphere.93 A later development is the concept of mirrored temple and worship in heaven and earth. Pss. 11.4, 102.20 speak of a sanctuary / temple in heaven. TLevi 5, Rev 8.3–5, and the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice attest that the idea was widespread in the first century.94 We have already mentioned DeutR 2.36, reporting that the acclamation ‫״‬ was borrowed from heaven. “Die irdische Liturgie findet durch ihre Zugehörigkeit zur Engelliturgie ihre Legitimation”.95 Sabbath and liturgical year imply the possibility of entering that heavenly time, a dimension separate from historical time.96 Thus the Passover Haggadah can say “We were slaves in the land of Egypt”; the Easter vigil can say “This is the night”. The concepts of sacred space and time are prominent in Ephrem, e. g. De azymis 17.12: “Durch das geistige Brot wird jeder Mensch ein Adler, der gelangen (kann) zum Paradies”. The Christian is already in heaven, anticipating that which in historical time is yet to come.97 Similarly John Chrysostom, Hom. Heb. 16.3 [PG 63, 125 f.], says this: Let us no longer continue on the earth; for even now it is possible for him that wishes it, not to be on the earth. For to be and not to be on the earth is the effect of moral disposition and choice. For instance: God is said to be in heaven. Wherefore? not because He is confined by space, far from it, nor as having left the earth destitute of His presence, but by His relation to and intimacy with the angels. If then we also are near to God, we are in heaven.

;

93

Ego, Himmel, 73–110. Horbury, Jerusalem, discusses the heavenly Jerusalem. Neher, Voyage: merkabah / hekhalot mysticism represents a relocation in heaven of the temple cult. 95 Ego, Himmel, 60. 96 Corbin, Nécessité, 153: “le temps liturgique est tempus recurrens”. 97 Brock, Poet, 56 f. 94

198

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

The defining characteristic of heaven is not only that it is the place where God dwells, since earth is not deprived of his presence, but where angels and perfected Christians also dwell. It is the spatially and temporally present-butseparate sphere in which God enjoys communion with the angels and the saints, including those still living on earth. Jewish acclamation of the sabbath finds a Christian equivalent in Syrian and Ethiopian rites, i. e. areas with strong Jewish influence. The Ethiopian sabbath is a “holy time” of 49 hours from Friday evening to Sunday evening; it is the “Sunday sabbath” which is liturgically acclaimed.98 In Syria, AposCon 7.23 and 8.33 refer to observance of sabbath as well as Sunday: according to the former, the sabbath is the memorial of creation, Sunday of the resurrection. Didascalia 21 prescribes a sabbath fast because it is the day Christ rested in the sepulchre; AposCon 8.47, however, forbids fasting on the sabbath (except Holy Saturday). Other authors from Syria / Palestine discourage observance of the sabbath, e. g. Justin, Dial. 19, 23. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 4.27, forbids sabbath observance; this reflects the attraction of Jewish liturgy also seen in John Chrysostom.99 Epiphanius, De fide 24.7 notes that in some places religious services ( ) are held on the sabbath, but without further comment. Dan 6.11 has already been cited as evidence for daily (private) prayer at fixed times in the second century BC (compare Ps. 55.18 (three times), Ps. 119.164 (seven times). 2 Enoch 51.4 attests prayer at morning, midday and evening.100 According to hekhalot rabbati 3.3,101 the angel of the presence goes three times a day to the firmament Arabot, above the heads of the cherubim, ophannim and living creatures, who open their mouths to say “holy”, at the time when Israel says “holy” before them. In other words, the Qedushah is sung three times daily, in heaven and on earth, whereby this text stresses the superiority of Israel (compare hekhalot rabbati 8.4).102 Such an express statement that human prayers occur at the same time as angelic prayers is comparatively rare. Ego comments, die temporale Parallelität fungiert so als Medium der Partizipation der Gemeinde am Gesang der Engel: Die Grenzen zwischen Himmel und Erde lösen sich auf, die beiden Bereiche durchdringen einander, die Immanenz öffnet sich hin zur Transzendenz.103

98

Winkler, Sanctus, 26–30. E. g. Adv. Iud. 1 and 2. 100 Bradshaw, Daily, 9, cautiously accepts a first-century Jewish or Christian dating. Anderson, OTP 1, 97, refuses to attempt a dating, but “is inclined to place [it] … early”. 101 Schäfer §§ 100 f., Synopse 48 f., tr. vol. 2, 19–21. 102 Other passages on the priority of Israel in praising God: Ego, Himmel, 128–140; Schäfer, Rivalität, 167–180; Schäfer, Engel, 217. Note especially b Hull 91b: Israel sings the song of praise every hour, the ministering angels once a day (or week, month, year etc.). 103 Ego, Himmel, 69. 99

3.2 Sacred time, sacred space, sacred beings

199

However, the idea of the superiority of Israel is a secondary development of the original idea that Israel and angels sing together, and at the same time.104 Ps. 138.1 attests the idea of human worship in the presence of the angels (“gods”): . ; LXX has When the practice of three times daily public prayer in the synagogue began is difficult to determine: b Meg 18b claims that R. Simeon ha-Paqoli regulated an existing custom at Jabneh; Bradshaw suggests that the custom may have only just emerged, as a substitute for the Temple sacrifice.105 However, the twice daily pattern of the Temple sacrifices suggests that the threefold prayer pattern is independent. M Ber 4.1 prescribes three times daily recitation of the Amidah, but this may refer to private prayer. Some evidence suggests a pattern of twicedaily prayer: among the Therapeutae (Philo, De vita contemplativa 27), and at Qumran (1QS x 1–3, 9–17; 1QH xii 4–7, 4Q503 (Daily Prayer)).106 Bradshaw interprets 1QS x 1–3, 1QH xii 4–7 and 1QS 6.7–8 as indicating a fourfold pattern at Qumran.107 Falk inclines towards twice daily, suggesting that twice-daily prayer at sunrise and sunset was “a practice of priests and some pious individuals and groups”, one of which was the Qumran community.108 He notes that every element of the Qumran community’s daily liturgy can be related to practices associated with the Temple, and concludes that institutionalised daily prayer seems to originate in “the attraction of prayer to the Temple cult”.109 4Q503 also has references to communion with angels: Falk suggests that “the interchange of the luminaries is a special time when angels must present themselves before God to praise him.”110 Associating the angelic praise with the luminaries undoubtedly stems from the idea that these are angelic beings. 4Q503 mentions “the companies of the night”, , probably the stars (frr. 29–32.11, 19), mentioned “with us in the acclamation of your glory”.111 Thus the association of angelic prayer, human prayer and specific times apparently antedates the destruction of the Temple.112 Angelic praise at sunrise is attested by Job 38.7 (compare LXX and Tg), see also 11Q5 (11QPsa) xxvi 12. 2 Enoch 15 describes the praise of heavenly creatures at the rising of the sun; similarly 3 Baruch (Greek Apocalypse of Baruch) 6. The same idea lies behind the yotzer ’or benediction from the synagogue 104 Ego, Himmel, 170–172. For favourable comparisons of human with angelic worship see Hannah, Michael, 96. 105 Bradshaw, Search, 12. 106 Falk, Prayer. 107 Bradshaw, Daily, 6 f. 108 Falk, Daily, 48 f. 109 Falk, Daily, 254. 110 Daily, 49; see 2.1.1 above. 111 Compare fr. 39.3, “the companies of the evening and the morning”; frr. 51–55.8 “the companies of light”. 112 Chazon, Prayers, 283 f.

200

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

morning service. The fact that this praise for light and creation incorporates the Qedushah, thereby associating the angelic praises with human praise, indirectly suggests that the joint human-angelic Qedushah happens at the same morning hour, supporting the picture presented by hekhalot rabbati 3.3.113 Vita Adae 33.2 (= ApocMos 7.2, cf. 17.1) mentions angels praising God at set hours. Tg Ps.-Jon Gen. 32.27 reads as follows: The hour has come when the angels on high praise the Lord of the world, and I am one of the angels who praise.

The context is Jacob’s wrestling with the angel; the angel asks to be released because day is breaking. Thus we have here another attestation of angelic praise at sunrise. TAdam 1 represents a special case (generally accepted as Jewish). Here the seraphim praise at the fourth hour of the night, singing the “Holy, holy, holy”, the cherubim at the ninth hour and human beings at the tenth hour of the night. TAdam 1.10: 10

The tenth hour is the praise of human beings, and the gate of heaven is opened through which the prayers of all living things enter, and they worship and depart. And at that hour whatever a man will ask of God is given to him when the seraphim and the roosters beat their wings.

Human prayers are not mentioned in connection with the Qedushah; however, the fact that the seraphim (not cherubim) beat their wings at the time human prayers are offered shows awareness of the idea that human and angelic prayers are offered at the same time, since the beating of wings is an established form of angelic praise. Christian texts offer more evidence for the linking of angelic and human praises, e. g. Origen, De or. 31.5: . Most of this refers to the midnight hour of prayer. This is because the angelic presence is linked to eschatological expectation: rather than the parallel existence of heaven and earth, as in the Jewish texts, the emphasis is much more strongly on the coming of the kingdom. Bradshaw suggests that the primary purpose of the observance of fixed times of daily prayer was the liturgical expression of constant readiness for the parousia; however, eschatological interest does not rule out parallel worship in the meantime.114 The angelic qualities of sleeplessness and perpetual praise are explicitly associated with the servants awaiting the return of their master by Clement of Alexandria, Paid. 2.9, in connection with night prayer (see also Strom. 7.7 and 7.12). This angelic argument for perpetual prayer can coexist with 113 114

Also Kretschmar, Studien, 178 f. Bradshaw, Daily, 39.

3.2 Sacred time, sacred space, sacred beings

201

the association of the day hours with the Passion, e. g. Apostolic Tradition 41. The same chapter claims that at midnight all creation praises God, including the angels and the souls of the righteous, and quotes Matt 25.6, the virgins watching for the bridegroom. Testamentum Domini (Ethiopic) 13 (= Syriac 1.22) says that the bishop should pray at the named night hours, because that is when angels visit the church.115 John Chrysostom, Hom 1 Tim 14.4, describing the night vigil, says angels sing at the same time. However, the Te Deum, as a morning hymn, offers indirect evidence for linking angelic praises with the morning. Thus the eschatological emphasis should not be overstressed, especially since the transition from Jewish to Christian daily prayer may not have been perceived as involving significant change. Both Christian and Jewish morning prayers use Ps. 51.17, “O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise”, supporting our argument for continuity.116 The sanctifying of time by associating the times of human prayer with those of the angels presupposes that angels are role models, and a parallelism between heavenly and earthly sanctuary. This is true even for the eschatologically oriented mentions of angelic praise in Christian authors: the earthly place of prayer is validated by its anticipation of the only real place of prayer, which is heaven. The interpretative tradition of Heb 8–10 (the heavenly sanctuary), following Exod 25.9 which had a long interpretative tradition in Judaism also, is clearly visible with regard to eucharistic celebrations in particular, which will be considered next.117 As Ego rightly says, it is the fact that earthly and heavenly worship happen at the same time that opens the door to sacred time and enables the earthly worshippers to enter the transcendent sphere, by dissolving the boundary between heaven and earth. A Christian version of this is found in Asc. Isa. 6.6–10: a door is heard to open in heaven, the assembled prophets praise God, and Isaiah is taken into heaven by an angel. Norelli notes the continuity between the praises of the prophets on earth and those of the angels in heaven.118 It is significant that the same thing is seen to be happening here with regard to space and time as we observed happening with regard to the persons of the (priestly) participants in the liturgy of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, where the boundaries between priests and angels became blurred. The priest is in the personal sphere what the Temple is in the geographical sphere: the place of meeting, the boundary between heaven and earth. In this respect priests resemble angels ontologically. They also resemble angels functionally, as we now consider.

115 Syriac 1.21 has ‘who hast ordered princes and priests in thine upper sanctuary’, an interesting survival of Jewish terminology in this fifth-century work. 116 Glazov, Invocation. 117 Judaism: Ego, Himmel, 27–61; Schäfer, Rivalität, 159–164. 118 Ascensio, 338.

202

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

3.2.2 Priests and angels as sacred persons Angels and priests have roles that are similar in many ways: mediation of prayer,119 liturgical worship, officiating at the altar; these are founded in their shared function as “messenger” between humans and God.120 This explains the fusion of priestly and angelic imagery in the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. It may also account for the contradictory explanations in Jewish thought regarding the replacement for the Temple sacrifices. A well-established tradition explained that Torah study or good deeds replace the sacrifices (Torah study: b Men 110a; good deeds: ARN A.4, Schechter p. 21). However, another tradition, e. g. b Men 110a, explained that Michael sacrificed on the heavenly altar instead.121 The fullest description of Michael’s priestly action at the heavenly altar is given in Bet ha-Midrasch, in a text entitled “Die göttliche Sophia” by Jellinek: Und in der Zeit, in der das Heiligtum bestand, da brachte der Hohepriester unten Ganzopfer und Rauchopfer dar, und Michael brachte ihm gegenüber oben Ganzopfer und Rauchopfer dar. Und als er den Tempel zerstört hatte, sprach der Heilige, gepriesen sei Er, zu Michael: Michael, weil ich das Haus zerstört, meinen Tempel verbrannt, mein Heiligtum verwüstet und mein Altar eingerissen habe, deshalb bringe vor mir keine Opfer mehr dar, weder in Gestalt von Stieren, noch in der Gestalt von Schafen. Er sprach vor ihm, Herr der Welt, und deine Kinder? Was soll mit ihnen werden? Er sagte zu ihm, Bringe mir als Opfer ihre Verdienste, ihre Gebete, und die Seelen der Gerechten, die unter dem Thron der Herrlichkeit aufbewahrt werden, und die Kinder vom Lehrhaus, und ich werde die Sünden Israels sühnen.122 ‫״‬

‫״‬ ‫״‬

‫״‬ ‫״‬ 123

Although the text in its present form is medieval or later, it clearly contains older elements, e. g. the souls under the throne (cf. Rev. 6.9). The earthly worship has

119 Job 5.1, Tobit 12.15, 1 Enoch 9.3, 99.3, 104.1, 3 Baruch 11–12, HistRech 16.8c, b Hag 12b; Rev 8.3, Origen C. Cels. 5.4. Angelic mediation in reverse in DeutR 11.10: God commands the angels to bolt the gates of every heaven so that Moses’ prayer cannot enter, since the appointed hour for his death has come. 120 Moses’ double priesthood, Memar Marqa IV.6, presupposes that the Temple (tent of meeting) partakes of both the heavenly and earthly sphere. 121 Further refs. Ego, Himmel, 17–26. Also b Hag 12b; PesR p. 185a (Friedmann): Michael is entitled , advocate; cf. NumR 12.12, Metatron offers souls to make propitiation for Israel. 122 tr. Ego, Himmel, 158–60. 123 Jellinek vol. 5, 63.

203

3.2 Sacred time, sacred space, sacred beings

priority over the heavenly.124 This midrash combines the two traditions outlined above: Michael offers the merits of Israel. Another correspondence between heavenly and earthly priesthood is j Yom 7.2 (44b): in a discussion of priestly robes the maxim is quoted, “As the service above, so the service below”. Ezek 9.2 is cited for evidence that the angelic priests wear linen, therefore the earthly priests wear linen.125 The angelic Ps. 82 is appointed for the daily sacrifice (Tuesday) in M Tam 7.4, another possible link between the priesthoods. Angels are also associated with the altar in Christian texts, in the sense of being present at the celebration of the eucharist. Such ideas presuppose a theology, or at least imagery, of eucharist as sacrifice.126 Angels are mentioned as present at the eucharist in the Liturgy of S. Mark (the prayer of oblation immediately before the anaphora);127 in the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom (the prayer of the little entrance, asking for angels to enter with the clergy and to concelebrate; the cherubic hymn);128 Syriac Liturgy of S. James (at the kiss of peace; in the anaphora, “heavenly powers stand with us in the sanctuary”).129 John Chrysostom is particularly fond of such imagery, e. g. On Priesthood 6.4 (angels stand around the priest and the [earthly] sanctuary is filled with the powers of heaven);130 Hom. Eph. 3.5 (angels serve at the table); Hom. Eph. 14.4 (remember with whom you stand at the moment of the mysteries, with the cherubim and seraphim); Hom. Matt. 19.4 (when entering a church be mindful that you are singing with the seraphim) Hom. in Seraphim 3, PG 56, 138 (flying and singing with seraphim around the heavenly altar); also Epiphanius, Pan. 25.3.1; Liber graduum 12.1, 28.9. Priests can be described as “the figure of the archangels” (Testamentum Domini Syriac 1.31), or “while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels” (John Chrysostom, On Priesthood 3.4). John Chrysostom, Hom. Heb. 14.2 [PG 63, 111] is of interest in that it specifically associates the songs of humans and angels: ;

; ; ;

The sanctus is not specified, but evidently intended; John stresses that the choirs above and below sing it together. “As the service above, so the service below” indeed. Despite this explicit language of and , he also speaks of a heavenly altar. The imagery fuses the two concepts of parallel action in heaven 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Note the heavenly animal sacrifices. Avemarie, 191. Historical overview in Williams, Sacrifice. Hammond, 179. Hammond, 93, 100 f. Hammond, 68, 80. Cf. ibid. 3.4: the human partakers are transported to heaven.

204

Chapter 3: Angels and human prayers

and earth, and of one sanctuary partaking both of earthly and heavenly realities. In the eschatological perspective, all Christians are to become sacred persons, passing within the veil of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 10.19 f.), i. e. becoming both priests and angels.131 Thus John Chrysostom Hom. 2 Cor 30.1 [PG 61, 606]:132 [

]

Ultimately this transformation to both priests and angels is rooted in the Christian’s transformation into Christ, the heavenly High Priest and mediator who in this regard has dispossessed the angels of their functions, leaving only the function of praise.

3.3 Conclusion The modern Qedushah and sanctus are survivors of a number of variant texts; their pervasiveness indicates the importance of showing that human liturgy is shared with the angels. Crucial to both Jewish and Christian versions is their responsorial nature: like the seraphim of Isa 6, “one cries to another and says …”. The responsorial element is part of their heavenly association. The orthopraxy involved is thus not limited to using the right words. Section 3.2 showed that singing at the same time constitutes the liturgical sphere in which heavenly and earthly worship become one. Resemblance to angels is found primarily in priests, both in Jewish and Christian thinking, because the resemblance is focused in the liturgical action. For the latter, this originates in the priesthood of Christ. Mentions of human and angelic praises seem to oscillate between the picture of heaven and earth in parallel and that whereby the heavenly and earthly action seem to coalesce. This represents what might be called a two-world view versus a one-world view: in many texts angels are simply mentioned as a part of God’s creation.133 Other texts stress the separation of the heavenly and earthly spheres.134 However, the two views are a matter of emphasis, rather than mutually exclusive; liturgy is where they coincide. The functions of priests and angels 131

Olson, Defiled, 505–7, suggests that the redeemed of Rev 14.4 take the place of the fallen angels. 132 Compare Hom. Acts 32 [PG 60, 238]. 133 E. g. Job 38.7; Ps. 104.4; Ps. 148; Song of the Three (Pr Azar 29–68); AposCon 7.35.2–3; 1QHa ix 11, 11Q5 (11Q Psa) xxvi 12; Clem. Recog. 9.15 (but Recog. 9.3 speaks of a “double house”); Ephrem Comm. Diatess. 13.4; Aphrahat Hom. 14.34–35. 134 Jub 2.2–3, Hermas 1.3.4, Prayer of Joseph fr. A2, Q. of Bartholomew 4.28 f.; cf. GenR. 1.3. Also mentions of the council of God, e. g. 1Kgs 22.19–23. See Nitzan, Prayer, 273–5.

3.3 Conclusion

205

are similar as regards liturgy and prayer, and their being is similar in that they represent in their persons the meeting-point of heaven and earth, like the Temple. Liturgy is therefore the tool which constitutes communion between humans and angels; liturgical time partakes of the heavenly reality, and humans share the key element of the heavenly liturgy, the angelic praises. This is true even of synagogue worship, though the Qedushah’s role is not as central as that of the sanctus, and though priestly symbolism plays a negligible role. The pattern of daily prayer and the concept of sacred time are elements retained from the Second Temple period when priestly liturgy was the most important expression of worship of God. The synagogue service had a provisional character, looking forward to the restoration of the Temple.135 The concept of a “double house” (Ps.-Clement) underlines the fact that is already existent and accessible. Ideas about becoming angels or sharing the life of angels reflect the urge to hasten the coming of God’s kingdom on earth.136 Schwemer stresses the importance of liturgical formulae, as compared with esoteric writings, for the formation of popular religious understanding.137 The Christian sanctus and Jewish Qedushah similarly mould the awareness of the worshipping congregation. By their evocation of the numinous, the words of the angels themselves perform an angel-like function in creating the liturgical space where heaven and earth can coincide. With regard to the theme of angelology and orthodoxy, the liturgical focus on angels in both Judaism and Christianity reveals a concern primarily with orthopraxy. Right observance of the daily prayers is important because these are the moments at which access to the divine is enabled by sharing in the perfect worship of the angels. They also illustrate the maxim of lex orandi, lex credendi: right observance forms the mind of the worshipper, contributing to doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus Deichgräber concludes from 1 Cor 10.31: “Die Verherrlichung Gottes wird geradezu zum Kriterium für das richtige Verhalten in problematischen Situationen”.138 In this derivative sense, the importance of angels for human worship reflects a sense that angelology is related to orthodoxy. Beliefs about angels also reveal beliefs about the nature of God. God’s transcendence is expressed by entering into the heavenly sphere to worship him. God’s immanence is expressed by the fact that such access is possible for human beings. The liturgy thus represents an area where theological content is not explicit, yet nevertheless forms the orthodoxy which underlies praxis. 135

Ego, Himmel, 25; 72. Hengel and Schwemer, Königsherrschaft, 3, point to the importance of the kingdom in Jewish prayer, beginning with the Temple formula ‫״‬ . 137 “Gerade solche liturgischen Formeln wie baruk shem kabod malkutho … prägen durch ihre häufige Verwendung das religiöse Bewußtsein des ganzen Volkes in ganz anderem Maß als die Erwähnung in sektenhaft-esoterischen oder apokalyptischen Schriften, die ja ihrerseits die liturgische Tradition voraussetzen.” Schwemer, König, 46 n. 3. 138 Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 203; link with angelic worship 205. 136

Conclusion Aujourd’hui, la figure de l’ange signale obstinément que la foi est aussi attente de l’inespéré … En dernier lieu, nous tâcherons de dire que la figure de l’ange révèle la beauté gratuite du cosmos. Anne Marie Reijnen

We are now in a position to answer some of the questions raised in the introduction. Angels, subordinate divine beings who serve God, are potentially ambivalent. By developing angelology in the direction of liturgical praise of God, monotheism is safeguarded, as we have seen. God’s majesty is even enhanced by surrounding him with beings who, though dazzling, are far beneath him in glory and who worship him. The ancient concept of the heavenly court is “liturgicized”; heaven is viewed as a temple and angels as priests. A source for the change of function was identified in the figures of the cherubim and seraphim; like these, the development of angelology is likely to be associated with Temple theology. Perhaps surprisingly, the link between angels and orthodoxy shows comparatively little change between Judaism (especially as represented in Qumran) and Christianity, except that the perception of angels as dangerous appears later in Christianity. Our chosen geographical area of study, Palestine and Syria, presents a distinctive character, moulded by use of Aramaic (Syriac) as well as Greek. Christianity in this area presents a link between angels and orthodoxy that remains relatively consistent over the period reviewed, even when comparing a philosophical writer like Origen with a pictorial writer like Ephrem. This finding argues against suggestions of significant difference between Greek and Syriac writers, such as Burkitt’s. On this point, the Jewish inheritance acts as a unifying factor. The concept of different ranks of angels can also be used to safeguard monotheistic orthodoxy. We distinguished hypostases, principal angels and archangels from what might be termed ordinary angels, and identified a danger to monotheism when a powerful figure is envisaged in heaven that is seen as separate from God. Hypostases avoid the danger because they continue to be linked with God; archangels avoid the danger because the concept of a group of archangels in effect waters down the power possessed by any one of the group. Only ideas

208

Conclusion

about principal angels, associated especially with Metatron and Michael, seriously challenge the sovereignty of God. We noted various indications for unease with angelology: attempts to limit veneration of angels or study of key texts, and alternative human explanations for angelic Bible passages. Angel concepts can be used to support orthodoxy (e. g. by Ephrem) or be perceived as threatening orthodoxy; attitudes to angels can be indicative of heretical attitudes in general. We identified the Sadducees, the “two powers” heretics, Origen and possibly Arianism as examples of groups whose attitude to angels was adduced to support the charge of deviation from orthodox belief.1 We asked what role is left for angels when Christianity introduces the person of Christ to the Jewish cosmos, taking over the angelic function of mediation of the presence of God to humankind, and of human prayers to God. In certain early texts the tension is still perceptible, especially those that portray Christ as an angel. In Origen, the functions of angels and Christ do indeed compete with each other. The priestly function of angels, though often expressed in Christian texts in connection with the eucharist, is subordinate to the idea that Christ is the officiant at the heavenly altar; all human liturgy, although attended by angels, is a copy of this or a participation in this. However, the other priestly function of angels, that of leading liturgical praise, is retained. The second chapter concluded that the most important function of angels visà-vis human beings was to act as role models for the correct attitude towards God. As the third chapter showed, this is supremely a liturgical attitude. “Im Loben allein erfüllt der Mensch den Willen Gottes”.2 The angel is the embodiment of perfect orthodoxy because he does not pry into the mysteries of God, and of perfect orthopraxy because he never sleeps ( ), but is unceasingly praising God. The angelic life, mirrored in the monastic life, is one of perpetual liturgical praise. The concept of the hallowing of time is linked in Jewish thought with praise of God for creation in the morning prayer of the yotzer ’or. In Christian thought the same concept is attached to praise at night and the awaiting of Christ’s coming. The Qedushah and sanctus tie the hours of human praise to those of the angels, and anticipate the worship of heaven. Jewish and Christian angelology in the first to fourth centuries have in common that they set this forth as the highest goal of human praise and thought about God. The theological function of angels is therefore to ensure orthodoxy by modelling right practice and belief towards God. Orthodoxy, theological content and liturgy ultimately coalesce in the mystical experience.

1 Osborn, Emergence, 179: “[Angels] were of historical relevance to the doctrine of the trinity; but they provided in logic a contradiction, an alternative or, at best, a supplement to trinitarian belief. One could believe in the trinity and in angels, only if one recognised their fundamental difference. Where they were confused, subordinationism replaced trinity.” 2 Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 214.

Conclusion

209

Stroumsa suggests that a reason for the decline of gnosticism was that mythology was no longer seen as an appropriate vehicle for expressing religious truth.3 This observation may be relevant to the later decline of angels as carriers of theological argument. Reformulating Osborn’s words, we might say that it was necessary for trinitarian Christian theology to make the logical distinction between the three divine Persons and the lesser heavendwellers, abandoning subordinationist Christologies and pneumatologies. Rabbinic Judaism found other, more pictorial ways of ensuring God’s superiority over the heavendwellers, insofar as they were still allowed room within the Talmud. However, the danger with a purely intellectual approach to theology is that it neglects the liturgical and mystical elements of the experience of God. Reijnen discusses how angels can signify the “dimension gratuite de la création”; how spiritual experiences, such as the beauty of nature or the longing for a lost paradise, challenge a religion of “raison réductrice”. “L’ange constitue le fil conducteur qui révèle la dimension spirituelle de l’expérience de la nature”.4 The sphere of the luminous eye, as Ephrem would put it, beyond the reach of human understanding, is the sphere of mystical liturgical praise together with the angels.

3 4

Gnostic, 40 f. L’ange, 113–115.

Bibliography 1. Primary Sources Lexica, Handbooks, Grammars The new Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English lexicon. With an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic, Peabody: Hendrickson 1979 [orig. 1907] A dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the midrashic literature, comp. by Marcus Jastrow, 2 vols., London: Luzac / NY: Putnam 1903 Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, ed. by L. Köhler, W. Baumgartner, 4 vols., 3rd ed., Leiden: Brill 1967–1990 A grammar of Biblical Aramaic, ed. by Franz Rosenthal, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1974 Thesaurus Syriacus, ed. by R. Payne Smith, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1901 A compendious Syriac dictionary, ed. by J. Payne Smith, Oxford: UP 1902, repr. Eugene: Wipf and Stock 1999 A Greek-English lexicon, ed. by H. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. Jones, Oxford: Clarendon 1940 A Patristic Greek lexicon, ed. by G. W. H. Lampe, Oxford: Clarendon 1961 A. Pauly – G. Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 1839– ; suppls. 1903–56 (11 vols.); 2nd series 1914–48 (abbreviated PW)

Inscriptions Kanaanäische & Aramäische Inschriften, ed. by H. Donner, W. Röllig, 3 vols., 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1966, 1968, 1969 Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Vol. 1.4, Paris: Pr. République 1887 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, ed. by J.-B. Frey, 2 vols., Rome: Pontif. Ist. di Archeologia Cristiana 1936 / 1952 Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie, ed. by L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde et al., 8 vols., Paris: Geuthner 1929–1980 Jewish inscriptions of western Europe, Vol. 1 (Italy excl. Rome, Spain, Gaul), ed. by David Noy, Cambridge: UP 1993

Papyri Papyri Graecae magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, ed. and tr. Karl Preisendanz, 2 vols, 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Teubner: 1973–4

212

Bibliographie

Coins Catalogue of the Greek coins of Phoenicia, ed. by G. F. Hill, London: BM 1910

Ugaritic clay tablets Canaanite Myths and Legends, ed. by J. C. L. Gibson, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1977 (= 2nd ed. of G. R. Driver’s Canaanite Myths and Legends)

Samaritan Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano Genesis, ed. by Luis-Fernando Giron Blanc, Madrid: Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 1979 The Samaritan Liturgy, ed. by A. E. Cowley, 2 vols. (continuously paginated), Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1909 Samaritan documents relating to their history, religion and life, tr. John Bowman, Pittsburgh: Pickwick 1977 Memar Marqah. The teaching of Marqah, ed. and tr. John Macdonald, 2 vols., Berlin: Töpelmann 1963

Bible Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. by K. Elliger et al., 4th edition Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 1990 Pentateuchus Syriace, ed. by G. (W.) E. Barnes et al., London: BFBS 1914 Septuaginta ed. by Alfred Rahlfs, 8th edition, 2 vols., Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt 1935 Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. by Eberhard Nestle, rev. Kurt Aland et al., 26th edition Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 1979

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols., New York: Doubleday 1983, 1985 The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. by H. F. D. Sparks, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1984 The Greek versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Edited from nine MSS., R. H. Charles, Oxford: Clarendon 1908 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch, ed. and tr. Hugo Odeberg, Cambridge: UP 1928; repr. with prolegomenon by Jonas C. Greenfield, NY: Ktav 1973 New Testament Apocrypha, revised edition by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, tr. R. McL. Wilson, 2 vols., Cambridge: Clarke / Louisville: Westminster / John Knox 1991 / 1992 Ascensio Isaiae. Textus, ed. by P. Bettiolo et al., Turnhout: Brepols 1995 [Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum 7]

1. Primary Sources

213

Targums Fragment – Das Fragmententhargum (Thargum jeruschalmi zum Pentateuch), ed. by Moses Ginsburger, Berlin: Calvary 1899 Jonathan – The Bible in Aramaic. Based on old manuscripts and printed texts. Vol. 2. The former prophets according to Targum Jonathan, ed. by Alexander Sperber, Leiden: Brill 1959 – The Bible in Aramaic. Based on old manuscripts and printed texts. Vol. 3. The Later Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, ed. by Alexander Sperber, Leiden: Brill 1962 Pseudo-Jonathan – Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch), ed. by Moses Ginsburger, Berlin: Calvary 1903 – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: text and concordance, ed. by E. G. Clarke et al., Hoboken, NJ: Ktav 1984 Neofiti – Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, ed. by Alejandro Díez Macho, vol. 1, Madrid / Barcelona: Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas 1968 Onkelos – The Bible in Aramaic. Based on old manuscripts and printed texts. Vol. 1. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos, ed. by Alexander Sperber, Leiden: Brill 1959

Qumran The Dead Sea Scrolls study edition, ed. by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert Tigchelaar, 2 vols., London / NY / Köln: Brill 1997, 1998 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 11. Qumran Cave 4 VI. Poetical and literary texts Part 1, ed. by Esther Eshel et al., Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1998 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 14. Qumran Cave 4 IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. by Eugene Ulrich et al., Oxford: Clarendon 1995 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 31. Qumran Grotte 4. Textes Araméens 1e partie, 4Q529–549, ed. Émile Puech, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 2001 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: a critical edition, ed. by Carol A. Newsom, Atlanta: Scholars 1985 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts with English translations. Volume 4B Angelic liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, ed. by James H. Charlesworth and Carol A. Newsom, Tübingen: Mohr / Louisville: Westminster John Knox Pr. 1999 [Princeton Theological Seminary DSS Project] The Thanksgiving Scroll. A scroll from the wilderness of Judaea, ed. by J. Licht, Jerusalem: Biyalik 1957

214

Bibliographie

Talmud and Midrash Mishnah – Mishnayoth, ed. and tr. Philip Blackman, 7 vols. London: Mishna 1951–1956 – The Mishnah. Translated from the Hebrew with introduction and brief explanatory notes, tr. by Herbert Danby, Oxford: UP 1933 Tosefta – The Tosefta according to Codex Vienna, with variants from Codex Erfurt, Geniza manuscripts and editio princeps (Venice 1521), together with references to parallel passages in Talmudic literature and a brief commentary, Vol. 1 Zeraim, ed. by Saul Lieberman, New York: Jewish theological seminary of America 1955 – The Tosefta. Translated from the Hebrew, First division: Zeraim (The order of agriculture), ed. by Jacob Neusner and Richard Sarason, Berakhot tr. by Tzvee Zahavy, Hoboken, NJ: Ktav 1986 Jerusalem Talmud – The Jerusalem Talmud. First order: Zeraim. Tractate Berakhot, ed., tr. and comm. by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, Berlin / New York: de Gruyter 2000 – Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi, Bd. II / 4. Yoma. Versöhnungstag, tr. Friedrich Avemarie, Tübingen: Mohr 1995 Babylonian Talmud – Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Talmud, 20 vols., ed. H. Freedman et al. London / Jerusalem / NY: Soncino 1960–1990 Midrash Rabbah – Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, J. Theodor / Ch. Albeck, 4 vols., Berlin: Poppelauer 1912–31 – Midrash Rabbah, 10 vols., tr. H. Freedman et al., London: Soncino 1939 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan – Aboth de Rabbi Nathan. Huius libri recensiones duas collatis variis apud bibliothecas et publicas et privatas codicibus edidit … Salomon Schechter, Vienna: Lippe 1887 – Leçons des Pères du Monde. Pirqé Avot et Avot de Rabbi Nathan version A et B, tr. by Eric Smilévitch, (n. p.): Verdier 1983 Pesikta Rabbati – Pesikta Rabbati. Midrasch für den Fest-Cyclus und die ausgezeichneten Sabbathe kritisch bearbeitet, commentirt, durch neue handschriftliche Haggadas vermehrt … von M. Friedmann, Vienna: (Selbstverlag) 1880 – Pesikta Rabbati, tr. W. G. Braude, 2 vols., New Haven / London: Yale UP 1968 Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer – Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer (The chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great) according to the text of the manuscript belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna, tr. by Gerald Friedlander, London: Kegan Paul 1916 Midrash Tannaim – Midrasch Tannaim zum Deuteronomium, ed. D. Hoffmann, Berlin: Poppelauer 1909

1. Primary Sources

215

Midrash Tehillim – Midrasch Tehillim (Schocher Tob). Sammlung agadischer Abhandlungen über die 150 Psalmen, ed. Salomon Buber, Vilna: Wittwe 1891 Bet ha-Midrasch – Bet ha-Midrasch. Sammlung kleiner Midraschim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der älteren jüdischen Literatur, ed. Adolph Jellinek, Leipzig: Nies 1853 Yalqut – Yalqut Shim‘oni, ed. Bezalel Landau, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1960 Hekhalot literature – Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, ed. by Peter Schäfer, Tübingen: Mohr 1981 [TSAJ 2] – Übersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur Bd II, tr. by Peter Schäfer, Tübingen: Mohr 1987 [TSAJ 17]

Other Jewish authors Josephus, in 9 vols., ed. and tr. R. Marcus et al., London / Cambridge: Heinemann 1958–1965 Philo, in 13 vols., ed. and tr. F. H. Colson et al., London / Cambridge: Heinemann 1927–1967 Philonis Judaei paralipomena armena, ed. J.-B. Aucher, Venice 1826

Jewish Prayer and Synagogue Poetry Seder Rab Amram Gaon, ed. by Nahman Coronel, Warsaw: Kelter 1865 The Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, revised ed. (n. p.): Kuperard 1998 Piyyute Yannai. Liturgical poems of Yannai. Collected from Geniza-manuscripts and other sources, ed. by Menahem Zulay, Berlin: Schocken 1938

Church Fathers Aphrahat – Patrologia Syriaca vol. 1. Aphraatis Demonstrationes i-xxii, ed. and Latin tr. Ioannes Parisot, Paris: Firmin-Didot 1894 – Aphraate le sage Persan. Les exposés, tr. and notes by Marie-Joseph Pierre, 2 vols., Paris: Cerf 1988 and 1989 [SC 349 and 359] Asterios Sophistes – Hansjörg Auf der Maur, Die Osterhomilien des Asterios Sophistes als Quelle für die Geschichte der Osterfeier, Trier: Paulinus 1967 [Trierer Theol. Studien 19] Clement of Rome – Clément de Rome, Épitre aux Corinthiens, ed. and tr. by Annie Jaubert, Paris: Cerf 1971 [SC 167]

216

Bibliographie

Clement of Alexandria – Clement of Alexandria. Miscellanies Book VII, ed. and tr. by F. J. A. Hort and Joseph Mayor, London: Macmillan 1902 Ps.-Clementine Homilies – Les Homélies Clémentines, tr., intro. and notes by André Siouville, preface by Christian Jambet, Paris: Verdier 1991 [orig. 1933] Cyril of Jerusalem – The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, tr. by Edwin Hamilton Gifford, repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1996 [NPNF 2nd series, vol. 7] Ps.-Dionysius – Denys l’Aréopagite, La Hiérarchie Céleste, tr. M. de Gandillac, intr. R. Roques, Paris: Cerf 1958 [SC 58] Ephrem – S. patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia quae exstant Graece, Syriace et Latine in sex tomos distributa, ed. and tr. (Latin) Petrus Benedictus, vol. 5 (2 of Syriac), Rome: Vaticana 1740 – S. patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia quae exstant Graece, Syriace et Latine in sex tomos distributa, ed. and tr. (Latin) Petrus Benedictus, vol. 6 (3 of Syriac), Rome: Vaticana 1743 – Sancti Ephraem Syri Commentarii in epistolas divi Pauli, nunc primum ex armenio in latinum sermonem a Patribus Mekitharistis translati, Venetiis: S. Lazari 1893 – Monumenta Syriaca ex Romanis codicibus collecta ed. P. Zingerle, vol. 1, Oeniponti 1869 (for the Homily on hermits and monks) – S. Ephraim’s prose refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan, ed. and tr. C. W. Mitchell, A. A. Bevan, F. C. Burkitt, 2 vols., London: Text and Translation Society 1912, 1921 – Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, Texte syriaque (MS Chester Beatty 709), ed. by Louis Leloir, Chester Beatty Monographs 8, Dublin: Hodges Figgis 1963 – Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, version arménienne, tr. Louis Leloir, Louvain: Durbecq 1954, 181 [CSCO 145 / Arm. 2] (versio) [Armenian text CSCO 137 / Arm. 1] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Fide, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: Durbecq 1955 [CSCO 154–5 / Scriptores Syri 73–4] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen Contra Haereses, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1957 [CSCO 169–70 / Scriptores Syri 76–7] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1957 [CSCO 174–5 / Scriptores Syri 78–9] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Nativitate (Epiphania), ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1959 [CSCO 186–7 / Scriptores Syri 82–3] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Ecclesia, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1960 [CSCO 198–9 / Scriptores Syri 84–5] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena Teil 1, 1–34, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1961 [CSCO 218–9 / Scriptores Syri 92–3]

1. Primary Sources

217

– Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones De Fide, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1961 [CSCO 212–3 / Scriptores Syri 88–9] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Virginitate, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1962 [CSCO 223–4 / Scriptores Syri 94–5] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena Teil 2, 35–77, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1963 [CSCO 240–1 / Scriptores Syri 102–3] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Ieiunio, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1964 [CSCO 246–7 / Scriptores Syri 106–7] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Paschahymnen, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1964 [CSCO 248–9 / Scriptores Syri 108–9] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermo De Domino Nostro, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1966 [CSCO 270–1 / Scriptores Syri 116–7] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1972 [CSCO 320–1 / Scriptores Syri 138–9] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen auf Abraham Kidunaya und Julianos Saba, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1972 [CSCO 322–3 / Scriptores Syri 140–1] – Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones in Hebdomadam Sanctam, ed. and tr. Edmund Beck, Louvain: CSCO 1979 [CSCO 412–13 / Scriptores Syri 181–2] – S. Ephraem Syri in Genesim et Exodum commentarii, ed. and Latin tr. R. M. Tonneau, Louvain: CSCO 1955 [CSCO 152–3 / Scriptores Syri 71–2] – S. Ephraem Syri hymni et sermones, ed. and Latin tr. T. J. Lamy, vol. 4, Mechliniae: Dessain 1902 – St. Ephrem the Syrian, selected prose works, tr. by Edward G. Mathews and Joseph P. Amar, ed. by Kathleen McVey, Washington: Catholic University of America 1994 [TFOC 91] Epiphanius – Epiphanius, vol. 2, ed. by Karl Holl, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1922 [GCS 31] – Epiphanius, vol. 3, ed. by Karl Holl, 2nd ed. by Jürgen Dummer, Berlin: Akademie 1985 – The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, tr. Frank Williams, 2 vols, Leiden: Brill 1987, 1994 Eusebius of Caesarea – Eusèbe de Césarée, La Préparation Évangélique, ed. and tr. Edouard des Places et al., 8 vols., Paris: Cerf 1974–1991 [SC 206 (Book 1), 228 (Books 2–3), 262 (Books 4–5.17), 266 (Books 5.18–6), 215 (Book 7), 369 (Books 8,9, 10), 292 (Book 11), 307 (Books 12–13), 338 (Books 14–15)] – Eusebius, Werke Band 3. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, ed. Erich Klostermann, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1904 – Eusebius, Werke Band 6. Die Demonstratio evangelica, ed. Ivar Heikel, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1913 Eusebius of Emesa – Eusèbe d’Émèse. Discours conservés en latin, ed. Éloi-Marie Buytaert, 2 vols., Louvain: Spicilegium 1953, 1957 – L’héritage littéraire d’Eusèbe d’Émèse. Étude critique et historique. Textes, ed. ÉloiMarie Buytaert, Louvain: Mouséon 1949 [texts in Greek, Armenian and Syriac]

218

Bibliographie

Ignatius – Ignace d’Antioche, Lettres. Martyre de Polycarpe, ed. and tr. by P. Th. Camelot, Paris: Cerf 1958 [SC 10] Liber graduum – Patrologia syriaca vol. 3. Liber graduum, ed. and Latin tr. Michael Kmosko, Paris: Firmin-Didot 1926 Origen – Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, ed., tr. and comm. by Herwig Görgemanns and Heinrich Karpp, 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1985 [Texte zur Forschung 24] – G. W. Butterworth, Origen on First Principles, London: SPCK 1936 – Origenes. Band II. Buch 5–8 Gegen Celsus. Die Schrift vom Gebet, ed. Paul Koetschau, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1899 – Origenes. Band IV Der Johanneskommentar, ed. Erwin Preuschen, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1903 [GCS O.4] – Origenes. Band VI Die Homilien zu Genesis, Exodus und Leviticus, ed. W. A. Baehrens, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1920 [GCS 29] – Origenes. Band VII Die Homilien zu Numeri, Josua und Judices, ed. W. A. Baehrens, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1921 [GCS 30] – Origenes. Band VIII Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten. Kommentar zum Hohelied, ed. W. A. Baehrens, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 1925 [GCS 33] – Origenes. Band IX Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars, ed. Max Rauer, 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie 1959 [GCS 49 (35)] – Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins. Buch 1–3, ed. Caroline P. Hammond Bammel, Freiburg: Herder 1990 – Origène. Philocalie 1–20. Sur les Écritures, ed. and tr. Marguérite Harl, et La Lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne, ed. and tr. Nicholas de Lange, Paris: Cerf 1983 [SC 302] – Origène. Philocalie 21–27. Sur le libre arbitre, ed. and tr. Éric Junod, Paris: Cerf 1976 [SC 226] – Origène. Traité des Principes, vol. 4, ed. Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti, Paris: Cerf 1980 [SC 269] – Origen’s treatise on prayer, tr. and notes by Eric G. Jay, London: SPCK 1954 Tertullian – Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani De Oratione liber. Tertullian’s tract on the prayer, ed., tr. and comm. by Ernest Evans, London: SPCK 1953 Theodore of Mopsuestia – Les homélies catéchetiques de Théodore de Mopsueste. Reproduction phototypique du MS Mingana Syr. 561, ed. and tr. by Raymond Tonneau and Robert Devreesse, Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1949 [Studi e Testi 145]

2. Literature

219

Liturgy Addai and Mari – W. F. Macomber SJ, “The oldest known text of the anaphora of the apostles Addai and Mari”, OCP 32 (1966), 335–371 Apostolic Constitutions – Les Constitutions Apostoliques, ed. and tr. by Marcel Metzger, 3 vols., Paris: Cerf 1985, 1986, 1987 [SC 320, 329, 336] Testamentum Domini – Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ed. by Ignatius Rahmani, Mainz: Kirchheim 1899 Collections – Enchiridion Euchologicum Fontium Liturgicorum, ed. by Enzo Lodi, Rome: CLV Edizioni Liturgiche 1979 – Liturgies Eastern and Western. Being a reprint of the texts, either original or translated, of the most representative liturgies of the church, from various sources, ed. by C. E. Hammond, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1878 – Liturgies Eastern and Western. Being the texts original or translated of the principal liturgies of the Church, edited with introductions and appendices by F. E. Brightman on the basis of the former work by C. E. Hammond, ed. by F. E. Brightman, Vol. 1 Eastern Liturgies, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1896 – Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, ed. by R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming, Collegeville: Liturgical Press / Pueblo 3rd edition 1987 – La Prière dans l’Église ancienne, ed. and tr. by A. G. Hamman, Bern / Frankfurt / NY / Paris: Lang 1989 [anthology] – Sabbat et dimanche dans l’Église ancienne, ed. and tr. by W. Rordorf, Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé 1972 [anthology]

Greek and Roman Pliny: Natural History, ed. by H. Rackham, vol. 2, Cambridge / London: Harvard UP 1961

2. Literature Abegg, Martin G., “The Messiah at Qumran: are we still seeing double?”, Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995), 125–144 (cit. Abegg, Messiah) Alexander, Philip S., “The historical setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch”, JJS 28 (1977), 156–180 (cit. Alexander, Historical) –, “Incantations and books of magic”, The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ by Emil Schürer, rev. ed. G. Vermes et al., vol. 3.1, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1986, 342–379 (cit. Alexander, Incantations) –, “3 Enoch and the Talmud”, JSJ 18, 1987, 40–68 (cit. Alexander, 3 Enoch)

220

Bibliographie

–, “‘The parting of the ways’ from the perspective of rabbinic Judaism”, Jews and Christians. The parting of the ways AD 70–135, ed. by James D. G. Dunn, repr. with new translations Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1999, 1–25 [orig. 1992] (cit. Alexander, Parting) –, “The demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, The Dead Sea Scrolls after fifty years: a comprehensive assessment, ed. by Peter W. Flint, James C. Vanderkam, Vol. 2, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 331–353 (cit. Alexander, Demonology) Allison, Dale C., “The silence of angels: reflections on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice”, RevQ 13 (1988), 189–197 (cit. Allison, Silence) Aschim, Anders, “Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the epistle to the Hebrews”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 129–147 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Aschim, Melchizedek) Auf der Maur, Hansjörg, Die Osterhomilien des Asterios Sophistes als Quelle für die Geschichte der Osterfeier, Trier: Paulinus 1967 [Trierer Theol. Studien 19] (cit. Auf der Maur, Asterios) Aune, David E., “Orthodoxy in first century Judaism? A response to N. J. McEleney”, JSJ 7 (1976), 1–10 (cit. Aune, Orthodoxy) Bacher, Wilhelm, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 2 vols., Strasburg: Trübner 1884, 1890 (cit. Bacher, Agada) Bammel, Ernst, “Die Zitate aus den Apokryphen bei Origenes”, Judaica et Paulina. Kleine Schriften II, Tübingen: Mohr 1997 [WUNT 91] [ orig. 1991] (cit. Bammel, Zitate) Bampfylde, Gillian, “The prince of the host in the book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, JSJ 14 (1983), 129–134 (cit. Bampfylde, Prince) Barbel, Joseph, Christos Angelos. Die Anschauuung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christlichen Altertums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ursprungs und der Fortdauer des Arianismus, Bonn: Hanstein 1941, repr. 1964 with Anhang [Theophaneia 3] (cit. Barbel, Christos) Barker, Margaret, The great angel. A study of Israel’s second god, London: SPCK 1992 (cit. Barker, Angel) Barnes, Timothy, Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge / London: Harvard UP 1981 (cit. Barnes, Constantine) Barr, James, “The question of religious influence: the case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity”, JAAR 53 / 2 (1985), 202–35 (cit. Barr, Influence) –, “‘Thou art the Cherub’: Ezekiel 28.14 and the post-Ezekiel understanding of Genesis 2–3”, Priests, prophets and scribes. Essays on the function and heritage of Second Temple Judaism in honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp, ed. by Eugene Ulrich et al., Sheffield: JSOT 1992, 213–223 [JSOT Suppl. 149] (cit. Barr, Cherub) Barrett, C. K., A critical and exegetical commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1994, 1998 (cit. Barrett, Acts) Barthélemy, Dominique, “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le ‘Commentaire allégorique’?” Philon d’Alexandrie. Colloques nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Lyon 11–15 Septembre 1966, (no ed.) Paris: Éditions du CNRS 1967, 45–79 (cit. Barthélemy, Hoshaya) Bauckham, Richard, “The fall of the angels as the source of philosophy in Hermias and Clement of Alexandria”, VC 39 (1985), 313–330 (cit. Bauckham, Fall)

2. Literature

221

–, The Climax of Prophecy. Studies on the Book of Revelation, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1993 (cit. Bauckham, Climax) –, “The throne of God and the worship of Jesus”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 43–69 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Bauckham, Throne) Bauer, Walter, Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity, London: SCM 1972 (based on 2nd German ed. of 1964) (cit. Bauer, Orthodoxy) Baumgarten, Albert I., “The politics of reconciliation: the education of R. Judah the Prince”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period, ed. by E. P. Sanders et al., London: SCM 1981, 213–225 (cit. Baumgarten, Judah) –, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary, Leiden: Brill 1981 (cit. Baumgarten, Philo) Baumgarten, Joseph M., “The Qumran Sabbath Shirot and rabbinic Merkabah traditions”, RevQ 13, 1988, 199–213 (cit. Baumgarten, Merkabah) Baumstark, Anton, “Trishagion und Qeduscha”, Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 3, 1923, 18–32 (cit. Baumstark, Trishagion) Beck, Edmund, “Die Theologie des hl. Ephraem in seinen Hymnen über den Glauben”, Studia Anselmiana 21, Rome: P. Inst. S. Anselmi 1949 (cit. Beck, Theologie) –, “Ephraems Reden über den Glauben. Ihr theologischer Lehrgehalt und ihr geschichtlicher Rahmen”, Studia Anselmiana 33, Rome: P. Inst. S. Anselmi 1953 (cit. Beck, Reden) –, “Asketentum und Mönchtum bei Ephraem”, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 153, Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 1958, 341–362 (cit. Beck, Asketentum) –, “Symbolum-Mysterium bei Aphraat und Ephräm”, OrChr 42 (1958), 19–40 (cit. Beck, Symbolum) –, “Éphrem le Syrien”, Dictionnaire de spiritualité. Ascétique et mystique. Doctrine et histoire, ed. M. Viller et al., vol. 4, Paris: Beauchesne 1960, 788–800 (cit. Beck, Ephrem) Belayche, Nicole, “Dimenticare … Gerusalemme. Les paganismes à Aelia Capitolina du IIe au IVe siècle de notre ère”, REJ 158 (1999), 287–348 (cit. Belayche, Aelia) –, Iudaea-Palaestina. The pagan cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Century), Tübingen: Mohr 2001 [Rel. d. röm. Provinzen 1] (cit. Belayche, Iudaea) Belkin, Samuel, Philo and the oral law. The Philonic interpretation of Biblical law in relation to the Palestinian Halakah, Cambridge: Harvard UP 1940 [Harvard Semitic Studies 11] (cit. Belkin, Philo) Berger, Klaus, “Der Streit des guten und des bösen Engels um die Seele. Beobachtungen zu 4QAmrb und Judas 9”, JSJ 4 (1973), 1–18 (cit. Berger, Streit) Berner, Ulrich, Origenes, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1981 [Erträge der Forschung 147] (cit. Berner, Origenes) Bernstein, Moshe J., “Angels at the Aqedah: a study in the development of a midrashic motif”, Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000), 263–291 (cit. Bernstein, Angels) Betz, Otto, “The Essenes”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 444–470 (cit. Betz, Essenes) Bietenhard, Hans, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum, Tübingen: Mohr 1951 (cit. Bietenhard, Himmlische)

222

Bibliographie

Birdsall, J. Neville, “Problems of the Clementine literature”, Jews and Christians. The parting of the ways AD 70–135, ed. by James D. G. Dunn, repr. with new translations Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1999 [orig. Tübingen: Mohr 1992], 347–361 (cit. Birdsall, Problems) Blanc, Cécile, “L’angélologie d’Origène”, StPatr 14 (1976), 79–109 (cit. Blanc, Angélologie) Blum, Georg Günter, “Afrahat”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. by G. Krause and G. Müller, vol. 1, Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1977, 625–635 (cit. Blum, Afrahat) Bockmuehl, Markus, “‘The form of God’ (Phil. 2:6). Variations on a theme of Jewish mysticism”, JTS n. s. 48, 1997, 1–23 (cit. Bockmuehl, Form) Böttrich, Christfried, “Das ‘Sanctus’ in der Liturgie der hellenistischen Synagoge”, Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 35, 1994 / 95, 10–36 (cit. Böttrich, Sanctus) Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice, “Une tradition juive sur la création de l’esprit mauvais au deuxième jour”, Anges et démons. Actes du colloque de Liège et de Louvain-la-Neuve 25–26 novembre 1987, ed. by Julien Ries, Louvain: Centre d’histoire des religions 1989, 135–146 (cit. Bogaert, Tradition) Bou Mansour, Tanios, “Étude de la terminologie symbolique chez s. Ephrem, Parole de l’Orient 14 (1987), 221–262 (cit. Bou Mansour, Terminologie) –, La pensée symbolique de saint Ephrem le syrien, Kaslik: Université Saint-Esprit 1988 (cit. Bou Mansour, Pensée) Bousset, Wilhelm, “Eine jüdische Gebetssammlung im siebenten Buch der apostolischen Konstitutionen”, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Philologisch-historische Klasse (1915), 438–85 (cit. Bousset, Gebetssammlung) –, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, 3rd ed. rev. by Hugo Gressmann, Tübingen: Mohr 1926 (cit. Bousset, Religion) Boyce, Mary, “Persian religion in the Achemenid age”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol. 1, ed. by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, Cambridge: UP 1984, 279–307 (cit. Boyce, Persian) Bradshaw, Paul F., Daily prayer in the early church. A study of the origin and early development of the divine office, London: Alcuin / SPCK 1981 (cit. Bradshaw, Daily) –, The search for the origins of Christian worship. Sources and methods for the study of early liturgy, London: SPCK 1992 (cit. Bradshaw, Search) Brekelmans, C. H. W., “The saints of the Most High and their kingdom”, OTS 14 (1965), 305–329 (cit. Brekelmans, Saints) Brock, Sebastian, “A fragment of Enoch in Syriac”, JTS n. s. 19 (1968), 626–631 (cit. Brock, Fragment) –, “Early Syrian asceticism”, Syriac perspectives on late antiquity, London: Variorum 1984, 1–19 [orig. 1973] (cit. Brock, Asceticism) –, “World and sacrament in the writings of the Syriac Fathers”, Studies in Syriac Spirituality, Kottayam 1988, 1–12 [Syrian Churches Series 13] [ orig. 1974] (cit. Brock, World) –, The harp of the spirit. Twelve poems of St. Ephrem, London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 1975 [Studies supplementary to Sobornost 4] [ the second, expanded ed. 1983 was not available to me] (cit. Brock, Harp) –, “The poet as theologian: St. Ephrem”, Studies in Syriac Spirituality, Kottayam 1988, 53–61 [Syrian Churches Series 13] [orig. 1977] (cit. Brock, Poet)

2. Literature

223

–, “Jewish traditions in Syriac sources”, Studies in Syriac Christianity. History, literature and theology, London: Variorum 1992, 212–232 [orig. 1979] (cit. Brock, Jewish) –, The luminous eye. The spiritual world vision of St. Ephrem, Kalamazoo: Cistercian 1992 [orig. 1985] (cit. Brock, Luminous) –, “The thrice-holy hymn in the liturgy, Studies in Syriac Spirituality, Kottayam 1988, 21–29 [Syrian Churches Series 13] [orig. 1985] (cit. Brock, Holy) –, “From Ephrem to Romanos”, From Ephrem to Romanos. Interactions between Syriac and Greek in late antiquity, London: Variorum reprints 1999, 140–151 [orig. 1989] (cit. Brock, Romanos) –, “Eusebius and Syriac Christianity”, From Ephrem to Romanos: interactions between Syriac and Greek in late antiquity, London: Variorum 1999, 212–234 (orig. 1992) (cit. Brock, Eusebius) –, A brief outline of Syriac literature, Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute 1997 (cit. Brock, Outline) Brox, Norbert, “Spiritualität und Orthodoxie. Zum Konflikt des Origenes mit der Geschichte des Dogmas”, Pietas (FS Bernhard Kötting), ed. by Ernst Dassmann and Karl Suso Frank [Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum suppl. 8, 1980] (cit. Brox, Spiritualität) Bundy, D., “Language and the knowledge of God in Ephrem Syrus”, The Patristic and Byzantine Review 5 (1986) 91–103 (cit. Bundy, Language) Burkitt, F. Crawford, Early Eastern Christianity. St. Margaret’s Lectures 1904 on the Syriac-speaking Church, London 1904 (cit. Burkitt, Early) Campbell, Jonathan, “The Qumran sectarian writings”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 798–821 (cit. Campbell, Sectarian) Caquot, André, “Anges et démons en Israel”, Génies, anges et démons (no ed.), Paris: Seuil 1971, 113–152 [Sources Orientales 8] (cit. Caquot, Anges) –, “Le service des anges”, RevQ 13 (1988), 421–429 (cit. Caquot, Service) Carleton Paget, James, “Jewish Christianity”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 731–775 (cit. Carleton Paget, Jewish) Carnoy, A. J., “Zoroastrianism”, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, vol. 12, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1921, 862–868 (cit. Carnoy, Zoroastrianism) Carpenter, H. J., “Popular Christianity and the theologians in the early centuries”, JTS n. s. 14 (1963), 294–310 (cit. Carpenter, Popular) Carr, Wesley, Angels and principalities. The background, meaning and development of the Pauline phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai, Cambridge: UP 1981 (cit. Carr, Angels) Carrell, Peter, Jesus and the angels. Angelology and the christology of the Apocalypse of John, Cambridge: UP 1997 [SNTSMS 95] (cit. Carrell, Jesus) Casey, P. M., “Monotheism, worship and Christological development in the Pauline churches”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 214–233 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Casey, Pauline) Chadwick, Henry, “Philo”, Cambridge history of later Greek and early medieval philosophy, ed. by A. H. Armstrong, Cambridge: UP 1967, 137–157 (cit. Chadwick, Philo)

224

Bibliographie

–, “The beginning of Christian philosophy: Justin: the Gnostics”, Cambridge history of later Greek and early medieval philosophy, ed. by A. H. Armstrong, Cambridge: UP 1967, 158–167 (cit. Chadwick, Beginning) Charlesworth, James H., “The portrayal of the righteous as an angel”, Ideal figures in ancient Judaism. Profiles and paradigms, ed. by John J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Chico: Scholars 1980, 135–151 (cit. Charlesworth, Portrayal) –, “Greek, Persian, Roman, Syrian, and Egyptian influences in early Jewish theology. A study of the History of the Rechabites”, Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. by A. Caquot et al., Leuven / Paris: Peeters 1986, 219–243 (cit. Charlesworth, Rechabites) Chazon, Esther G., “Prayers from Qumran and their historical implications”, Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), 265–284 (cit. Chazon, Prayers) –, “Hymns and prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, The Dead Sea Scrolls after fifty years: a comprehensive assessment, ed. by Peter W. Flint, James C. Vanderkam, Vol. 1, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 244–270 (cit. Chazon, Hymns) –, “The Qedushah liturgy and its history in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, From Qumran to Cairo. Studies in the History of Prayer, ed. by Joseph Tabory, Jerusalem: Orhot Pr. 1999, 7–17 (cit. Chazon, Qedushah) –, “Liturgical communion with the angels at Qumran”, Sapiential, liturgical and poetical texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the third meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998, ed. by Daniel K. Falk et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 2000, 95–105 (cit. Chazon, Liturgical) Chester, Andrew, “Jewish messianic expectations and mediatorial figures and Pauline Christology”, Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. by Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel, Tübingen: Mohr 1991, 17–89 [WUNT 58] (cit. Chester, Messianic) Cohen, Abraham, Everyman’s Talmud. The major teachings of the rabbinic sages, New York: Schocken 1995 [repr. of 1949 ed. with intro. by Jacob Neusner] (cit. Cohen, Everyman) Cohen, Shaye J. D., “The rabbi in second-century Jewish society”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 922–990 (cit. Cohen, Rabbi) Collins, Adela Y., “The seven heavens in Jewish and Christian apocalypses”, Death, ecstasy and otherworldly journeys, ed. by John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane, NY: State University of New York Pr. 1995, 59–93 (cit. Collins, Seven) Collins, John J., “Apocalyptic eschatology as the transcendence of death”, CBQ 36, 1974, 21–43 (cit. Collins, Eschatology) –, Daniel. A commentary on the book of Daniel [Hermeneia], Minneapolis: Fortress Pr. 1993 (cit. Collins, Daniel) –, “A throne in the heavens: apotheosis in pre-Christian Judaism”, Death, ecstasy and otherworldly journeys, ed. by John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane, NY: State University of New York Pr. 1995, 41–58 (cit. Collins, Throne) –, “Watcher”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 893–895 (cit. Collins, Watcher) –, “In the likeness of the holy ones: the creation of humankind in a wisdom text from Qumran”, The Provo international conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 609–618 (cit. Collins, Likeness)

2. Literature

225

–, “Apocalypticism and literary genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, The Dead Sea Scrolls after fifty years: a comprehensive assessment, ed. by Peter W. Flint, James C. Vanderkam, Vol. 2, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 403–430 (cit. Collins, Genre) –, “Pseudepigraphy and group formation in Second Temple Judaism”, Pseudepigraphic perspectives. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Esther G. Chazon et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 43–58 (cit. Collins, Pseudepigraphy) Corbin, Henry, “Nécessité de l’angélologie”, Le paradoxe du monothéisme, Paris: L’Herne 1981, 99–210 (cit. Corbin, Nécessité) Cramer, Winfrid, Die Engelvorstellungen bei Ephräm dem Syrer, Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 1965 [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 173] (cit. Cramer, Engelvorstellungen) Crouzel, Henri, Origène, Paris: Lethielleux / Namur: Culture et Vérité, 1985 (cit. Crouzel, Origène) Crown, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen: Mohr 1989 (cit. Crown, Samaritans) Culianu, Ioan P., “The angels of the nations and the origins of Gnostic dualism”, Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic religions (FS G. Quispel), ed. by R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren, Leiden: Brill 1981, 78–91 (cit. Culianu, Angels) Cumont, Franz, “Les anges du paganisme”, RHR 72 (1915), 159–182 (cit. Cumont, Anges) Curtis, Adrian, Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Cambridge: Lutterworth 1985 (cit. Curtis, Ugarit) Daniélou, Jean, Origène, Paris: La Table Ronde 1948 (cit. Daniélou, Origène) –, “Les sources juives de la doctrine des anges des nations chez Origène”, RSR 38 (1951), 132–137 (cit. Daniélou, Sources) –, Les anges et leur mission d’après les Pères de l’Église, 2nd ed. Chevetogne: Éditions de Chevetogne 1953 (cit. Daniélou, Anges) –, Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme, Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant Nicée vol. 1, Tournai: Desclée 1958 (cit. Daniélou, Théologie) Daube, David, “On Acts 23: Sadducees and angels”, JBL 109 (1990), 493–497 (cit. Daube, Acts) Davidson, Maxwell J., Angels at Qumran. A comparative study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and sectarian writings from Qumran, Sheffield: JSOT 1992 (cit. Davidson, Angels) Davila, James R., “The Hodayot hymnist and the four who entered Paradise”, RevQ 17 (1996), 457–478 (cit. Davila, Hodayot) –, “4QMess ar (4Q534) and Merkavah mysticism”, Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998), 367–381 (cit. Davila, Merkavah) –, “Heavenly ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, The Dead Sea Scrolls after fifty years: a comprehensive assessment, ed. by Peter W. Flint, James C. Vanderkam, Vol. 2, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 461–485 (cit. Davila, Ascents) –, “Of methodology, monotheism and Metatron. Introductory reflections on divine mediators and the origins of the worship of Jesus”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 3–18 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Davila, Methodology) –, “The macrocosmic temple, scriptural exegesis and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice”, Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002), 1–19 (cit. Davila, Macrocosmic)

226

Bibliographie

Davis, P. G., “Divine agents, mediators and New Testament Christology”, JTS n. s. 45 (1994), 479–503 (cit. Davis, Divine) Day, John, God’s conflict with the dragon and the sea. Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament, Cambridge: UP 1985 (cit. Day, Conflict) Decharneux, Baudouin, “Anges, démons et Logos dans l’oeuvre de Philon d’Alexandrie”, Anges et démons. Actes du colloque de Liège et de Louvain-la-Neuve 25–26 novembre 1987, ed. by Julien Ries, Louvain: Centre d’histoire des religions 1989, 147–175 (cit. Decharneux, Anges) De Conick, April, Seek to see him: ascent and vision mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas, Leiden: Brill 1996, 89–93 (cit. De Conick, Seek) –, “Heavenly temple traditions and Valentinian worship. A case for first-century Christology in the second century”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 308–341 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. De Conick, Heavenly) de Halleux, André, “Mar Ephrem théologien”, Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973), 35–54 (cit. de Halleux, Mar) Deichgräber, Reinhard, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit. Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967 [StUNT 5] (cit. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus) Deines, Roland, Jüdische Steingefäße und pharisäische Frömmigkeit. Ein archäologischhistorischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2,6 und der jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu, Tübingen: Mohr 1993 [WUNT 2 / 52] (cit. Deines, Steingefäße) –, Die Pharisäer. Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz, Tübingen: Mohr 1997 [WUNT 101] (cit. Deines, Pharisäer) Deissmann, Adolf, Light from the ancient East. The New Testament illustrated by recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman world, London: Hodder and Stoughton 1927 (cit. Deissmann, Light) Delcor, M., “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews”, JSJ 2, 1971, 115–135 (cit. Delcor, Melchizedek) –, “Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans l’apocalyptique juive”, RHR 190, 1976, 3–53 (cit. Delcor, Mythe) de Lange, N. R. M., Origen and the Jews. Studies in Jewish-Christian relations in thirdcentury Palestine, Cambridge: UP 1976 (cit. de Lange, Origen) de Savignac, J., “Les ‘Seraphim’”, VT 22 (1972), 320–325 (cit. de Savignac, Seraphim) de Vaux, R., “Les chérubins et l’arche d’alliance, les sphinx gardiens et les trônes divins dans l’ancien Orient”, Mélanges offerts au P. René Mouterde, MUSJ 37 (1960–61), 93–124 (cit. de Vaux, Chérubins) Dexinger, Ferdinand, “Limits of tolerance in Judaism: the Samaritan example”, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Volume 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period, ed. by E. P. Sanders et al., London: SCM 1981, 88–114 (cit. Dexinger, Limits) –, “Samaritan Eschatology”, The Samaritans, ed. by Alan D. Crown, Tübingen: Mohr 1989, 266–292 (cit. Dexinger, Samaritan) Dhorme, Edouard, “Les traditions Babyloniennes sur les origines”, RB n. s. 16 (1919), 350–371 (cit. Dhorme, Traditions)

2. Literature

227

–, “Le nom des chérubins”, Recueil Edouard Dhorme. Etudes bibliques et orientales, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale 1951, 671–683 [orig. RB 1926] (cit. Dhorme, Nom) Dimant, D. and J. Strugnell, “The Merkabah vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4)”, RevQ 14 (1990), 331–348 (cit. Dimant and Strugnell, Merkabah) Dimant, Devorah, “Men as angels: the self-image of the Qumran community”, Religion and politics in the Ancient Near East, ed. by A. Berlin, Bethesda: U. of Maryland 1996, 96–103 (cit. Dimant, Men) –, “1 Enoch 6–11: a fragment of a parabiblical work”, JJS 53 (2002), 223–237 (cit. Dimant, Enoch) Di Segni, Leah, “ in Palestinian inscriptions”, Scripta classica Israelica 13 (1994), 94–115 (cit. Di Segni, Palestinian) Dommershausen, Werner, 1 Makkabäer, 2 Makkabäer, Würzburg: Echter 1985 [Neue Echter Bibel] (cit. Dommershausen, Makkabäer) Downey, Glanville, A history of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab conquest, Princeton: UP 1961 (cit. Downey, Antioch) Drijvers, Han J. W., Bardaisan of Edessa, Assen: van Gorcum 1966 (cit. Drijvers, Bardaisan) –, “East of Antioch. Forms and structures in the development of early Syriac theology”, East of Antioch. Studies in early Syriac Christianity, London: Variorum reprints 1984, 1–27 (cit. Drijvers, East) –, “Facts and problems in early Syriac-speaking Christianity”, East of Antioch. Studies in early Syriac Christianity, London: Variorum reprints 1984, 157–175 (cit. Drijvers, Facts) –, “The persistence of pagan cults and practices in Christian Syria”, East of Antioch. Studies in early Syriac Christianity, London: Variorum reprints 1984, 35–43 (cit. Drijvers, Persistence) –, “Hellenistic and Oriental origins”, East of Antioch. Studies in early Syriac Christianity, London: Variorum reprints 1984, 25–33 (cit. Drijvers, Hellenistic) –, “Jews and Christians at Edessa”, JJS 36 (1985), 88–102 (cit. Drijvers, Jews) –, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism”, The Jews among pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, ed. Judith Lieu et al., London / NY: Routledge 1992, 124–146 (cit. Drijvers, Syrian) –, “Early Syriac Christianity: some recent publications”, VC 50 (1996), 159–177 (cit. Drijvers, Early) Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques, La religion de l’Iran ancien, Paris: Presses universitaires de France 1962 (cit. Duchesne-Guillemin, Religion) Dumoulin, Pierre, Entre la manne et l’eucharistie. Étude de Sg 16,15–17,1a. La manne dans le livre de la Sagesse, synthèse de traditions et préparation au mystère eucharistique, Rome: Pontif. Ist. Biblico 1994 [Analecta Biblica 132] (cit. Dumoulin, Manne) Dunn, James D. G., Unity and diversity in the New Testament. An enquiry into the character of earliest Christianity, 2nd ed. London: SCM 1990 (cit. Dunn, Unity) Ego, Beate, Im Himmel wie auf Erden: Studien zum Verhältnis von himmlischer und irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum, Tübingen: Mohr 1989 [WUNT 2 / 34] (cit. Ego, Himmel) –, “Der Diener im Palast des himmlischen Königs. Zur Interpretation einer priesterlichen Tradition im rabbinischen Judentum”, Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult

228

Bibliographie

im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, ed. by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Tübingen: Mohr 1991, 361–384 (cit. Ego, Diener) Eichrodt, Walther, Ezekiel. A commentary, London: SCM 1970 (cit. Eichrodt, Ezekiel) Elbogen, Ismar, Studies in the Jewish Liturgy, in Contributions to the scientific study of Jewish liturgy, ed. by Jacob Petuchowski, New York: Ktav 1970,1–51 [orig. JQR 18, 1906] (cit. Elbogen, Studies) –, tr. Raymond Scheindlin, Jewish Liturgy. A Comparative History, Philadelphia / Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society 1993 [based on 3rd German ed. 1931 and Hebrew ed. 1972] (cit. Elbogen, Liturgy) Elior, Rachel, “Mysticism, magic and angelology. The perception of angels in Hekhalot literature”, JSQ 1(1993 / 4), 3–53 (cit. Elior, Mysticism) –, “From earthly temple to heavenly shrines. Prayer and sacred song in the Hekhalot literature and its relation to Temple traditions”, JSQ 4 (1997), 217–267 (cit. Elior, Earthly) El-Khoury, Nabil, “Gen. 1.26 dans l’interpretation de saint Éphrem, ou la relation de l’homme à Dieu”, Rome: Pontif. Ist. Or. 1978, 199–205 [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 205] (cit. El-Khoury, Ephrem) Emerton, J. A., “The origin of the Son of Man imagery”, JTS n. s. 9 (1958), 225–242 (cit. Emerton, Origin) Falk, Daniel, Daily, Sabbath and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998 [STDJ 27] (cit. Falk, Daily) –, “Qumran prayer texts and the Temple”, Sapiential, liturgical and poetical texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the third meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998, ed. by Daniel K. Falk et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 2000, 106–126 (cit. Falk, Prayer) Fiensy, David, Prayers alleged to be Jewish. An examination of the Constitutiones apostolorum, Chico: Scholars Pr. 1985 [Brown Judaic Studies 65] (cit. Fiensy, Prayers) Finet, André, “Anges du Babylonien”, Anges et démons. Actes du colloque de Liège et de Louvain-la-Neuve 25–26 novembre 1987, ed. by Julien Ries, Louvain: Centre d’histoire des religions 1989, 37–52 (cit. Finet, Anges) Finkelstein, Louis, “The development of the Amidah”, in Contributions to the scientific study of Jewish liturgy, ed. by Jacob Petuchowski, New York: Ktav 1970, 91–177 [orig. 1925 / 6] (cit. Finkelstein, Development) Fishbane, Michael, “The ‘Measures’ of God’s glory in the ancient Midrash”, Messiah and Christos. Studies in the Jewish origins of Christianity [FS David Flusser], ed. Ithamar Gruenwald et al., Tübingen: Mohr 1992, 53–74 [TSAJ 32] (cit. Fishbane, Measures) Fitzmyer, J. A., “A feature of Qumran angelology and the angels of 1 Cor xi.10”, NTS 4, 1957–58, 48–58 (cit. Fitzmyer, Feature) Fleischer, Ezra, “The Qedusha of the Amida (and other Qedushot): historical, liturgical and ideological aspects”, Tarbiz 67 (1997–1998), 301–350 (cit. Fleischer, Qedusha) Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T., “The worship of divine humanity as God’s image and the worship of Jesus”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 112–128 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Fletcher-Louis, Worship) –, “Some reflections on angelomorphic humanity texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000), 292–312 (cit. Fletcher-Louis, Reflections)

2. Literature

229

–, All the glory of Adam. Liturgical anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 2002 [STDJ 42] (cit. Fletcher-Louis, Glory) Flew, R. Newton, The idea of perfection in Christian theology. An historical study of the Christian ideal for the present life, London: OUP 1934 (cit. Flew, Perfection) Flusser, David, “Sanktus und Gloria”, in: Abraham unser Vater, Festschr. O. Michel, ed. by O. Betz et al., Brill:Leiden / Cologne 1963, 129–52 (cit. Flusser, Sanktus) –, “Qumran and Jewish ‘apotropaic’ prayers”, IEJ 16, 1966, 194–205 (cit. Flusser, Apotropaic) –, “Jüdische Wurzeln des liturgischen Trishagion”, Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament Bd. 1: Jesusworte und ihre Überlieferung, ed. by Martin Majer, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1987, 245–252 [orig. 1974] (cit. Flusser, Wurzeln) –, “Psalms, hymns and prayers”, Jewish writings of the Second Temple period, ed. M. E. Stone, Assen: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress Pr. 1984, 551–577 (cit. Flusser, Psalms) Fontinoy, Charles, “Les anges et les démons de l’Ancien Testament”, Anges et démons. Actes du colloque de Liège et de Louvain-la-Neuve 25–26 novembre 1987, ed. by Julien Ries, Louvain: Centre d’histoire des religions 1989, 117–134 (cit. Fontinoy, Anges) Forbes, Chris, “Paul’s principalities and powers: demythologising apocalyptic?”, JSNT 82 (2001), 61–88 (cit. Forbes, Principalities I) –, “Pauline demonology and / or cosmology? Principalities, powers and the elements of the world in their Hellenistic context”, JSNT 85 (2002), 51–73 (cit. Forbes, Principalities II) Fossum, Jarl E., The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. Samaritan and Jewish concepts of intermediation and the origin of Gnosticism, Tübingen: Mohr 1985 [WUNT 36] (cit. Fossum, Name) –, “Samaritan Sects and Movements”, The Samaritans, ed. by Alan D. Crown, Tübingen: Mohr 1989, 293–389 (cit. Fossum, Samaritan) –, “The image of the invisible God. Colossians 1.15–18a in the light of Jewish mysticism and gnosticism”, The image of the invisible God. Essays on the influence of Jewish mysticism on early Christology, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1995, 13–39 (cit. Fossum, Image) Freedman, D. N., and B. E. Willoughby, “Mal’ak”, Theologisches Wörterbuch des Alten Testaments vol. 4, ed. G. J. Botterweck et al., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1984, 887–904 (cit. Freedman and Willoughby, Mal’ak) Fröhlich, Ida, “Les enseignements des Veilleurs dans la tradition de Qumrân”, RevQ 13, 1988, 177–187 (cit. Fröhlich, Veilleurs) Gamberoni, J., “Qwm”, Theologisches Wörterbuch des Alten Testaments vol. 6, ed. H.-J. Fabry, H. Ringgren, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1989, 1252–1274 (cit. Gamberoni, Qwm) Gavin, F., “Rabbinic parallels in early church orders“, in Contributions to the scientific study of Jewish liturgy, ed. by Jacob Petuchowski, New York: Ktav 1970, 305–317 [orig. 1929] (cit. Gavin, Parallels) Gieschen, Charles A., Angelomorphic Christology. Antecedents and early evidence, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998 (cit. Gieschen, Christology) –, “The divine Name in ante-Nicene Christology”, VC 57 (2003), 115–158 (cit. Gieschen, Name)

230

Bibliographie

Ginsberg, Louis, An unknown Jewish sect, NY: Ktav 1976 [updated tr. of 1922 German original] (cit. Ginsberg, Unknown) Glazov, Gregory, “The invocation of Ps. 51.17 in Jewish and Christian morning prayer”, JJS 46 (1995), 167–182 (cit. Glazov, Invocation) Gleason, Randall C., “Angels and the eschatology of Heb 1–2”, NTS 49 (2003), 90–107 (cit. Gleason, Angels) Golb, Norman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and pre-Tannaitic Judaism”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 822–851 (cit. Golb, Scrolls) Goldstein, Jonathan A., II Maccabees, commentary, NY: Doubleday 1983 [Anchor Bible] (cit. Goldstein, Maccabees) Goodman, Martin, “Jewish proselytizing in the first century”, The Jews among pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, ed. Judith Lieu et al., London / NY: Routledge 1992, 53–78 (cit. Goodman, Jewish) –, “Sadducees and Essenes after 70 CE”, Crossing the boundaries. Essays in Biblical interpretation in honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. S. Porter et al., Leiden: Brill 1994, 347–356 (cit. Goodman, Sadducees) Gottstein, Alon Goshen, “Four entered paradise revisited”, HTR 88 (1995), 69–133 (cit. Gottstein, Paradise) Goulder, Michael, A tale of two missions, London: SCM 1994 (cit. Goulder, Tale) Grabbe, Lester L., “Orthodoxy in first century Judaism: what are the issues?” JSJ 8 (1977), 149–153 (cit. Grabbe, Orthodoxy) Griffith, S. H., “The marks of the ‘True Church’ according to Ephrem’s Hymns against Heresies”, After Bardaisan. Studies on continuity and change in Syriac Christianity in honour of Prof. Han J. W. Drijvers, ed. by G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist, Leuven: Peeters 1999, 125–140 (cit. Griffith, Marks) Grözinger, Karl-Erich, “Die Namen Gottes und der himmlischen Mächte – ihre Funktion und Bedeutung in der Hekhalot-Literatur”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 13, 1985, 23–41 (cit. Grözinger, Namen) Halivni, David Weiss, “The reception accorded to Rabbi Judah’s Mishnah”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period, ed. by E. P. Sanders et al., London: SCM 1981, 204–212 (cit. Halivni, Reception) Hall, Robert G., “The Ascension of Isaiah: community, situation, date and place in early Christianity”, JBL 109 (1990), 289–306 (cit. Hall, Ascension) Halperin, David, The faces of the chariot. Early Jewish responses to Ezekiel’s vision, Tübingen: Mohr 1988 [TSAJ 16] (cit. Halperin, Faces) Hamacher, Elisabeth, “Die Sabbatopferlieder im Streit um Ursprung und Anfänge der jüdischen Mystik”, JSJ 27 (1996), 119–154 (cit. Hamacher, Streit) Handy, Lowell K., “Dissenting deities or obedient angels: divine hierarchies in Ugarit and the Bible”, BR 35 (1990), 18–35 (cit. Handy, Dissenting) –, Among the host of heaven. The Syro-Palestinian pantheon as bureaucracy, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1994 (cit. Handy, Host) Hannah, Darrell, Michael and Christ: Michael traditions and angel Christology in early Christianity, Tübingen: Mohr 1999 [WUNT 2 / 109] (cit. Hannah, Michael) –, “Isaiah’s vision in the Ascension of Isaiah and the early church”, JTS n. s. 50, 1999, 80–101 (cit. Hannah, Isaiah)

2. Literature

231

–, “The Ascension of Isaiah and docetic Christology”, VC 53 (1999), 165–196 (cit. Hannah, Ascension) R. P. C. Hanson, The search for the Christian doctrine of God. The Arian controversy 318–381, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1988 (cit. Hanson, Search) Harl, Marguérite, “Pointes antignostiques d’Origène: le questionnement impie des Écritures”, Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic religions (FS G. Quispel), ed. by R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren, Leiden: Brill 1981, 205–217 (cit. Harl, Pointes) –, “La préexistence des âmes dans l’oeuvre d’Origène”, Origeniana quarta. Die Referate des 4. internationalen Origeneskongresses (Innsbruck 2.–6. Sept. 1985), ed. by Lothar Lies, Innsbruck / Vienna: Tyrolia 1987, 238–258 (cit. Harl, Préexistence) Harris, J. Rendel, The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends, London: CUP 1903 (cit. Harris, Dioscuri) Hayman, Peter, “Monotheism – a misused word in Jewish studies?”, JJS 42 (1991), 1–15 (cit. Hayman, Monotheism) Hayward, Robert, “The chant of the seraphim and the worship of the second Temple”, PIBA 20 (1997), 62–80 (cit. Hayward, Chant) Heinemann, Joseph, Prayer in the Talmud. Forms and patterns, Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1977 [Studia Judaica 9] (cit. Heinemann, Prayer) Hengel, Martin, Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Tübingen: Mohr 1969 (cit. Hengel, Judentum) –, “The interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the pre-Maccabean period”, The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2, ed. W. D. Davies, L. Finkelstein, Cambridge: UP 1989, 167–228 (cit. Hengel, Interpenetration) –, “‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1” Le trône de Dieu, ed. by Marc Philonenko, Tübingen: Mohr 1993, 108–194 [WUNT 69] (cit. Hengel, Setze) –, “The song about Christ in earliest worship”, Studies in early Christology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1995, 227–291 (cit. Hengel, Song) – and Roland Deines, “E. P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus, and the Pharisees”, JTS n. s. 46 (1995), 1–70 (cit. Hengel and Deines, Sanders) – and Anna Maria Schwemer (eds.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, Tübingen: Mohr 1991 (cit. Hengel and Schwemer, Königsherrschaft) van Henten, J. W., “Angel II”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 50–53 (cit. van Henten, Angel) –, “Archangel”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 80–82 (cit. van Henten, Archangel) Hinnells, John R., “Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and Christianity: some further reflections”, “Agathe elpis”: studi storico-religiosi in onore di Ugo Bianchi, ed. by Giulia Sfameni Gasparro, Rome: Bretschneider 1994, 305–322 (cit. Hinnells, Zoroastrian) Hofius, Otfried, “Gemeinschaft mit den Engeln im Gottesdienst der Kirche. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Skizze”, Neutestamentliche Studien, Tübingen: Mohr 2000, 301–325 [WUNT 132] (cit. Hofius, Gemeinschaft) Holmberg, Bengt, “Jewish versus Christian identity in the early church?” RB 105, 1998, 397–425 (cit. Holmberg, Jewish)

232

Bibliographie

Horbury, William, “The Benediction of the Minim and early Jewish-Christian controversy”, Jews and Christians in contact and controversy, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998, 67–110 [orig. 1982] (cit. Horbury, Benediction) –, “Extirpation and excommunication”, Jews and Christians in contact and controversy, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998, 43–66 [orig. 1985] (cit. Horbury, Extirpation) –, “Jewish-Christian relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr”, Jews and Christians in contact and controversy, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998, 127–161 [orig. 1992] (cit. Horbury, Barnabas) –, “Jerusalem in pre-Pauline and Pauline hope”, Messianism among Jews and Christians, London / NY: T&T Clark 2003, 189–226 [orig. 1996, altered] (cit. Horbury, Jerusalem) –, “Septuagintal and New Testament conceptions of the church”, Messianism among Jews and Christians, London / NY: T&T Clark 2003, 255–272 [orig. 1997] (cit. Horbury, Septuagintal) –, Jewish messianism and the cult of Christ, London: SCM 1998 (cit. Horbury, Cult) –, “Messianism in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, Messianism among Jews and Christians, London / NY: T&T Clark 2003, 35–64 [orig. 1998] (cit. Horbury, Messianism) –, “Early Christians on synagogue prayer and imprecation”, in Jews and Christians in contact and controversy, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998, 226 – 243 (cit. Horbury, Early) –, “The cult of Christ and the cult of the saints”, Messianism among Jews and Christians, London / NY: T&T Clark 2003, 351–380 [orig. 1998] (cit. Horbury, Christ) –, “Jewish and Christian monotheism in the Herodian age”, Exploring early Christian and Jewish monotheism, ed. by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy Sproston North, London: T&T Clark (forthcoming 2004) (cit. Horbury, Herodian) van der Horst, P. W., “The Birkat ha-minim in recent research”, Hellenism-JudaismChristianity. Essays on their interaction, 2nd ed. Leuven: Peeters 1998, 113–124 (cit. van der Horst, Birkat) –, “Hosios kai Dikaios”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 427–428 (cit. van der Horst, Hosios) Hultgård, Anders, “Das Judentum in der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit und die iranische Religion – ein religionsgeschichtliches Problem”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 19.1, ed. by Wolfgang Haase, Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1979, 512–590 (cit. Hultgård, Judentum) Hunt, Emily J., Christianity in the second century. The case of Tatian, London / NY: Routledge 2003 (cit. Hunt, Tatian) Hurtado, Larry W., One God, one Lord. Early Christian devotion and ancient Jewish monotheism, 2nd rev. ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998 (cit. Hurtado, One) –, “First-century Jewish monotheism”, JSNT 71 (1998), 3–26 (cit. Hurtado, Monotheism) –, “The binitarian shape of early Christian worship”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 187–213 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Hurtado, Binitarian) –, Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans 2003 (cit. Hurtado, Lord)

2. Literature

233

Isser, Stanley J., The Dositheans. A Samaritan sect in late antiquity, Leiden: Brill 1976 (cit. Isser, Dositheans) –, “The Samaritans and their sects”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 569–595 (cit. Isser, Samaritans) Jackson, A. V. Williams, “Amesha Spentas”, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, vol. 1, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1908, 384–385 (cit. Jackson, Amesha) Jacob, Edmond, Ras Shamra-Ugarit et l’Ancien Testament, Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé 1960 (cit. Jacob, Ras) Jacobsen, Thorkild, The treasures of darkness. A history of Mesopotamian religion, New Haven / London: Yale UP 1976 (cit. Jacobsen, Treasures) Jacobson, Howard, A commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum with Latin text and English translation, 2 vols, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1996 (cit. Jacobson, Commentary) Jaubert A., “Thèmes lévitiques dans la Prima Clementis”, VC 18, 1964, 193–203 (cit. Jaubert, Thèmes) Jörns, Klaus-Peter, Das hymnische Evangelium. Untersuchungen zu Aufbau, Funktion und Herkunft der hymnischen Stücke in der Johannesoffenbarung, Gütersloh: Mohn 1971 (cit. Jörns, Hymnische) Johnson, Maxwell E., “The origins of the anaphoral use of the sanctus and epiclesis revisited: the contribution of Gabriele Winkler and its implications”, Crossroad of cultures. Studies in liturgy and patristics in honor of Gabriele Winkler, ed. by H.-J. Feulner et al., Rome: Pont. Ist. Or. 2000, 405–442 [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 260] (cit. Johnson, Origins) Joines, Karen R., “Winged serpents in Isaiah’s inaugural vision”, JBL 86 (1967), 410–415 (cit. Joines, Winged) Juhl, Diana, Die Askese im Liber graduum und bei Afrahat. Eine vergleichende Studie zur frühsyrischen Frömmigkeit, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1996, 41–43 [= Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 9] (cit. Juhl, Askese) Kapelrud, Arvid S., “The gates of Hell and the guardian angels of Paradise”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 70 (1950), 151–156 (cit. Kapelrud, Gates) Kellens, Jean, “Les Fravaši”, Anges et démons. Actes du colloque de Liège et de Louvainla-Neuve 25–26 novembre 1987, ed. by Julien Ries, Louvain: Centre d’histoire des religions 1989, 99–114 (cit. Kellens, Fravaši) Kelly J. N. D., Golden Mouth. The story of John Chrysostom – ascetic, preacher, bishop, London: Duckworth 1995 (cit. Kelly, Golden) Kessler, Edward, “The exegetical encounter between the Greek Church Fathers and the Palestinian rabbis”, StPatr 34 (2001), 395–412 (cit. Kessler, Exegetical) Kimelman, Reuven, “Birkat ha-Minim and the lack of evidence for an anti-Christian Jewish prayer in late antiquity”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period, ed. by E. P. Sanders et al., London: SCM 1981, 226–244 (cit. Kimelman, Birkat) Kirsten, E., “Edessa”, RAC vol. 4, Stuttgart: Hiersemann 1959, 552–597 (cit. Kirsten, Edessa) Klener, Julien, “Démonologie talmudique et ashkénaze”, Anges et démons. Actes du colloque de Liège et de Louvain-la-Neuve 25–26 novembre 1987, ed. by Julien Ries, Louvain: Centre d’histoire des religions 1989, 177–201 (cit. Klener, Démonologie)

234

Bibliographie

Klijn, A. F. J., “The influence of Jewish theology on the Odes of Solomon and the Acts of Thomas”, Aspects du Judéo-Christianisme. Colloque de Strasbourg 23–25 avril 1964, Paris: Pr. universitaires de France 1965, 167–179 (cit. Klijn, Influence) Klinzing, Georg, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1971 (cit. Klinzing, Umdeutung) König, Franz B., Die Amesha Spentas des Awesta und die Erzengel im Alten Testament. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana 1935 [dissertation excerpt, 61 pp.] (cit. König, Amesha) Kohler, Kaufman, 'The origin and composition of the Eighteen Benedictions with a translation of the corresponding Essene prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions', Contributions to the scientific study of Jewish liturgy, ed. by Jacob Petuchowski, New York: Ktav 1970, 52–90 [orig. 1924] (cit. Kohler, Origin) Kohut, Alexander, “Über die jüdische Angelologie und Dämonologie in ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Parsismus”, Abhandlungen der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4.3, Leipzig 1866 (cit. Kohut, Angelologie) Koltun-Fromm, Naomi, “A Jewish-Christian conversation in fourth-century Persian Mesopotamia”, JJS 47 (1996), 45–63 (cit. Koltun-Fromm, Conversation) –, “Yokes of the Holy-Ones: the embodiment of a Christian vocation”, HTR 94 (2001), 205–218 (cit. Koltun-Fromm, Yokes) van Koppen, F., and K. van der Toorn, “Holy One”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 415–418 (cit. van Koppen and van der Toorn, Holy) Kotansky, Roy, “Two inscribed Jewish Aramaic amulets from Syria”, IEJ 41 (1991), 267–81 (cit. Kotansky, Two) Kraeling, Carl H., Anthropos and Son of Man. A study in the religious syncreticism of the Hellenistic Orient, New York: AMS Pr. 1966 [repr. of 1927] (cit. Kraeling, Anthropos) Kraemer, David, “The formation of rabbinic canon: authority and boundaries”, JBL 110 (1991), 613–630 (cit. Kraemer, Formation) Kretschmar, Georg, Studien zur frühchristlichen Trinitätstheologie, Tübingen: Mohr 1956, [Beitr. z. hist. Theologie 21] (cit. Kretschmar, Studien) Kronholm, Tryggve, Motifs from Genesis 1–11 in the genuine hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, with particular reference to the influence of Jewish exegetical tradition, Lund: Gleerup 1978 (cit. Kronholm, Motifs) Kuhn, H. B., “The angelology of the non-canonical Jewish apocalypses”, JBL 67, 1948, 217–232 (cit. Kuhn, Angelology) Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966 [SUNT 4] (cit. Kuhn, Enderwartung) Kuhn, Karl Georg, “Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion”, ZTK 49, Tubingen 1952, 296–316 (cit. Kuhn, Sektenschrift) Lamberigts, S., “Le sens de qdwšym dans les textes de Qumrân”, ETL 46 (1970), 24–39 (cit. Lamberigts, Sens) Landsberger, Franz, “The origin of the winged angel in Jewish art”, HUCA 20 (1947), 227–254 (cit. Landsberger, Origin) Larson, Erik, “4Q470 and the angelic rehabilitation of King Zedekiah”, Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), 210–228 (cit. Larson, Angelic)

2. Literature

235

Leaney, A. R. C., The Rule of Qumran and its meaning. Introduction, translation and commentary, London: SCM 1966 (cit. Leaney, Rule) Le Boulluec, Alain, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque (II e –III e siècles), 2 vols. (continuously paginated), Paris: Études Augustiniennes 1985 (cit. Le Boulluec, Notion) Lehnardt, Thomas, “Der Gott der Welt ist unser König. Zur Vorstellung von der Königsherrschaft Gottes im Shema und seinen Benediktionen”, Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, ed. by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Tübingen: Mohr 1991, 285–307 (cit. Lehnardt, Gott) Leibovici, Marcel, “Génies et démons en Babylonie”, Génies, anges et démons (no ed.), Paris: Seuil 1971, 85–112 [Sources Orientales 8] (cit. Leibovici, Génies) Levene, Dan, “‘… and by the name of Jesus …’ An unpublished magic bowl in Jewish Aramaic”, JSQ 6 (1999), 283–308 (cit. Levene, Jesus) Levertoff, Paul, “Synagogue worship in the first century”, Liturgy and worship. A companion to the prayer books of the Anglican Communion, ed. by W. K. L. Clarke and C. Harris, London: SPCK 1947, 60–77 (cit. Levertoff, Synagogue) Levine, Lee I., Caesarea under Roman rule, Leiden: Brill 1975 (cit. Levine, Caesarea) Levison, John R. “The prophetic spirit as an angel according to Philo”, HTR 88, 1995, 189–207 (cit. Levison, Prophetic) Lies, Lothar, Origenes’ “Peri Archon”. Eine undogmatische Dogmatik. Einführung und Erläuterung, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1992 (cit. Lies, Origenes) Lieu, Judith, “‘The parting of the ways’: theological construct or historical reality?” Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing early Christianity, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 2002, 11–29 [orig. 1994] (cit. Lieu, Parting) –, “‘Impregnable ramparts and walls of iron’. Boundary and identity in early ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’”, NTS 49 (2003), 297–313 (cit. Lieu, Impregnable) Ligier Louis, “Autour du sacrifice eucharistique. Anaphores orientales et anamnèse juive de Kippur”, NRT 82, 1960, 40–55 (cit. Ligier, Sacrifice) Löhr, Hermut, “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel. Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran”, Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, ed. by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer,Tübingen: Mohr 1991, 185–205 (cit. Löhr, Thronversammlung) Lorenz, Rudolf, Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1979 [Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 31] (cit. Lorenz, Arius) Lüdemann, Gerd, “The successors of pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: a critical evaluation of the Pella-tradition”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 1: the shaping of Christianity in the second and third centuries, ed. by E. P. Sanders, London: SCM 1980, 161–173 (cit. Lüdemann, Successors) Lyman, J. Rebecca, Christology and cosmology. Models of divine activity in Origen, Eusebius and Athanasius, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1993 (cit. Lyman, Christology) Macdonald, John, The theology of the Samaritans, London: SCM 1964 (cit. Macdonald, Theology)

236

Bibliographie

Mach, Michael, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, Tübingen: Mohr 1992 [TSAJ 34] (cit. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien) –, “Concepts of Jewish monotheism during the Hellenistic period”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 21–42 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Mach, Concepts) Maier, Johann, Vom Kultus zur Gnosis. Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte der “jüdischen Gnosis”. Bundeslade, Gottesthron und Märkabah, Salzburg: Müller 1964 (cit. Maier, Kultus) –, “Zu Kult und Liturgie der Qumrangemeinde”, RevQ 14 (1989–90), 543–586 (cit. Maier, Liturgie) Markschies, Christoph, “Die Krise einer philosophischen Bibeltheologie in der Alten Kirche oder: Valentin und die valentinianische Gnosis zwischen philosophischer Bibelinterpretation und mythologischer Häresie”, Gnosis und Manichäismus. Forschungen und Studien zu Texten von Valentin und Mani sowie zu den Bibliotheken von Nag Hammadi und Medinet Madi, ed. A. Böhlig, C. Markschies, Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1994, 1–37 (cit. Markschies, Krise) –, Between two worlds. Structures of earliest Christianity, London: SCM 1999 (cit. Markschies, Between) Markus, R. A., “The problem of self-definition: from sect to church”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 1: the shaping of Christianity in the second and third centuries, ed. by E. P. Sanders, London: SCM 1980, 1–15 (cit. Markus, Problem) Marmorstein A., “Anges et hommes dans l’Agada”, REJ 84 (1927), 37–50; 138–40 (cit. Marmorstein, Anges) Masson, Michel, “L’expérience mystique du prophète Élie: ‘Qol demama daqqa’”, RHR 208 (1991), 243–272. (cit. Masson, Élie) Mathews, Edward G., “‘On Solitaries’: Ephrem or Isaac”, Mus 103 (1990), 91–110 (cit. Mathews, Solitaries) McEleney, Neil J., “Orthodoxy in Judaism of the first Christian century”, JSJ 4 (1973), 19–42 (cit. McEleney, Orthodoxy) –, “Orthodoxy in Judaism of the first Christian century: replies to David E. Aune and Lester L. Grabbe”, JSJ 9 (1978), 83–88 (cit. McEleney, Replies) McVey, Kathleen E., “Saint Ephrem’s understanding of spiritual progress: some points of comparison with Origen of Alexandria”, The Harp 1 (1988), 117–128 (cit. McVey, Saint) Meeks, Wayne, and Robert Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the first four centuries of the common era, Missoula: Scholars 1978 (cit. Meeks and Wilken, Antioch) Meier, S. A., “Angel I”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 45–50 (cit. Meier, Angel) –, “Angel of Yahweh”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 53–59 (cit. Meier, Yahweh) Merlan, P., “The Old Academy”, Cambridge history of later Greek and early medieval philosophy, ed. by A. H. Armstrong, Cambridge: UP 1967, 14–38 (cit. Merlan, Academy) Merx, Adalbert, Der Messias oder Ta’eb der Samaritaner, Gießen: Töpelmann 1909 (cit. Merx, Messias)

2. Literature

237

Mettinger, T. N. D., “Cherubim”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 189–192 (cit. Mettinger, Cherubim) Metzger, Martin, “Jahwe, der Kerubenthroner, die von Keruben flankierte Palmette und Sphingenthrone aus dem Libanon”, ‘Wer ist we du, HERR, unter den Göttern?’ Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels, Festschrift Otto Kaiser, ed. by Ingo Kottsieper et al., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1994, 75–90 (cit. Metzger, Jahwe) Meyer, Eduard, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, 3 vols., Berlin: Cotta’sche 1921–1923 (cit. Meyer, Ursprung) Michl, J., “Ephräm und die neun Chöre der Engel”, TQ 118 (1937), 474–491 (cit. Michl, Ephräm) –, art. “Engel. I–IX”, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum vol. 5, ed. Theodor Klauser, Stuttgart: Hiersemann 1962, 53–258 (cit. Michl, Engel) Milik, J. T., Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l’époque romaine, Paris: Geuthner 1972 (cit. Milik, Dédicaces) –, “Milki-sedeq et Milki-reša dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens”, JJS 23, 1972, 95–144 (cit. Milik, Milki-sedeq) Miller, James E., “The Mælæk of Tyre (Ezekiel 28.11–19), ZAW 105 (1993), 497–501 (cit. Miller, Mælæk) Mimouni, Simon C., “Pour une définition nouvelle du Judéo-Christianisme ancien”, NTS 38 (1992), 161–186 (cit. Mimouni, Définition) –, “Les Nazoréens. Recherche étymologique et historique”, RB 105 (1998), 208–262 (cit. Mimouni, Nazoréens) Mitchell, Stephen, Anatolia. Land, men and gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1993 (cit. Mitchell, Anatolia) –, “The cult of Theos Hypsistos between pagans, Jews and Christians,” Pagan monotheism in late antiquity, ed. by Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1999, 81–148 (cit. Mitchell, Cult) Montgomery, James, The Samaritans. The earliest Jewish sect. Their history, theology and literature, Philadelphia: Winston 1907 (cit. Montgomery, Samaritans) Morray-Jones, C. R. A., Merkabah mysticism and talmudic tradition (unpublished Cambridge PhD), 1988 (cit. Morray-Jones, Merkabah) –, “Hekhalot literature and Talmudic tradition: Alexander’s three test cases”, JSJ 22, 1991, 1–39 (cit. Morray-Jones, Hekhalot) –, “Transformational mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkabah tradition”, JJS 43, 1992, 1–31 (cit. Morray-Jones, Transformational) –, “Paradise revisited (2 Cor 12.1–12): the Jewish mystical background of Paul’s apostolate. Part 1: the Jewish sources”, HTR 86 (1993), 177–217 (cit. Morray-Jones, Paradise I) –, “Paradise revisited (2 Cor 12.1–12): the Jewish mystical background of Paul’s apostolate. Part 2: Paul’s heavenly ascent and its significance”, HTR 86 (1993), 265–292 (cit. Morray-Jones, Paradise II) Moulton, James Hope, art. “Fravashi”, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, vol. 6, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1913, 116–118 (cit. Moulton, Fravashi) Murray, Robert, Symbols of church and kingdom. A study in early Syriac tradition, Cambridge: UP 1975, repr. with corrections 1977 (cit. Murray, Symbols)

238

Bibliographie

–, “The characteristics of earliest Syriac Christianity”, East of Byzantium. Syria and Armenia in the formative period (Dumbarton Oaks symposium 1980), ed. by N. G. Garsoïan et al., Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center 1982, 3–16 (cit. Murray, Characteristics) –, “Ephraem Syrus”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. by G. Krause and G. Müller, vol. 9, Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1982, 755–762 (cit. Murray, Ephraem) –, “The origin of Aramaic ‘ir, angel”, Or n. s. 53, 1984, 303–317 (cit. Murray, Origin) –, “Some themes and problems of early Syriac angelology”, Symposium Syriacum 1988, ed. by René Lavenant, Rome: Pontif. Ist. Stud. Orient. 1990, 143–153 [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236] (cit. Murray, Themes) –, “‘Circumcision of heart’ and the origins of the qyama”, After Bardaisan. Studies on continuity and change in Syriac Christianity in honour of Prof. Han J. W. Drijvers, ed. by G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist, Leuven: Peeters 1999, 201–211 (cit. Murray, Circumcision) Naudé, Jacobus A., “Holiness in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, The Dead Sea Scrolls after fifty years: a comprehensive assessment, ed. by Peter W. Flint, James C. Vanderkam, Vol. 2, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 171–199; 189 (cit. Naudé, Holiness) Nautin, Pierre, Origène. Sa vie et son oeuvre, Paris: Beauchesne 1977 (cit. Nautin, Origène) Naveh J. and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and magic bowls. Aramaic inscriptions of late antiquity, Jerusalem: Magnes Pr. 1985 (cit. Naveh, Amulets) Neeb, John H. C., “Origen’s interpretation of Genesis 28.12 and the rabbis”, Origeniana sexta. Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible, ed. by Gilles Dorival et al., Leuven: Peeters 1995, 71–80 (cit. Neeb, Origen) Neher, André, “Le voyage mystique des quatre”, RHR 140 (1951), 59–82 (cit. Neher, Voyage) Neusner, Jacob, The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70, 3 vols., Leiden 1971 (cit. Neusner, Rabbinic) –, “Mr. Maccoby’s red cow, Mr. Sanders’ Pharisees – and mine”, JSJ 23, 1992, 81–98 (cit. Neusner, Maccoby) Newman, Carey C., Paul’s Glory-Christology. Tradition and rhetoric, Leiden / NY / Copenhagen / Köln: Brill 1992 [Novum Testamentum Suppl. 69] (cit. Newman, Glory) Newsom, Carol A., “Merkabah exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot” JJS 38, 1987, 11–30 (cit. Newsom, Merkabah) –, “‘He has established for himself priests’: human and angelic priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot”, Archaeology and history in the Dead Sea Scrolls: the New York University conference in memory of Yigael Yadin, ed. by Lawrence H. Schiffmann, Sheffield: JSOT 1990, 101–120 [JSP Suppl. 8] (cit. Newsom, Established) –, “‘Sectually explicit’ literature from Qumran”, The Hebrew Bible and its interpreters, ed. by William Propp et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1990, 167–187 (cit. Newsom, Sectually) Nitzan, Bilha, Qumran prayer and religious poetry, tr. Jonathan Chapman, Leiden / NY / Köln: Brill 1994 [STDJ 12] (cit. Nitzan, Prayer) –, “The idea of holiness in Qumran poetry and liturgy”, Sapiential, liturgical and poetical texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the third meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998, ed. by Daniel K. Falk et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 2000, 127–145 (cit. Nitzan, Idea)

2. Literature

239

Nogueira, Paulo Augusto de Souza, “Celestial worship and ecstatic-visionary experience”, JSNT 25.2 (2002), 165–184 (cit. Nogueira, Celestial) Noll, Stephen F., “Communion of angels and men and ‘realised eschatology’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Proceedings of the eighth world congress of Jewish studies, Jerusalem, August 16–21 1981, Division A: The period of the Bible, [no ed.], Jerusalem: Magnes Pr. 1982, 91–97 (cit. Noll, Communion) Norelli, Enrico, Ascensio Isaiae. Commentarius, Brepols: Turnhout 1995 [Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum 8] (cit. Norelli, Ascensio) Oden, R. A., “The persistence of Canaanite religion”, Biblical Archeologist 39 (1976), 31–36 (cit. Oden, Persistence) Oesterley, W. O. E., “Persian angelology and demonology”, Occident and Orient. M. Gaster anniversary volume, ed. by B. Schindler, A. Marmorstein, London: Taylor’s Foreign Press 1936, 457–466 (cit. Oesterley, Persian) Olson, Daniel C., “‘Those who have not defiled themselves with women’: Revelation 14.4 and the book of Enoch”, CBQ 59 (1997), 492–510 (cit. Olson, Defiled) Olyan, Saul M., Asherah and the cult of Yahweh in Israel, Atlanta: Scholars Pr. 1988 [SBL monograph 34] (cit. Olyan, Asherah) –, A thousand thousands served him. Exegesis and the naming of angels in ancient Judaism, Tübingen: Mohr 1993 [TSAJ 36] (cit. Olyan, Thousand) O’Neill, J. C., “The origins of monasticism”, The making of orthodoxy. Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. Williams, Cambridge: UP 1989, 270–287. (cit. O’Neill, Origins) Osborn, Eric Francis, Justin Martyr, Tübingen: Mohr 1973 (cit. Osborn, Justin) –, The emergence of Christian theology, Cambridge: UP 1993 (cit. Osborn, Emergence) Pelikan, Jaroslav, “The two sees of Peter. Reflections on the pace of normative selfdefinition east and west”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 1: the shaping of Christianity in the second and third centuries, ed. by E. P. Sanders, London: SCM 1980, 57–73 (cit. Pelikan, Two) Petersen, William L., “The Christology of Aphrahat the Persian sage: an excursus on the 17th Demonstration”, VC 46 (1992), 241–256 (cit. Petersen, Christology) Peterson, Erik, The angels and the liturgy. The status and significance of the holy angels in worship, New York: Herder 1964 [tr. of Das Buch von den Engeln, 1935] (cit. Peterson, Angels) . Epigraphische, formengeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Unter–, suchungen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1926 (cit. Peterson, ET) Pfeifer, Gerhard, Ursprung und Wesen der Hypostasenvorstellung im Judentum, Stuttgart: Calwer 1967 (cit. Pfeifer, Ursprung) Pfeiffer, Robert H., “Cherubim”, JBL 41 (1922), 249–50 (cit. Pfeiffer, Cherubim) Philonenko Marc, “Philon d’Alexandrie et l’ ‘instruction sur les deux esprits’”, Hellenica et Judaica: hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. by A. Caquot et al., Leuven: Peeters 1986, 61–68 (cit. Philonenko, Philon) Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East in pictures, relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. with supplement, Princeton: UP 1969 (cit. Pritchard, Ancient) James D. Purvis, “The Samaritans”, The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2, ed. by W. D. Davies, L. Finkelstein, Cambridge: UP 1989, 591–613 (cit. Purvis, Samaritans) Puech, Émile, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle. Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaisme ancien, vol. 1, La résurrection des

240

Bibliographie

morts et le contexte scripturaire, vol. 2, Les données Qumraniennes et classiques, Paris: Gabalda 1993 (cit. Puech, Croyance) Quispel, Gilles, “L’Évangile selon Thomas et les origines de l’ascèse chrétienne”, Aspects du Judéo-Christianisme. Colloque de Strasbourg 23–25 avril 1964, Paris: Pr. universitaires de France 1965, 35–52 (cit. Quispel, Évangile) Recheis, Athanas, “Engel, Tod und Seelenreise. Das Wirken der Geister beim Heimgang des Menschen in der Lehre der alexandrinischen und kappadokischen Väter”, Temi e Testi 4, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 1958 (cit. Recheis, Engel) Reed, Annette Yoshiko, “From Azael and Šemihazah to Uzziah, Azzah and Azael: 3 Enoch 5 (§§ 7–8) and Jewish reception-history of 1 Enoch”, JSQ 8 (2000), 105–136 (cit. Reed, Asael) Regev, Eyal, “Abominated temple and a holy community: the formation of the notions of purity and impurity in Qumran”, Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003), 243–278 (cit. Regev, Abominated) Reif, Stefan C., Judaism and Hebrew prayer. New perspectives on Jewish liturgical history, Cambridge: UP 1993 (cit. Reif, Judaism) Reijnen, Anne Marie, L’ange obstiné. Ténacité de l’imaginaire spirituel, Geneva: Labor et Fides 2000 [Entrée libre 46] (cit. Reijnen, L’ange) Reiling J., “Melchizedek”, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, ed. by K. van Toorn et al., 2nd edition, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1998, 560–563 (cit. Reiling, Melchizedek) Rendtorff, Rolf, “El, Ba’al und Jahwe. Erwägungen zum Verhältnis kanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion”, ZAW 78 (1966), 277–91 (cit. Rendtorff, El) Ringgren, Helmer, Word and Wisdom. Studies in the hypostatization of divine qualities and functions in the ancient Near East, Lund: Hakan Ohlssons 1947 (cit. Ringgren, Word) –, tr. by John Sturdy, Religions of the Ancient Near East, London: SPCK 1973 (cit. Ringgren, Religions) –, “Geister, Dämonen, Engel II”, Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart vol. 2, ed. Kurt Galling et al., Tübingen: Mohr 31958, 1301–2 (cit. Ringgren, Geister) –, The Faith of Qumran. Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, repr. with intro. by J. H. Charlesworth, New York: Crossroad 1995 [orig. 1963] (cit. Ringgren, Faith) Ritter, Adolf M., “Glaubensbekenntnisse V. Alte Kirche”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 13, ed. Gerhard Müller et al., Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1984, 399–412 (cit. Ritter, Glaubensbekenntnisse) Rofé, Alexander, “Isaiah 59:19 and Trito-Isaiah’s vision of redemption”, The Book of Isaiah. Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, ed. by Jacques Vermeylen, Leuven: Peeters 1989, 407–410 (cit. Rofé, Isaiah) Roukema, Riemer, “‘Die Liebe kommt nie zu Fall’ (1 Kor 13,8A) als Argument des Origenes gegen einen neuen Abfall der Seelen von Gott”, Origeniana septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, ed. by W. A. Bienert and U. Kühneweg, Leuven: Peeters 1999, 15–23 (cit. Roukema, Liebe) Rouwhorst G., “Jewish liturgical traditions in early Syriac Christianity”, VC 51 (1997), 72–93 (cit. Rouwhorst, Jewish) Rowland, Christopher, The Open Heaven. A study of apocalyptic in Judaism and early Christianity, London: SPCK 1982 (cit. Rowland, Open)

2. Literature

241

–, “A man clothed in linen. Daniel 10.6 ff. and Jewish angelology”, JSNT 24, 1985, 99–110 (cit. Rowland, Man) –, “The parting of the ways: the evidence of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic and mystical material”, Jews and Christians. The parting of the ways AD 70–135, ed. by James D. G. Dunn, repr. with new translations Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1999 [orig. 1992], 213–237 (cit. Rowland, Parting) –, “Apocalyptic: the disclosure of heavenly knowledge”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 776–797 (cit. Rowland, Apocalyptic) Rudolph, Kurt, “The baptist sects”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 471–500 (cit. Rudolph, Baptist) Runia, David T., Philo in early Christian literature. A survey, Assen: Van Gorcum 1993 (cit. Runia, Philo) Sanders, E. P., Judaism: practice and belief 63 BCE-66 CE, London: SCM 1992 (cit. Sanders, Judaism) –, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. Five Studies, London: SCM 1990 (cit. Sanders, Law) Schäfer, Peter, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen. Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung, Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1975 (cit. Schäfer, Rivalität) –, “Engel und Menschen in der Hekhalot-Literatur”, Kairos 22 (1980), 201–225 (cit. Schäfer, Engel) –, “Tradition and redaction in Hekhalot literature”, in Hekhalot-Studien, Tübingen: Mohr 1988 [TSAJ 19], 8–16 (cit. Schäfer, Tradition) –, “The aim and purpose of early Jewish mysticism”, in Hekhalot-Studien, Tübingen: Mohr 1988 [TSAJ 19], 277–295 (cit. Schäfer, Aim) Schaper, Joachim, “The Pharisees”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 402–427 (cit. Schaper, Pharisees) Schechter, Solomon, Selected Writings, ed. by Norman Bentwich, Oxford: Phaidon Pr. 1946 (cit. Schechter, Selected) Schiffmann, Lawrence H., “At the crossroads: Tannaitic perspectives on the JewishChristian schism”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period, ed. by E. P. Sanders et al., London: SCM 1981, 115–156 (cit. Schiffmann, Crossroads) –, “Merkavah speculation at Qumran: the 4Q Serekh Shirot “Olat ha-Shabbat”, Mystics, philosophers and politicians. Essays in Jewish intellectual history in honor of Alexander Altmann, ed. by Jehuda Reinharz and Daniel Swetschinski, Durham, NC: Duke UP 1982, 15–47 (cit. Schiffmann, Merkavah) –, “Pharisaic and Sadducean halakah in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), 285–299 (cit. Schiffmann, Pharisaic) Schmidt, Francis, How the Temple thinks. Identity and social cohesion in ancient Judaism, Sheffield: Academic Pr. 2001 (cit. Schmidt, Temple) Schneider, Heinrich, “Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum”, Bib 30 (1949), 28–65 [later periods: 239–272;435–452; 479–500] (cit. Schneider, Oden)

242

Bibliographie

Scholem, Gershom, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, 2nd edition New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1965 (cit. Scholem, Gnosticism) Schürer, Emil, The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ, rev. ed. by G. Vermes et al., 3 vols., Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1973–1987 (cit. Schürer, History) Schwartz, M., “The Religion of Achaemenian Iran”, Cambridge History of Iran vol. 2, The Median and Achaemenian periods, ed. by Ilya Gershevitch, Cambridge: UP 1985, 664–697 (cit. Schwartz, Religion) Schwemer, Anna Maria, “Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedern aus Qumran”, Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, ed. by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Tübingen: Mohr 1991, 45–118 (cit. Schwemer, König) Scott, J. M., “The triumph of God in 2 Cor 2.14: additional evidence of Merkabah mysticism in Paul”, NTS 42 (1996), 260–281 (cit. Scott, Triumph) Séd, Nicolas, “Les hymnes sur le Paradis de saint Ephrem et les traditions juives”, Mus 81 (1968), 455–501 (cit. Séd, Paradis) Segal, Alan F., Two Powers in Heaven. Early rabbinic reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Leiden: Brill 1977 (cit. Segal, Powers) –, Paul the convert. The apostolate and apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, New Haven / London: Yale UP 1990 (cit. Segal, Convert) –, “The risen Christ and the angelic mediator figures in light of Qumran”, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, New York: Doubleday 1992, 302–328 (cit. Segal, Risen) –, “Paul’s ‘soma pneumatikon’ and the worship of Jesus”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 258–276 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Segal, Paul) –, “Paul and the beginning of Jewish mysticism”, Death, ecstasy and otherworldly journeys, ed. by John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane, NY: State University of New York Pr. 1995, 95–122 (cit. Segal, Mysticism) Shaked, Shaul, “Qumran and Iran: further considerations”, IOS 2 (1972), 433–446 (cit. Shaked, Iran) –, “Iranian influence on Judaism: first century BCE to second century CE”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol. 1, ed. by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, Cambridge: UP 1984, 308–325 (cit. Shaked, Influence) –, “The myth of Zurvan: cosmogony and eschatology”, Messiah and Christos. Studies in the Jewish origin of Christianity (FS David Flusser), ed. Ithamar Gruenwald et al., Tübingen: Mohr 1992, 219–240 [TSAJ 32] (cit. Shaked, Zurvan) –, “ ‘Peace be upon you, exalted angels’. On Hekhalot liturgy and incantation bowls”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995), 198–219 (cit. Shaked, Peace) –, “Jesus in the magic bowls. Apropos Dan Levene’s ‘… and by the name of Jesus …’”, JSQ 6 (1999), 309–319 (cit. Shaked, Jesus) Sheppard, A. R. R., “Pagan cults of angels in Roman Asia Minor”, Talanta 12–13 (1980– 81), 77–101 (cit. Sheppard, Pagan) Sigal, Phillip, “Early Christian and Rabbinic liturgical affinities: exploring liturgical acculturation”, NTS 30, Cambridge 1984, 63–90 (cit. Sigal, Early)

2. Literature

243

Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel. A study of the relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425), tr. H. McKeating, Oxford: UP 1986 [orig. 1948] (cit. Simon, Verus) Simonetti, Manlio, “Ortodossia ed eresia tra I e II secolo”, Ortodossia ed eresia tra I e II secolo, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino 1994, 11–45 [orig. 1992] (cit. Simonetti, Ortodossia) Smith, Mark S., “Divine form and size in Ugaritic and pre-exilic Israelite religion”, ZAW 100 (1988), 424–427 (cit. Smith, Form) Smith, Morton, “The troublemakers”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 501–568 (cit. Smith, Troublemakers) Sokolowski, F., “Sur le culte d’Angelos dans le paganisme Grec et Romain”, HTR 53, 1960, 225–229 (cit. Sokolowski, Culte) Solin, Heikki, “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnischdemographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände” ANRW II 29.2, ed. H. Temporini, W. Haase, Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1983, 587–789 (cit. Solin, Juden) Spinks, Bryan, “The Jewish liturgical sources for the Sanctus”, HeyJ 21 (1980), 168–79 (cit. Spinks, Sources) –, The sanctus in the eucharistic prayer, Cambridge: UP 1991 (cit. Spinks, Sanctus) Stead, Christopher, Divine substance, Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1977 (cit. Stead, Substance) Stemberger, Günter, “The Sadducees – their history and doctrines”, Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The early Roman period, ed. by William Horbury et al., Cambridge: UP 1999, 428–443 (cit. Stemberger, Sadducees) –, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. Palestine in the fourth century, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 2000 (cit. Stemberger, Jews) Stettler, Christian, Der Kolosserhymnus. Untersuchungen zu Form, traditionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund und Aussage von Kol. 1,15–20, Tübingen: Mohr 2000 [WUNT 2 / 131] (cit. Stettler, Kolosser) Steudel, Annette, “Melchizedek”, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Lawrence H. Schiffmann and James C. VanderKam, vol. 1, Oxford: UP 2000, 535–537. (cit. Steudel, Melchizedek) Stolz, Fritz, “Wesen und Funktion von Monotheismus”, EvT 61 (2001), 172–189 (cit. Stolz, Wesen) Stroumsa, Gedaliahu Guy, “Le couple de l’ange et de l’esprit: traditions juives et chrétiennes”, Savoir et salut, Paris: Cerf 1992, 23–41 [orig. RB 88 (1981), 42–61] (cit. Stroumsa, Couple) –, “Form(s) of God: Some notes on Metatron and Christ”, HTR 76 (1983), 269–288 [also in Savoir et salut] (cit. Stroumsa, Forms) –, “Gnostic secret myths”, Tradition und Translation. Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene [FS Carsten Colpe], ed. by Christoph Elsas et al., Berlin / NY: de Gruyter 1994, 26–41 (cit. Stroumsa, Gnostic) Strugnell, J., “The angelic liturgy at Qumran – 4QSerek Širot “Olat haŠŠabbat”, VT Suppl. 7, 1960, 318–345 (cit. Strugnell, Angelic)

244

Bibliographie

Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Angel veneration and Christology. A study in early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John, Tübingen: Mohr 1995 (cit. Stuckenbruck, Veneration) –, “Worship and monotheism in the Ascension of Isaiah”, The Jewish roots of christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews conference on the historical origins of the worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 70–89 [JSJ Suppl. 63] (cit. Stuckenbruck, Worship) –, “The ‘angels’ and ‘giants’ of Genesis 6:1–4 in second and third century BCE Jewish interpretation: reflections on the posture of early apocalyptic traditions”, Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000), 354–377 (cit. Stuckenbruck, Genesis) Taft, Robert, The liturgy of the hours in east and west. The origins of the divine office and its meaning for today, Collegeville: Liturgical Pr. 1986 (cit. Taft, Liturgy) –, “The interpolation of the Sanctus into the anaphora: when and where? A review of the dossier”, OCP 57 (1991), 281–308; 58 (1992), 83–121 (cit. Taft, Interpolation I and II) Tavard, Georges, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte Vol. II.2b: Die Engel, ed. Georges Tavard et al., Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 1968 (cit. Tavard, Engel) Taylor, Joan E. and Philip R. Davies, “The so-called Therapeutae of De vita contemplativa: identity and character”, HTR 91 (1998), 3–24 (cit. Taylor and Davies, Therapeutae) Taylor, Justin, Les actes des deux apôtres, vol. 6, Paris: Gabalda 1996 (cit. Taylor, Actes) Teixidor, Javier, The Pagan God. Popular religion in the Greco-Roman Near East, Princeton: UP 1977 (cit. Teixidor, Pagan) Thee, Francis C. R., Julius Africanus and the early Christian view of magic, Tübingen: Mohr 1984 (cit. Thee, Africanus) Tjäder, Jan-Olof, “Christ, our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary ( and VDN)”, Eranos (Acta Philologica Suecana) 68 (1970), 148–190 (cit. Tjäder, Christ) Trigg, Joseph, “The angel of great counsel. Christ and the angelic hierarchy in Origen’s theology”, JTS n. s. 42 (1991), 35–51 (cit. Trigg, Angel) –, Origen, London / New York: Routledge 1998 (cit. Trigg, Origen) Turmel, Joseph, “Histoire de l’angelologie. Des temps apostoliques à la fin du 5e siècle”, Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 3 (old series), 1898, 289–308, 407–434, 533–552 (cit. Turmel, Histoire) Urbach, Ephraim, “Self-isolation or self-affirmation in Judaism in the first three centuries: theory and practice”, Jewish and Christian self-definition. Volume 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period, ed. by E. P. Sanders et al., London: SCM 1981, 269–298 (cit. Urbach, Self-isolation) VanderKam, James C., Enoch and the growth of an apocalyptic tradition, Washington: Catholic Bibl. Assoc. America 1984 [CBQ Monograph 16] (cit. VanderKam, Enoch) –, “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2”, Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), 300–321 (cit. VanderKam, Genesis) –, “The angel story in the book of Jubilees”, Pseudepigraphic perspectives. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Esther G. Chazon et al., Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill 1999, 151–170 (cit. VanderKam, Angel) –, “The angel of the presence in the book of Jubilees”, Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000), 378–393 (cit. VanderKam, Presence)

2. Literature

245

Viviano, Benedict, and Justin Taylor, “Sadducees, angels and resurrection (Acts 23.8–9)”, JBL 111 (1992), 496–498 (cit. Viviano and Taylor, Sadducees) Verheyden J., “The flight of the Christians to Pella”, ETL 66 (1990), 368–384 (cit. Verheyden, Flight) Vollenweider, Samuel, “Christus als Weisheit. Gedanken zu einer bedeutsamen Weichenstellung in der frühchristlichen Theologie”, Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie, Tübingen: Mohr 2002, 29–51 [WUNT 144] [orig. 1993] (cit. Vollenweider, Christus) –, “Der Menschgewordene als Ebenbild Gottes. Zum frühchristlichen Verständnis der Imago Dei”, Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie, Tübingen: Mohr 2002, 53–70 [WUNT 144] [orig. 1998] (cit. Vollenweider, Ebenbild) –, “Zwischen Monotheismus und Engelchristologie. Überlegungen zur Frühgeschichte des Christusglaubens”, Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie, Tübingen: Mohr 2002, 3–27 [WUNT 144] (cit. Vollenweider, Monotheismus) Vööbus, Arthur, History of asceticism in the Syrian Orient, vol. 1: The origin of asceticism. Early monasticism in Persia, Louvain: CSCO 1958 (cit. Vööbus, Persia) –, History of asceticism in the Syrian Orient, vol. 2: Early monasticism in Mesopotamia and Syria, Louvain: CSCO 1960 (cit. Vööbus, Mesopotamia) Volz, Paul, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. Nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur, Tübingen: Mohr 1934 [repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1966] (cit. Volz, Eschatologie) Wallis Budge, E. A., Assyrian sculptures in the British Museum. Reign of Ashur-Nasir-Pal, 885–860 BC, London: BM Pr. 1914 (cit. Wallis Budge, Assyrian) Ward, William A., “The four-winged serpent on Hebrew seals”, RSO 43 (1968), 135–43 (cit. Ward, Serpent) Warren, A. L., “A Trisagion inserted in the 4QSama version of the Song of Hannah, 1 Sam 2.1–10”, JJS 45 (1994), 278–285 (cit. Warren, Trisagion) Weinfeld, Moshe, “The morning prayers (Birkhoth Hashachar) in Qumran and in the conventional Jewish liturgy”, RevQ 13 (1988), 481–494 (cit. Weinfeld, Morning) –, “The angelic song over the luminaries in the Qumran texts”, Time to prepare the way in the wilderness. Papers on the Qumran scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–90, ed. by Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffmann, Leiden / NY / Köln: Brill 1995, 131–157 (cit. Weinfeld, Angelic) Werner, Eric, “The doxology in synagogue and church”, in Contributions to the scientific study of Jewish liturgy, ed. by Jacob Petuchowski, New York: Ktav 1970,318–370 [orig. 1945 / 6] (cit. Werner, Doxology) Werner, Martin, Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas. Problemgeschichtlich dargestellt, 2nd ed. Bern: Haupt [1953] (dated as 1st ed., 1941) (cit. Werner, Entstehung) Wickham, L. R., “The sons of God and the daughters of men: Genesis vi 2 in early Christian exegesis”, OTS 19, 1974, 135–147 (cit. Wickham, Sons) Widengren, Geo, “Iran and Israel in Parthian times with special regard to the Ethiopic Book of Enoch”, Temenos 2 (1966), 139–177 (cit. Widengren, Iran) Williams, Rowan, Eucharistic sacrifice – the roots of a metaphor, Bramcote: Grove 1982 [Grove Liturgical Studies 31] (cit. Williams, Sacrifice) –, “Does it make sense to speak of pre-Nicene orthodoxy?”, The making of orthodoxy. Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. Williams, Cambridge: UP 1989, 1–23 (cit. Williams, Orthodoxy)

246

Bibliographie

Winkler, Gabriele, Das Sanctus. Über den Ursprung und die Anfänge des Sanctus und sein Fortwirken, Rome: Pontif. Ist. Orientale 2002 [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 267] (cit. Winkler, Sanctus) –, “Beobachtungen zu den im ‘ante Sanctus’ angeführten Engeln und ihre Bedeutung”, TQ 183 (2003), 213–238 (cit. Winkler, Beobachtungen) Wiseman, D. J., “Flying serpents?”, TynBul 23, 1972, 108–110 (cit. Wiseman, Flying) Wolfson, Harry A., The philosophy of the Church Fathers. Vol. 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP 1956 (cit. Wolfson, Philosophy) Zimmermann, Mirjam and Zimmermann, Ruben, “‘Heilige Hochzeit’ der Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter? Spuren des Mythos in Gen 6,1–4”, ZAW 111, 1999, 327–352 (cit. Zimmermann, Hochzeit)

Index of References Old Testament Genesis

37

1 1.1 1.8–10 1.26 3 3.24 5.22 5.24 6 6.2 16.3 16.22 18 18.2 19.1 19.16 19.24 21.22 LXX 22 22.12 32.24–30 38.7 48.15

23, 44n, 139 139n 139n 97, 196 17 16 123 123 21n, 26, 110 82, 171 83 100 20, 57n, 81 100 100 83 105 97 36 100 100 14n 81n

Exodus

89, 101n

3.2 3.2–6 3.5 3.6 4.24 13.21 14.19 15.1–18 15.11 LXX 15.18 19.6 20.17 23 23.20–21

101n 100 111 100 14n, 83 99 99 180 84n 179 117–118 40 99n, 110 99, 101

23.20–23 23.21 24.10 25.9 25.18–22 26.1 26.31 33.1–3 37.7–9

29 101, 102n, 103 96, 104 201 16 16 16 99, 101 16

Leviticus 11.45 20.26

31 116

Numbers 7.89 15.41 20.16 21.6 21.8 21.21 22.22

16 179 99n 17 17 82 82

Deuteronomy 4.15 4.18 4.24 6.4 8.15 18.18 20.2–4 32.8 32.8 LXX 32.17 33.2 33.2 LXX 33.3 LXX 34.6

99n 35n 158 179 17–18 39 108 14, 82, 90 35n, 64, 147 15n 85 130n 84n, 85 66

Joshua 5.14

25n, 105–106, 108

248 5.14 LXX 5.15 6.3–5

Index of References 64, 107 111 108

Judges 6 6.19–21 6.22–23 13 13.2–23 13.15–16 13.22

82 82 101 82 81 82 101

1 Samuel 4.4 28.13

16 87

2 Samuel 6.2 22.11

16 16

1 Kings 6 6.23–28 6.29 8.7 19.12 22.19 22.19–23

17 16 16 16 127–128 35 204n

2 Kings 6.15–17 18.4 19.15 19.23

25n, 82 20 16 100n

1 Chronicles 21.16

97

2 Chronicles 3.10–13 3.14 5.7–8 13.12 36.15

16 16 16 108 84

Ezra

22

Nehemiah

22

Esther

44

Job 1–2 4.18 5.1 15.15 33.23 38.7

21n 65 85, 202n 66 85 35, 67, 82, 199, 204n

Psalms 8.5 11.4 16.3 18.10 24 29 29.1 34.10 40.6–8 42–43 46 51.16 f. 51.17 55.18 68.4 72 72.19 78(77).25 80.1 80.2 82 82.1 85.10 89.6 93 93.1 97(96).7 LXX 99.1 102.20 103 103.1 103.20 103.20 f. 104.4 105(104).40 106.37 118.26 119.164 121.4 136 136.13 138.1 138.1 LXX

82 197 84 16 193n 87, 107, 124 14 84 127 180 180 127 201 198 51n 190 180n, 189–190 111 16 17, 20 83, 132, 203 14, 105, 132 93 68, 110 87 181 82–83 16–17 197 186 51n 111 81n 64, 83, 88, 156, 204n 111 15n 180–181, 189–190, 192 198 90 180 181 199 199

249

Index of References 138(137).1 LXX 141.2 146.10 148 148.1 f.

82, 136 127 179, 181 186, 204n 81n

Proverbs

44

8.22 13.17 15.8

143 90n 116n, 127

Ecclesiastes

44

Song of Songs

44, 97n

Isaiah

19–20

6

17–18, 20, 59, 64, 78, 88, 108, 123, 150–151, 165, 173–174, 181, 191, 196 19n 20 133–136, 179, 180n, 181–190, 192–196 18 83 26 18 18 16 16 48 84 90n 136n 82n, 90, 99n, 106 69n, 90, 167 89 89

6.1–2 6.2 6.3 6.6 9.5 14.12 14.29 30.6 34.14 37.16 44.24 44.26 59.19 60.1 63.9 63.9 LXX 63.9–14 63.11 Jeremiah 23.24

188n

Ezekiel

20, 44, 129–130

1

8–9, 16, 19–20, 44, 98, 99n, 106, 135, 155, 173, 181 20 20 16 128, 185n

1.6 1.7 1.10 1.24

1.26 1.26–28 1.28 2.1 3.12 8 8.2–4 8.16 8.16 f. 9 9.2 9.3 10 10–12 10.1–22 10.14 10.20 28 28.12 28.14–16 41.18 41.25 43.2 44.31 45.20

98 98 97, 122 169 88n, 130, 133–136, 179–184, 187–190, 192–194 98 98 13 34 106 203 16 16, 19–20, 173 108 16 16 16 21n 26 16 16 16 136n 44n 44n

Daniel

20, 22, 24, 84, 89–90, 91n, 93

4 4.10 4.13 4.14 4.20 6.11 6.27 7 7.10 8.16 9.21 10 10.3 10.5–6 12.2

78 89 21 89 89 198 92 15, 84, 110 86n, 189–190 106 106 98, 106 21 98 23

Haggai 1.13

84

Zechariah

146, 152

2–3 3

81n 101, 123

250 4.10 14.9

Index of References 90 51n

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham

Malachi 1.1 2.7 3.1 4.2

84 84, 164 84 35

10.3 11.2 17–18 18

45 102n 98 185 99n

Apocalypse of Moses

Apocrypha 2 Esdras (= 4 Ezra) 14

45, 59, 101n, 109, 146, 152 45

2 Maccabees

6, 88n

3.24 3.25–26 5.2–4 10.29–30 11.8–9 33–34

88n 82 82 82 82 82

Sirach

44

Prologue 24.3 44–50

13n 95 163

17.1 40.2

Apocalypse of Sedrach 2.5

Song of the Three 16 f. Pr Azar 29–68

127 204n

Tobit

22, 26

3.8 8.1–3 11.14 11.14–15 12.15 12.19

23 2n 45n 95 21, 106, 202n 57n

Wisdom of Solomon 5.5 7.22–25 9 9.9–10 16.20 f. 18.9 18.15

84n 142 99 95 111 84n 95

185 200 106–107

99n

Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6.11–15

98

Ascension of Isaiah 13, 54, 56–59, 141 6.6–10 6–11 7.15 (Ethiopic) 7.21 8.5 8.7 8.18 9.5 9.30 9.31 9.35 f. 9.36 9.37 9.40 10 10.12 10.19 11.17 11.23

201 56 57 56 56 57 57 57 57 56 54n 56 96 57 140, 171, 174 57 57 57n 57

2 Baruch

45, 59

51.5 51.10 59.11

60n 33 107

3 Baruch 4.7 (Slavonic) 6 11–12

107 199 202n

251

Index of References 11.6 (Greek) 13.3

107 107

4 Baruch (Paraleipomena of Jeremiah) 9.2–6

185

1 Enoch

4, 10, 16, 21, 23n, 27, 35, 37–38, 54, 84, 88–91, 116, 147n, 171, 185, 189n, 190

1.9 6 6 ff. 6–11 7–8 7.1 8 9–10 9.3 10 10.9 12.2 14 14.20 15.8 18.13–16 20 22.6

86 90n 21 21n 148 2n 2n 106 202n 23 21 21 8, 96 96 88 35 21, 89 89

Similitudes of Enoch (ch 37–71) 15, 23, 37, 88, 95, 103, 184 39 39–40 39.12 39.12–14 40 40.9 41 43.2 46 ff. 48.2 60.16–22 65.6–8 67.13 69.14–26 71.2 71.3 75 86 88

108, 185 189–190 83 88, 181, 184 106 38n 27 35 110 105n 38n 38n 27n 105n 99n 107 35 35 35

89.59 90.14 99.3 102.2 104.1

14 117n 202n 35 202n

2 Enoch 1.4 1.4–5 2.15 5–6 18.1 19.3 19.4 20.1 21.1 22 22.6 31.2 33.10 37 40.10 51.4

97 98n 199 38n 89 107 38n 107 178n, 186 60n 107 13 107 110n 38n 198

3 Enoch 1.12 3.2 9 9–15 12 12.1–5 14.14 15.11 16 17.4–8 21 ff. 22B 22B.5 23.21 26.9 33 34.2 35 35.4 36 39 39.1 40.2 47 48B 48B 2 48D

21n, 46, 98, 102n, 103n, 105n, 109, 181 180 102 97 60n 102 98n 38n 116 102 38n 98 27n 150n 102 19n 98 180 98n 180 48 180, 184–185 105n 195 110n 102, 105n 180 102

252

Index of References

Greek Apocalypse of Ezra

3 Maccabees

1.4 4.24 6.1–2

6.18

107 107 107

History of the Rechabites 16.8c

Jubilees (= Little Genesis)

1.27 1.29 2 2.1 2.2 2.18–21 4.15 4.17 6.37 10.8 15.27 17.16 30.18 31 31.13–17 31.14 33.20 36.7 48.2 50.9

4 Maccabees 4.10 17.19

82 84n

Odes of Solomon

76

9.11

74

Prayer of Jacob

20

Prayer of Joseph

97, 138

fr. A2 fr. A3 fr. A7 f.

204n 105 105

202n

Joseph and Aseneth 14.7 14.9–10 16.14

82

107 98 111n 37–38, 54, 68–69, 79n, 85, 88, 91, 116–117, 119 106 106 48n, 118n, 125 88, 106 38n, 106, 204n 38, 79 116 37 116n 21 39, 106 14n 118 122 118 85 118 105n 14n 117

Ladder of Jacob 2.18

185

Life of Adam and Eve

45, 59

13–16 14

116n 102n

Lives of the Prophets

45, 59

Psalms of Solomon 84 Sibylline Oracles Sib 1.89–100 Sib 2.214 ff. Sib 2.252–255

2n 106 27

Syriac Apocryphal Psalms Syr. Ps. II (Ps. 154) 95n Testament of Abraham rec. A rec. A.3 11–13 12

107 185 60n 27

Testament of Adam 1 1.4 1.10 4.2–4

200 128n, 185 200 38n, 59

Testament of Isaac 5.24 6 6.24

27 185, 189 186

Testament of Job 50.2

127

253

Index of References Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

23, 36n, 37, 59

12.58 f. 20.34–36 22.20

147 73 190n

Testament of Judah 10.2 21.1 f.

14n 36n

Testament of Levi

79n

3 3.4 3.4–6 3.5 5 8 8.2–10 8.4–10

127 96 127n 106 197 125 107 126n

Testament of Naphtali 3.5

89

John 12.39 15.1 17.14 17.16

196n 63 143 143

Acts

86

7.35 7.53 23.8

81 69 29–31, 33

Romans 1.25 6.11–14 8.1–2 8.38

192 112 112 41

Testament of Reuben 5.6 5.6–7

97 89

Testament of Simeon 7.2

36n

Vita Adae

185

33.2 = ApocMos 7.2

200

1 Corinthians 2.10 10.31 11.10 15 15.28

58 205 164 142 146

2 Corinthians 12

96n

Galatians

New Testament

1.8 1.8–9 2.20 3.19

Matthew

55, 59n

5.3–11 5.25 13.47–50 18.10 21.9 24.36 25.6 27.52

112 147 147 76 189, 192 65 201 86n

Mark

59n

2 2.6

12.25

65, 73

Colossians

63

1.12 1.15–20 1.15 ff.

Luke 2.36

55 54n 112 69

Ephesians 4.13 6.12

112 41

Philippians 57n 97

86 111 97

254 1.20 2.3 2.18

Index of References 140 58 55, 61n, 111

1 Thessalonians 3.13

86

1 Timothy 3.16

58n

Hebrews

86

1–2 1.7 2.2 8–10 10.19 f. 12.29

111n 88 69 201 204 158

14 17–25 22 32 36 49 55–57 60 94 124

75 70 76 76 91n 74 76 168n 74 27n, 60, 75

Hymn of the Pearl (from Syr. Act of T.) 75,81 Apocalypse of Paul 43–44

166n

Apocalypse of Peter

60

Apocryphon of James

60

2 Peter 1.17

96

1 John 3.2

151

Jude

86

9 14

23 86

Revelation

48, 86, 155, 185

1.13–16 4.6–8 4.8 4.9 4.9–11 4.10–11 6.9 8.3 8.3–5 14.4 20

98 19 188–189 189n 189n 189n 202 127n, 202n 197 204n 23

NT Apocrypha Acts of John

60

Acts of Pilate

60

Acts of Thomas

74–76, 80, 81n

4–16

75

Gospel of Peter

60

10.40

98

Gospel of the Ebionites

54–55

Gospel of the Hebrews

54–55

Gospel of the Nazarenes

54–55

Gospel of Thomas

55, 60, 93

log. 88 log. 114

60 75

Questions of Bartholomew 4.28 21

204n 98

Philo

1,5, 24, 34, 39, 61, 63–64, 81–82, 91n, 93, 95, 103, 108–109, 113, 138n, 143, 151–152, 175

255

Index of References Cher. 28

25

Conf. 146 174 174–182 179–182

143 139n 148 69n

De providentia 1.82–88

28n

Fug. 66

69, 83n

Gig. 6 12 16

27 89

199 34n

Armenian De Deo Ad Gen 18.2

19n, 20

Pseudo-Philo

45

LAB 13.6 LAB 18.5 LAB 34.3 LAB 53.6

37 38n 2n 115

Josephus

29, 31, 33–34, 36, 39, 82

Ant. 30, 60 60, 145n 60

Leg. All. III.177

81n 140 140

V. contempl. 60, 95 107, 142n 145n 69n

De opif. mundi 6.25 16 73 75

I.231 f. I.232 I.238

10.278 13.5.9 13.10.6 15.136 18.20

32n 28 31 69 34n

81n BJ

Mos. I.66 99 II.97

81n, 101n 25 58n

2.8 2.8.14 2.128 2.142 2.148 2.154 f.

25

c. Ap.

Q. in Exod. II.62

1.8

Q. in Gen. 1.57 II.62

25 95

Quod omn. prob. 75

32 29 35 34 35 34

47

Ezekiel Tragicus Exagoge

34n

68–82

81n 60n

Philo of Byblos 15, 18

60n

Somn. I.69 141

256

Index of References

Classical Authors Herodotus

22n

Plato Laws

64

Pliny the Elder Natural History 5.15.73

34

Xenocrates

60

Dem. 6.19 Dem. 7 Dem. 7.18 Dem. 11 Dem. 18 Dem. 18.1 Dem. 18.4 Dem. 18.8 Dem. 18.9 Dem. 18.12 Dem. 22.16 Dem. 23 Hom. 14.34–35

78 77 74 71n 77 76 77 77 75 78 164 76 204n

Apostolic Constitutions

Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement

59, 189

17 20 34

163 191n 188, 190

Didache

191

8

191

Hermas

13, 59

Vis. 1.3.4 Vis. 1.4.2 Vis. 3 Sim. 8 Sim. 8.12 Sim. 9

204n 38n 59 59 106n 98

Letter of Barnabas 43, 53

60n

Christian Authors Aphrahat

62, 71, 76, 80, 91, 154, 184n

Dem. 1.19 Dem. 6 Dem. 6.1 Dem. 6.2 Dem. 6.4 Dem. 6.5 Dem. 6.6 Dem. 6.14

76 71n, 77–78 72n, 77–78 77 76–77 72n, 78 74n, 75, 77 76

67, 191 188, 196 198 196 196 196 20, 187–189, 193, 196 204n 186, 192, 196 192, 196 190, 193, 196 191 196 196 186, 192, 196 195 198 198

Aristides Apol. 14

Mart. Polycarp 2

7 7.23 7.33–38 7.34 7.34.6 7.35 7.35.2–3 7.35.3 8 8.12 8.12 ff. 8.12.9–20 8.12.16 8.12.27 8.12.28 8.33 8.47

45

Asterios Sophistes De Synodis 18 fr. II 61n De Synodis 33 61n Easter Homily 15 193 Athenagoras Apol 10

38n

Clement of Alexandria

151

Eklogai 57.4 Paid. 2.9 Strom. 1.17

170n 200 175n

257

Index of References Strom. 2.11 Strom. 5.6 Strom. 6.5 Strom. 6.13 Strom. 6.13–14 Strom. 7.2 Strom. 7.3 Strom. 7.7 Strom. 7.10 Strom. 7.12

92 20 45 170 169 175 151n, 169 200 151n 200

Pseudo-Clement

205

Ep. De Virg. 1.4 75 Ep. De Virg. 1.10 75 Ep. De Virg. 2.1–5 75 Ep. Petri 1.3 47 Clem. Hom 54 Clem. Hom 2.22 91–92 Clem. Hom 2.24 91 Clem. Hom 8.12–15 54 Recog. 54 Recog. 1.29 110 Recog. 1.54 29n Recog. 1.72 91 Recog. 2.7 91 Recog. 9.3 109n, 204n Recog. 9.15 204n Cyril of Jerusalem 66–67, 112 Cat. 2.6 Cat. 4.1 Cat. 4.24 Cat. 4.25 Cat. 4.27 Cat. 6.3 Cat. 6.6 Cat. 9.3 Cat. 11.11 Cat. 11.12 Cat. 12.34 Cat. 15.14 Cat. 16.23 Cat. 23.6 (= Myst. 5.6) Myst. Cat. 5 Myst. Cat. 5.6

65 66 66 66 198 66 66, 169 66 66 66 66 66 65

Didascalia

77

21

198

65, 191n 194n 194

Pseudo-Dionysius

65n, 66, 169–170

Hier. Cael. 1.3

170

Hier. Cael. 7.3 Hier. Cael. 8.2

170 170

Doctrina Addai

71–72, 74

Ephrem

7, 58, 62n, 63, 69–71, 91, 115, 136, 152–156, 158–167, 169–175, 207–209

Azym 13.8 Azym 16.16 f. Comm Exod 3 Comm. Diatess. 1.5 Comm. Diatess. 13.4 Comm. Diatess. 14.17 Comm. Diatess. 14.19 Comm. Diatess. 17.13 Comm Gen 1.16 Comm Gen 1.19 Comm Gen 11.12 Comm Gen 13.3–5 Comm Gen 13.4 C Paul arm C Paul arm 55 C Paul arm 70 C Paul arm 175 C. Haer. 7 C. Haer. 7.2 C. Haer. 19 C. Haer. 32.6 C. Haer. 32.14 C. Haer. 48.17 C. Julianum 3.17 Crucif 5.1 De azymis 17.12 De Domino Nostro 4 Eccl 11.4 Eccl 20.10 Eccl 26.7 Eccl 29.9 Eccl 42.3 f. Epiph 4.8 Epiph 6.20 Epiph 8.9 Epiph 9.4 H Fid 3.5

155 155 82 165 204n 155n 163n 167 160 160 168 83n 82 155 164n 164 164 165, 171 98n 165, 171 92, 166 159 159 155 155 197 27 155 159, 163 166 157n 168 164, 168 154, 164 164 170n 157

258 H Fid 3.9 H Fid 4.7–8 H Fid 4.18 H Fid 5.2 H Fid 5.3 H Fid 6.17 H Fid 8.15 H Fid 9.16 H Fid 10 H Fid 10.4 H Fid 10.8–10 H Fid 10.9 H Fid 10.10 H Fid 10.17 H Fid 11.8 H Fid 17.8 H Fid 17.18 H Fid 19.4 H Fid 22.9–10 H Fid 26.3 H Fid 30.1–4 H Fid 30.2 H Fid 40.10 H Fid 41.6 H Fid 46.8 H Fid 51.5 H Fid 55.2 H Fid 55.2–4 H Fid 55.4 H Fid 55.5 H Fid 75.25 f. H Fid 76.7–9 H Fid 81.3 Nat. 1 Nat. 1.41 Nat. 1.53 Nat. 1.61–62 Nat. 1.62 f. Nat. 2.1 Nat. 4,199–201 Nat. 5–20 Nat. 6.13 Nat. 6.23 f. Nat. 6.24 Nat. 21 Nat. 21.4 Nat. 21.11 Nat. 23.8 Nis 31.7 Nis 42.10 Nis 36.2 Nis 66 Parad.

Index of References 128, 166 169 155 157 170 27n 154 156 160 156 158, 165, 191 160, 165 165 160 128 155 155 160, 174 166n 157, 159 154n 159, 162, 174 158 156 163 166 155 155 168–169 110n, 156 162 161 157n 168 167 153 168 168 164 171 154n 165 168 163, 165, 168 154n, 163n 77n, 163–164 154 167 168 164 163 168 81, 172

Parad. 1.10 Parad. 5.4 Parad. 6.24 Parad. 7.15 Parad. 11.2 Parad. 14.9 Pr Ref Pr Ref I 8.40–9.15 Pr Ref II Pr Ref II.21 Pr Ref II 183.38 S Dom 29 S Erem 161–168 S Fid 1 S Fid 1.27–40 S Fid 1.33–41 S Fid 1.36 S Fid 1.41 S Fid 1.43 f. S Fid 1.63–66 S Fid 1.82 f. S Fid 1.109–110 S Fid 1.109–114 S Fid 1.112 S Fid 1.113 f. S Fid 1.127 f. S Fid 1.131 f. S Fid 2.585–588 S Fid 2.585–605 S Fid 4.45–48 S Fid 4.129 f. S Fid 4.131 S Fid 6.273 f. S Fid 6.341 Sog 3.4 Virg 20.12 Virg 21.10 Virg 39.15

110 27n 72, 164 78 164, 166 128, 166 162 159 160n 159 164 167 165 171 167 155 169 155n 156 170 171 128 166 155 169, 171 166 166 161 161 161 161 161 156 156 155 157n 155 163

VitaEph. 33

153

Ps.-Ephrem Serm. Hebd. Sanct. 7.25 ff. 128n Serm. Hebd. Sanct. 128n 7.151 ff. Epiphanius

54, 61, 66–68, 70, 110

De Fide 21.7 f. De Fide 24.7 Pan. 8.6.2–4 Pan. 9.2.3

68 198 68 39n

259

Index of References Pan. 9.4.13 Pan. 19.4.1 Pan. 25.3.1 Pan. 30.16 Pan. 30.16.4 f. Pan. 30.17.6 Pan. 39.6.1 Pan. 40.2.2 Pan. 53.1.9 Pan. 56 Pan. 59.4.1–3 Pan. 60.1.1–2 Pan. 63.4.5 Pan. 65.4.8 Pan. 65.5.4 Pan. 66.3.14 Pan. 66.28.7 f. Pan. 67.3.4 Pan. 69.17.1 Pan. 69.52.1–5 Pan. 69.52.6 Pan. 69.53.7 Pan. 74.8.6–9.6 Pan. 76.54.19

66 98 203 54 55 98 68 54n 98 70n 68 68 72n 67 67 67 71n 54n 67 67 67 68 68n 67

Epistula apostolorum 13

141n

Eusebius of Emesa

66, 69, 112

Homilies 5.15 Homilies 5.29 Homilies 5.30 Homilies 6.6 Homilies 6.17 Homilies 9.8 Homilies 14.18 Homilies 23.9 Homilies 24.5

64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64

Gregory of Nazianzus II Theol. Or. 3

150n

Gregory Thaumaturgus Panegyric 4

146n

Hippolytus ApTrad ApTrad ApTrad 4 ApTrad 41 Ref. IX.8

192 191 190n 201 98

Ignatius

Eusebius of Caesarea

53, 64–65

Dem. 3.75c Dem. 3.141b Dem. 4.144d Dem. 4.155d–156a Dem. 4.156c Dem. 4.159d Dem. 7.309d–312a Dem. 7.311a Dem. 7.311d HE 3.27 HE 6.17 HE 10.4.69–70 Praep. 7 Praep. 7.15.1 Praep. 7.15.12 Praep. 7.15.15 Praep. 11 Praep. 11.26 Onom. 1.8–16 Onom. 14.5–7b

64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 54 54 194n 63 63 63 63 63 64 51 51

Magn. 8–10 Phil. 6 Smyrn. 2 Smyrn. 4–5 Trall. Trall. 5 Trall. 10 Trall. 10–11

61 61 61 4 67 61 4 61

Irenaeus

1

Adv. Haer. 1.10 Adv. Haer. 1.22 Adv. Haer. 1.26 Adv. Haer. 3.21 Dem. 10

5 5 54 54 59n

Jerome

138n, 141

Adv. Iovinianum 1.16 C. Joh. Hieros. 7 C. Joh. Hieros. 17 Ep. 112.13 Ep. 124.12

66n 110n 139n, 145 54 139n, 140n

260

Index of References

John Chrysostom

68–69, 79, 112, 153, 164, 198

Adv. Jud. Adv. Jud. 1 Adv. Jud. 2 Comm. Gal. ad 1.8–9 Comm. Ps.109.2 Hom. 1 Cor 32.6 Hom. 2 Cor. 30.1 Hom. 1 Tim 14 Hom. 1 Tim 14.4 Hom. Acts 32 Hom. Acts 43 Hom. Eph. 3.5 Hom. Eph. 14.4 Hom. Heb. 3.4 Hom. Heb. 14.2 Hom. Heb. 16.3 Hom. Heb. 32.7 Hom. In Seraphim 3 Hom. John 15.2 Hom. John 56.3 Hom. Matt. 10.4 Hom. Matt. 19.4 Hom. Matt. 50.4 Hom. Matt 54.9 Hom. Matt. 70.2 Hom. Matt. 77.1 Hom. on Eutropius 2.9 Hom. Rom. 9 Hom. Stat. 17.3 On Priesthood 3.4 On Priesthood 6.4

68 198n 198n

Justin Martyr

4, 9, 57, 59, 62–63, 81, 110, 113, 191

1 Apol 6 1 Apol 6.2 1 Apol 13 1 Apol 31 1 Apol 63 2 Apol 5 Dial. Dial. 19 Dial. 23 Dial. 34 Dial. 35 Dial. 41 Dial. 56

62 61–62 62 43 62, 82 2n 43 198 198 62 1 191n 62, 82

69 61 92 204 69 201 204n 69, 83n 203 203 69 203 197 93n 203 69 69 68 203 177 69 69 69 20 69 68, 71 203 203

Dial. 58 Dial. 59 Dial. 60 Dial. 61 Dial. 75 Dial. 114 Dial. 126 Dial. 128 Syntagma

62, 82 82 82 62 29n 97 62 62 5

Justinian

141

Ep. ad Menam

139n

Liber graduum

79n, 112

12.1 15.7 21.10 21.12 28.8 28.9 28.10

80, 203 79 78 79 79–80 78, 80 80

Kerygma Petrou

45–46

Muratorian Canon 60 Origen

26, 57–60, 110, 113, 115, 136–140, 142–152, 155n, 156, 170–171, 173–175, 207–208

Comm. Cant. prologue 147 Comm. Cant. 2 145–146 Comm. Gen 139n Comm. Gen 3 (= Philokalia 23.20) 148 Comm. Matt. 10.12 147 Comm. Matt. 10.18 56 Comm. Matt. 13.27 f. 146 Comm. Matt. 17.2 138 Comm. Matt. 17.30 146–147 Comm. Matt. 79 54 Comm. John 1.15 150 Comm. John 1.19 (112) 144 Comm. John 1.20 (119) 144 Comm. John 1.20 (119–124) 144 Comm. John 1.22 f. 152

261

Index of References Comm. John 1.31 Comm. John 1.34 Comm. John 1.35 Comm. John 2.23 Comm. John 2.29–31 Comm. John 2.31 Comm. John 6.2 Comm. John 10.3 Comm. John 10.30 Comm. John 10.39 Comm. John 13.17 Comm. John 13.22 (132) Comm. John 19.6 Comm. Rom. 3.8 Comm. Rom. 9.41 Comm. Song of S. prologue C. Cels C. Cels 1.26 C. Cels 4.29 C. Cels 5.4 C. Cels 5.5 C. Cels 5.6 C. Cels 5.30 C. Cels 5.31 C. Cels 5.48 C. Cels 5.61 C. Cels 6.18 C. Cels 6.64 C. Cels 6.71 C. Cels 8.27 C. Cels 8.31 C. Cels C. Cels 8.57 De orat. 11.5 De orat. 27.8 De orat. 31.5 Hexapla Hom. Ezek. 1.7 Hom. Gen 8.8 Hom. Gen. 9.3 Hom. Isa 1.2 Hom. Jer. 10.6 Hom. Josh. 9.4 Hom. Lev. 1.3 Hom. Luke 3 Hom. Luke 10 Hom. Luke 12 Hom. Luke 13 Hom. Luke 35 Hom. Num. 11.4

140n, 150–151 151 141 149 139n 138 150n 138 147 150 45n 144n 140–141, 151 58, 150 92 44n, 97n 138 45, 138 150–151 166n, 202n 139 138 139, 145 145 145 54 150n, 151 143–144 143, 150 146n 38n 8.36 146 38n 148 144 148, 200 138 145, 147–148 140n, 151 145 150 38n 148 140, 174 147, 150n 140 147n 145 147 147

Hom. Num. 11.5 Hom. Num. 14.2 Hom. Num. 20.3–4 Philokalia 23.20 (=Comm. Gen 3) Princ. Princ. Praef. 8 Princ. 1.2 Princ. 1.2.2 Princ. 1.3.4 Princ. 1.5.1 Princ. 1.5.3 Princ. 1.6.2 Princ. 1.6.3 Princ. 1.6.4 Princ. 1.7 Princ. 1.7.1 Princ. 1.8.1 Princ. 1.8.4 Princ. 2.2.2 Princ. 2.3.5 Princ. 2.3.6 Princ. 2.8.1 Princ. 2.8.2 Princ. 2.9.1 Princ. 2.10.7 Princ. 2.11.3 Princ. 3.2.1 Princ. 3.2.4 Princ. 3.3.3 Princ. 3.6 Princ. 3.6.1 Princ. 3.6.3 Princ. 3.6.4 Princ. 3.6.6 Princ. 3.6.7 Princ. 3.6.8 Princ. 3.6.9 Princ. 4.3.14 Princ. 4.3.15 Princ. 4.4.6 Princ. 4.4.8 Princ. fr. 30

147 146 147 148 137–138, 193 142, 144 152 143 59, 150 148n 148n, 149–150 146n, 150 139n, 146 141 174 138, 142 166n 60n, 138, 148–149 141 141 139n, 143 138 138 139 145 146 23 147n 139 146n 146n 146n 142 142, 146 142 139n 146 141, 150 141–142 143 142 65, 139

Passio Perpetuae 12.2

188n

Paul of Samosata

61, 67, 70, 110

Photius

150

262

Index of References

Romanos the Melode Kontakia

153

Rufinus

146n

Sozomen HE 2.4.3 HE 3.16 HE 7.19

51 153 60

Tatian

62–63, 70n, 73, 81n, 112

Diatessaron Oratio ad Graecos 7 Oratio ad Graecos 11 Oratio ad Graecos 16

62–63, 73, 77

Christian Liturgy Anaphora of the Apostles (Ethiopic) (Syriac)

189–190 194

Benedictus

192–194, 196

Egyptian Basil

193

Greek S. James

165n

Liturgy of Addai and Mari

190, 191n, 194

63 Liturgy of Serapion 190 63 63

Liturgy of S. James (Syriac) 27n, 165n, 191n, 193–194

Tertullian Apol. 22 De cultu fem. 1.2 De or. 3.3

19n 2n 188n

Testamentum Domini Syriac 1.21 (Ethiopic) 13 (= Syriac 1.22) Syriac 1.31

Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom

Liturgy of S. Mark 193, 203 Sanctus

177–179, 192–196, 203–205, 208

Te Deum

188, 201

Qumran

10, 21, 26, 29, 34, 36–38, 46, 50, 59, 72, 76, 79–80, 84–85, 87, 95, 107, 111, 115–116, 119, 122, 132–133, 135–137, 152, 155, 164, 173–175, 178, 188, 199

67, 77n, 192 201n 201 203

Theodore of Mopsuestia

128n, 194

Hom. Cat. 16.36

165n

Theodoret Hist. rel. 26

73n

Theophilus of Alexandria Ep. Pasch. 2 Ep. Syn.

191n, 192, 195, 203

149n 149n

Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum 1.6 ff. 191n Ad Autolycum 2.19 60

1Q20= 1QapGen ar ii 1 and ii 16 1Q28 iv 24 f. 1Q28b 1Q28b i 1–ii 28 (1QSb) 1Q28b iii 22–iv 28 1Q28b iii 25–26 1Q28b iv 24–26 1QapGen ar xxii 14–26

89 130n 118 118 118 117–118, 120 117–118, 120 131

263

Index of References 1QH 11.3–14 1QH xii 4–7 1QHa 1QHa vi 13 1QHa viii 1QHa viii 8 10–11 1QHa ix 11 1QHa ix 21–23 1QHa xi 21 f. 1QHa xii 24–25 1QHa xiv 13 f. 1QIsa 1QM 1QM vii 3–7 1QM ix 14–16 1QM 12 1QM 12.1–5 1QM xii 7–9 1QM 12.7–10 1QM xiii 9–12 1QM xiii 10 f. 1QM xvii 6 f. 1QpHab vii 4–5 1QS 1QS iii.13–iv.26 1QS iii 18 f. 1QS iii 24 1QS iv 21 1QS 6 7–8 1QS 9 3–6 1QS ix 11 1QS ix 23 1QS x 1–3 1QS 10.1–4 1QS x 9–17 1QS xi 7–8 1QSb iv 25 4Q37 (4Qdeutj) fr. 34 xii 14 4Q51 (4QSama) 4Q180 1 7–10 4Q202 iv 6 (4QEnb ar) 4Q203 4Q204 4Q206 4Q206 fr. 2 ii 5 4Q225 4Q385 fr. 4, 1. 12 4Q394–9 4Q400 1 i 4

136n 199 187 106 187 187 204n 84 117 85n 117 19n 25n, 26n, 104–105, 119 76 106 121 121 39, 117 121 105 116 105, 125n 38n 22, 28 36, 88, 105n, 115 88, 115 88 88 199 116 39 40 199 136n 199 85n 106 82 136 116 89 89n 89n 89n 89 fr. 2 ii 5–7 36 129n 31n 125

4Q400 1 i 16 4Q400 i 17 4Q400 2 4Q400 2 1–9 4Q400 2 2 (=4Q401 14 i 8) 4Q400 2 6–8 4Q401 11 3 4Q401 fr. 16 2 4Q401 22 3 4Q402 fr. 4 4Q402 4 9 4Q402 4 15 (= Mas 1 k i 6) 4Q403 1 i 4Q403 1 i 1–9 4Q403 1 i 31 4Q403 1 i 31–33 4Q403 1 i 33–34 4Q403 1 i 33–36 4Q403 1 ii 15 4Q403 1 ii 15 f. 4Q405 4Q405 20 ii–21 –22 2 f. 4Q405 20 ii–21 –22 7 4Q405 20 ii–21 –22 7 f. 4Q405 20 ii, 21 –22.7–8 4Q405 fr. 20 ii–21 –22 8 4Q405 20 ii–21 –22 9 4Q405 fr. 20–21 –22 13 4Q405 fr. 20 ii–21 –22 14 4Q405 23 i 5 f. 4Q405 23 i 12–13 4Q405 23 ii 4Q405 23 ii 11–12 4Q418 81 4Q470 1 5 f. 4Q503 4Q503 fr. 39.3 4Q503 frr. 51–55.8 4Q504–6 4Q504 fr. 1–2 vii 6 4Q511 fr. 35.2–4 4Q521 4Q543–548

127 124 134 130 125 120 125, 126n, 131–132 127 125, 126n, 131 126 125 132 107 126 124, 133–134 130 87 124 133 134 130 132 132 136n 127 127 155n 127 125 127 129 122 87 125n 102n 117, 136, 199 199n 199n 35 35n 84 27 89

264

Index of References

4Q544 fr. 1 89n 4Q544 fr. 2 89n 4Q544 fr. 2 2–3 105n 4Q544 2 3 132 4QBerakhot 135 4QMMT 31n, 117n 11Q (Hymn to the Creator) 135–136 11Q5 95n 11Q5 (11QPsa) xxvi 12 199, 204n 11Q13 (=11QMelch) 105, 126, 131–132 11Q13 ii 5 126n 11Q13 ii 9–10 132 11Q13 ii 10 105 11Q17 vii 3–4 92 11Q17 ix 122 11Q17 ix 4–5 127 11Q19 xxx 3–xxxi 9 35 11QPsalmsa 135 11QPsa xxvi 9–15 135 CD 37, 127 CD-A ii 17 f. 116n 89 CD-A ii 18 37 CD-A vi 19 CD vii 15–20 13n CD-A ix 20–21 116n CD xi 18 f. 116n CD-A 15.15–17 (=4Q266 fr. 8 i 7–9) 117 CD-A xvi 3–4 37

Palestinian Targum on Gen. 3.22 75

14 66, 126

Tg Ps.-Jonathan Gen. 32.27

200

Mishnah

29, 43, 47

m Aboth

29

1.5 3.5

29n 71n

m Berakhot 5.3

111n

m Gittin 5.9

43

m Hagigah 2.1

43, 49, 67, 99

m Megillah 4.9 4.10

111n 44

m Nazir 73n 73n

m Niddah 4.2

42–43

m Sanhedrin

Tg Ezek 128 188 136n

10.1 10.1a 10.1b

29–30, 44 30 30

m Sotah

Tg Isa 6.3

32.8 34.6

1.2 1.4

Targums

1.24 3.12 43.2

Tg Ps.-Jonathan Deut.

188

7.7 9.15

184 29

Tg. Jonathan ad 1 Kgs 19.12

127

m Sukkah 5.2–4

34

265

Index of References b Hagigah

m Tamid 7.4

132, 203

11b–16a 12b

m Yadaim 3.5

44

m Yoma 3.8 4.1 6.2

180n 180n 180n

Tosefta

43, 46

13a 13b 14a 14b 15a b Hullin 91b

t Berakhot 1.9 3.13

2.18 2.20–21

46, 111 43

t Parah 3.8

32

t Shabbat 13(14).5 t Yadaim 2.13 2.14

Babylonian Talmud

29b 45a 110a

47, 105n, 155

105n 44n 131n, 202

b Niddah 32

b Sanhedrin 38b

44 44

199

b Menahot

33b 44

173n

b Megillah 18b

t Hullin

195, 198n

b Kiddushin 40b

183, 185 179n

49 117n, 131n, 202n 44n, 49, 66 20, 97 93n 46 56n, 92, 102–103

98, 102n, 111n

b Shabbat 10a 119b 13b 156a

173n 147n 44n 28n

b Berakhot 4.1 8a

199 173n

b Baba Metzia 59b

107

b Gittin 45b

b Yoma 19b 75a 75b b Zebahim 62a

35n, 44

33n 111n 111n

131n

266

Index of References

Jerusalem Talmud

LevR

j Berakhot

2.8 27.3

8.9 9.13a

180, 189 46, 48, 95

j Rosh Hashanah

21

1.4 2.5

14, 22 110n

j Sanhedrin 18

107

j Yoma 7.2 (44b)

203

NumR 12.2 12.8 14.4 14.10 19.22 19.26

202n 110n 44n 31n 111n 71n

DeutR 2.36 5.12 11.10

180n, 197 110n 23, 66

Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

Minor Tractates Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan

69n

ARN A 4 ARN A 5 ARN B 1.2 ARN B 24

202 29n 69 110n

Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer PRE 46

185 20

92

Bahodesh 5 Shirata 4 Shirata 4.2 On Ex. 20.18

104n 104n 104n 69n

Mekhilta of R. Simon b. Yohai Bashalah 15

104n

Midr. Tehillim ad Ps. 17.3

105n

Pesikta Rabbati 21.7 69n 21.10 105n p. 185a (Friedmann) 202n

Midrash GenR 1.3 8.10 12.10 21.3 48.9 51.2 65.21 78.1

19, 48, 67, 105, 112, 204n 102n 105n 102n 14n 105 92 48, 110n

ExodR 5.9 25.3 32.4 32.9

111n 111n 110n 100, 112

Shi’ur Qomah

97

SongR 1.2 2

69

Visions of Ezekiel

104

Yalqut 1.20 on Gen. 2.9

102n

Yalqut on the Prophets 500

27

267

Index of References

Hekhalot Texts

8, 46, 95–96, 102n, 129–130, 155, 179, 181–182, 185, 190–191, 196

Qedushah de-Yotzer 134–136, 179–180, 182 Qedushah of the Musaf

179

Seder Rab Amram Hekhalot rabbati

34n, 181

3.3 8.4 18 26 101 188 243

198, 200 198 131n 97n 182 195n 97n

Jewish Liturgy Amidah

178–179, 199

Passover Haggadah 197 Qedushah

Qedushah de-Amidah

8, 10, 134–136, 177–179, 181–188, 190, 192–193, 195n, 197–198, 200, 204–205, 208

Gaon

195n

Yotzer ‘or

135, 199, 208

Samaritan Writings Defter

40n, 92n

Memar Marqah

40n, 41–42

I.1 I.4 I.11 II.6 II.8 II.12 III.5 IV.6 IV.12 V.3 VI.5

81 93n 41 41 41n 41 41n 39, 92, 123n 41 41–42 41

Samaritan Targum 40 135, 179, 182

Qedushah de-Sidre 179, 187

Index of Authors Abegg, M. G. 36n Albeck, Ch. 14n, 48n Alexander, P. S. 2n, 43n, 44, 45n, 46n, 94n, 103n, 104n, 115n, 116n, 155n Allison, D. C. 127–128 Andersen, F. I. 198n Aucher, J. B. 20n Auf der Maur, H. 189, 193n Avemarie, F. 203n Bammel, E. 58n, 138n Barbel, J. 61n, 62n, 140 Barker, M. 9n Barr, J. 16n, 22–27, 28n Barrett, C. K. 29n Barthélemy, D. 138n Bauckham, R. 5, 6n, 48, 54n, 56n, 59n, 103, 175n Bauer, W. 2–4, 53 Baumgarten, A. I. 15n, 129, 133n Baumstark, A. 179n, 192n Beck, E. 154n, 156n, 157n, 159–162, 165n, 166, 170n Belayche, N. 49n, 50, 51n, 52n Belkin, S. 109n Berger, K. 23n Betz, O. 36, 38n Bietenhard, H. 7, 109n Blackman, P. 99n Blum, G. G. 76n, 77n Bockmuehl, M. 96n, 98n, 99, 129n Bou Mansour T. 157n, 158, 161–162, 163n, 166 Bousset, W. 21, 22n Boyce, M. 24n Bradshaw, P. F. 198n, 199–200 Brekelmans, C. H. W. 84 Brock, S. 71n, 72n, 73n, 75n, 81n, 90n, 153n, 157n, 163n, 172, 191n, 197n Burkitt, F. C. 160–161, 207 Buytaert, É.-M. 64n

Campbell, J. 34n, 36n Caquot, A. 16n Carleton Paget, J. 43, 53, 54n Carpenter, H. J. 4 Carr, W. 86n Casey, P. M. 6n Chadwick, H. 60n Charles, R. H. 106n Charlesworth, J. H. 124, 126n, 129, 132, 134 Chazon, E. G. 134–136, 199n Chester, A. 5, 6n, 45, 95, 111 Clarke, E. G. 14n Cohen, S. J. D. 42n Collins, A. Y. 22 Collins, J. J. 84n, 86, 90, 115n, 118n, 121n Corbin, H. 1, 197n Coronel, N. 195n Cowley, A. E. 92n Cramer, W. 7, 78n, 83n, 90, 91n, 154–157, 159, 161–162, 164, 165n, 168n, 169–170, 172 Crouzel, H. 139n, 141, 144 Cumont, F. 49 Curtis, A. 14n Danby, H. 99n Daniélou, J. 7, 53, 55, 58, 59n, 106n, 138n, 139n, 144n, 148n Daube, D. 30 Davidson, M. J. 26n, 84n, 115n, 117n, 120, 123, 124n, 126n Davies, P. R. 34n Davila, J. R. 6n, 99n, 118n Day, J. 14 Decharneux, B. 109n, 151 De Conick, A. 93 de Gandillac, M. 170n Deichgräber, R. 188n, 205, 208n Deines, R. 30–32, 47n Deissmann, A. 21n, 45n de Lange, N. R. M. 137n, 138n Delcor, M. 116n

Index of Authors de Savignac, J. 18n de Vaux, R. 17 Dexinger, F. 3, 39n, 40, 42n Dhorme, E. 16–17, 19n Dimant, D. 119, 129n Dix, G. 189 Donner, H. 52n Downey, G. 61n Drijvers, H. J. W. 49n, 62n, 70–71, 75n, 81n, 154n Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 23n, 25, 26n Dumoulin, P. 111 Dunn, J. D. G. 9n Ego, B. 130n, 131n, 178n, 197n, 198, 199n, 201, 202n, 205n Eichrodt, W. 17n Elbogen, I. 179n Elior, R. 46n, 56n, 97n, 182n Emerton, J. A. 14–15 Falk, D. 10, 36n, 116–117, 124n, 126, 133n, 134, 184, 199 Fiensy D. 191, 196 Finet, A. 15n Finkelstein, L. 178–179 Fishbane, M. 97n Fletcher-Lewis, C. H. T. 9, 105n, 120–123, 125n, 133n Flew, R. N. 112n Flusser, D. 186–187, 188n, 195 Fontinoy, C. 15n Forbes, C. 86n Fossum, J. E. 6, 9, 21n, 23n, 39n, 41n, 91–92, 97, 102n, 105n, 112, 120, 122 Freedman, D. N. 90n Friedmann, M. 202n Gamberoni, J. 92n Garcia-Martinez, F. 27n, 38n Gibson, J. C. L. 14n, 52n, 100n Gieschen, C. A. 6–7, 57n, 88, 94, 96, 98, 99n, 100–101, 104, 105n Gifford, E. H. 66n Glazov, G. 201n Golb, N. 34n Goldberg, A. M. 178 Goldstein, J. A. 22n Goodman, M. 42 Görgemanns, H. 65n, 138n, 139n, 141n, 145, 146n, 149n Goulder, M. 61n Greenfield, J. C. 37n, 107n

269

Gressmann, H. 21 Griffith, S. H. 153n Grözinger, K.-E. 95, 96n, 102n Guggenheimer, H. W. 181n Hall, R. G. 56n Halperin, D. 7–8, 97n, 179n Hamacher, E. 129n, 130n Hammond, C. E. 203n Hannah, D. 6n, 23n, 46, 56n, 57, 58n, 59n, 62n, 99, 101n, 105n, 106, 141n, 199n Hanson, R. P. C. 61n Harl, M. 138, 139n, 141 Harrington, D. J. 37 Harris, J. R. 75 Hayward, R. 19n, 186n Heinemann, J. 10, 135n, 178–179, 180n, 181–184, 191 Hengel, M. 30, 32n, 36, 38, 56n, 93, 205n van Henten, J. W. 106n Hill, G. F. 15n Hinnells, J. R. 23, 27 Horbury, W. 5, 29n, 43n, 44n, 45n, 84n, 87n, 180n, 197n van der Horst, P. W. 43n, 52 Hultgård, A. 15–16, 21n, 22n, 23, 25–27 Hunt, E. J. 62n Hurtado, L. W. 5–6, 45, 94–95, 100n, 103n Isser, S. J. 39n, 92 Jackson, A. V. W. 23n Jacobson, H. 37n Jastrow, M. 105n Jaubert, A. 59n Jellinek, A. 202 Johnson, M. E. 10n, 189n Joines, K. R. 18, 19n Jörns, K.-P. 188n Juhl, D. 72n, 74n, 79n Kapelrud, A. S. 16n Kellens, J. 25 Kessler, E. 70n Kimelman, R. 43n Kirsten, E. 70n, 75 Klener, J. 15n Klinzing, G. 116n, 119n, 127n Kmosko, M. 78n, 79n, 80n Kohler, K. 187n Kohut, A. 24n Koltun-Fromm, N. 71n König, F. B. 24, 87n, 107n, 124n, 133n

270

Index of Authors

van Koppen, N. 84n Kotansky, R. 2n Kraeling, C. H. 98n Kraemer, D. 44n Kraft, R. A. 2–3 Kretschmar, G. 19n, 20, 150, 189, 193, 194n, 196, 200n Kronholm, T. 153n, 171n Kuhn, K. G. 22, 117 Lamberigts, S. 84n Lamy, T. J. 73n Landau, B. 102n Landsberger, F. 18 Larson, E. 102n Leaney, A. R. C. 35 Le Boulluec, A. 4–5 Leibovici, M. 16n Leloir, L. 167n Levene, D. 2n Levine, L. I. 137n Licht, J. 187n Liebermann, S. 183n Lieu, J. 9n, 43n Lodi, E. 192n Löhr, H. 127n Lyman, J. R. 142n Macdonald, J. 40, 41n, 42, 92n Mach, M. 1n, 7, 18, 19n, 38n, 81n, 82, 83n, 85, 90n, 100 Macomber, W. F. 194n Maier, J. 129, 134n Markschies, C. 5 Markus, R. A. 53n Masson, M. 127n McEleney, N. J. 3, 44 McVey, K. E. 152 Meeks, W. 61n Meier, S. A. 81n, 102n Merlan, P. 60n Merx, A. 36n, 39 Mettinger, T. N. D. 17n Metzger, M. 17, 192n Meyer, E. 37, 91 Michl, J. 126n, 170 Milik, J. T. 50, 75, 89n, 105n Miller, J. E. 16n Mimouni, S. C. 54n Mitchell, S. 51, 52n, 159n Montgomery, J. 39n, 40n, 41 Morray-Jones, C. R. A. 7–9, 46, 47n, 96n, 97n, 98n, 99n, 103n, 105n, 130, 131n, 181

Moulton, J. H. 25n Murray, R. 2n, 10, 11n, 70n, 71, 72n, 73n, 74n, 76–77, 78n, 80, 81n, 90–91, 153n, 154n, 172 Nagel, P. 72n Naudé, J. A. 84 Nautin, P. 150n Naveh, J. 2n Neher, A. 197n Neusner, J. 30 Newman, C. C. 96n, 97n, 98n Newsom, C. A. 9, 36n, 119–120, 123–126, 128–132, 134, 137, 178 Nitzan, B. 115n, 116, 117n, 127n, 204n Nogueira de Souza, P. A. 120n Noll, S. F. 119n Norelli, E. 56, 57n, 96n, 201 Noy, D. 2n Odeberg, H. 37n, 107n, 195n Olson, D. C. 204n Olyan, S. M. 94, 101, 109n O‘Neill, J. C. 72 Osborn, E. F. 60n, 62, 208n, 209 Parisot, I. 74n, 78n Pelikan, J. 53 Pfeifer, G. 52n, 93, 99n, 100 Pfeiffer, R. H. 16n Pierre, M.-J. 76n Preisendanz, K. 20n Pritchard, J. B. 18n Puech, É. 27, 89n, 105n, 131n, 187 Purvis, J. D. 40 von Rad, G. 100 Rahmani, I. 192n Recheis, A. 151n, 170n Reed, A. Y. 21n Regev, E. 117n Reif, S. C. 10, 134, 173n, 178 Reijnen, A. M. 207, 209 Rendtorff, R. 15 Ringgren, H. 18n, 51n, 93, 95n, 100 Ritter, A. M. 5n Rofé, A. 90n Röllig, W. 52n Roukema, R. 146n Rouwhorst, G. 71n Rowland, C. 5, 44n, 86, 87n, 96n, 98n, 99n

Index of Authors Sanders, E. P. 3, 9n, 30, 35 Schäfer, P. 7–8, 34n, 35n, 48n, 69n, 106, 107n, 129n, 131n, 172, 181n, 182, 198n, 201n Schaper, J. 31n Schechter, S. 69n, 202 Schiffmann, L. H. 37n, 129, 132 Schmidt, F. 28n, 40n Scholem, G. 7, 97n, 129, 181n Schwemer, A. M. 9, 87, 107, 117–118, 119n, 120n, 123–124, 126n, 128–129, 130n, 131n, 132–135, 178, 180n, 186n, 187, 205 Scott, J. M. 9n Séd, N. 172 Segal, A. F. 5, 9, 48, 56n, 86, 96n, 97, 98n, 103–105, 111n Shaked, S. 2n, 15n, 26 Sheppard, A. R. R. 51 Sigal, P. 188n, 195 Simon, M. 28n Simonetti, M. 2n, 141 Smith, M. S. 98n Solin, H. 73n Sparks, H. F. D. 140n Sperber, A. 127n, 187n, 188n Spinks, B. 10, 135n, 178, 181, 182n, 189–190, 191n, 192, 193n, 194, 196n Stead, C. 143n, 144n, 149n Stemberger, G. 13n, 32–33 Stettler, C. 55n Stolz, F. 1n, 51 Strecker, G. 2–3, 54n Stroumsa, G. G. 58, 98, 209 Strugnell, J. 129n Stuckenbruck, L. T. 6, 36n, 37n, 45–46, 49, 55, 57, 62n, 95, 111n, 130

271

Taft, R. 10n, 189, 190n, 193–194 Tavard, G. 7 Taylor, J. E. 34n Taylor, J. 30, 33 Teixidor, J. 15n, 49, 50n, 51–52 Thee, F. C. R. 2n Theodor, J. 14n, 48n Tjäder, J.-O. 2n van der Toorn, K. 84n Trigg, J. 150n Turmel, J. 174n Urbach, E. 43n VanderKam, J. C. 16, 48n, 99n, 116n Vielhauer, P. 54n Viviano, B. 30, 33 Vollenweider, S. 1n, 6n, 95n, 99n, 100n Vööbus, A. 62n, 63n, 70, 71n, 72–73, 74n, 75n, 78, 80, 154n Wallis Budge, E. A. 17n Ward, W. A. 18 Warren, A. L. 136 Weinfeld, M. 135–136 Werner, M. 61n Widengren, G. 15, 22n, 23n, 27 Wilken, R. 61n Williams, F. 67n Williams, R. 5, 53, 203n Winkler, G. 10, 128n, 153n, 178–179, 184n, 185n, 189–191, 194, 198n Wolfson, H. A. 143, 144n Zahavy, T. 183n Zingerle, P. 165n Zulay, M. 195n