The Lord God of Gods: Divinity and Deification in Early Judaism 9781463243340

Citation preview

The Lord God of Gods

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 35

This series contains volumes dealing with the study of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israelite society and related ancient societies, Biblical Hebrew and cognate languages, the reception of biblical texts through the centuries, and the history of the discipline. The series includes monographs, edited collections, and the printed version of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.

The Lord God of Gods

Divinity and Deification in Early Judaism

Silviu Nicolae Bunta

gp 2021

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com 2021 Copyright © by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܙ‬

1

2021

ISBN 978-1-4632-4333-3

ISSN 1935-6897

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available at the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

To Ana and Maria

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .................................................................... ix Chapter One. Introduction ........................................................ 1 PART ONE: DIVINITY AND DEIFICATION

BEFORE THE

EXILE .......... 27

Chapter Two. The Biblical Features of Divinity .......................... 29 Chapter Three. The Ancient Near Eastern Context of Judahite Theologies ....................................................................... 45 Chapter Four. The Other Gods—Inclusion and Exclusion in the Godhead .................................................................... 57 PART TWO: THE EMERGENCE OF THEOMORPHIC ANTHROPOLOGIES AND THE EXCLUSION OF HUMANITY FROM DIVINITY IN THE EXILIC AND PERSIAN PERIOD ........................................... 73 Chapter Five. Exilic and Postexilic Reassessments of the Divine Presence ............................................................... 77 Chapter Six. The Emergence of Theomorphism and the Exclusion of Humanity from the Godhead in Ezekiel 28 and 31 ..................................................................................... 87 Chapter Seven. (Non-)divine “Mediators” and the Angelification of YHWH’s Council .................................................... 109 PART THREE: EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN, DANIEL 2–4, PSEUDO-ORPHEUS, AND THE MERGING OF THE WAYS ........................................ 123 Chapter Eight. Hellenization and the (Re)definition of Jewishness .................................................................... 127 vii

viii

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Chapter Nine. The Deified Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge ......................................................................... 131 Chapter Ten. The Deified Daniel in Daniel 2-4 ...................... 157 Chapter Eleven. Boundaries and Crossings in PseudoOrpheus: Moses as a God ................................................ 173 Chapter Twelve. Crossing the Divine Borders in 4Q491c and 4Q427 7 I ...................................................................... 181 PART FOUR: DEIFICATION IN LATE ANTIQUITY JUDAISM: CONTINUITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS ....................................................191 Chapter Thirteen. The Inclusion and Exclusion of Humanity and Angels in the Divine in Rabbinic Judaism ............... 197 Chapter Fourteen. Adam and the Kabod ................................ 219 Chapter Fifteen. Adam-Light Speculations............................ 225 Chapter Sixteen. The Enormous Body of Adam ..................... 243 Chapter Seventeen. Adam’s Body of Knowledge .................... 259 Chapter Eighteen. The Angelic Veneration of Adam .............. 267 Chapter Nineteen. Conclusions.............................................. 281 Select Bibliography ............................................................... 287 Indices .................................................................................. 321 Index of Ancient Sources ............................................... 321 Index of Subjects ........................................................... 344

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is the product of almost twenty years of research on the topic, with several long breaks between equally long periods of work. In a much different and smaller format it started as the doctoral dissertation which I submitted to the Graduate School of Marquette University in May of 2005. Many people contributed to its development at that stage. Foremost my gratitude is due to my Doktormutter, Prof. Deirdre Dempsey. So ever patiently and generously she guided my formation as a student of the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism and provided untiring and immeasurable help with the increasingly demanding task of this work. I can only hope that this monograph reflects at least partially her thorough approach to languages and texts. Any remaining errors belong to the disciple’s shortcomings. Sharon Pace has offered generous guidance both during the dissertation process and at the monograph stage of this project. I benefited greatly from her friendship and expertise in both the Hebrew Bible and early rabbinic literature. Joseph Mueller, S.J., and John Schmitt have both read and enriched this project with their advice and comments. Kevin Sullivan has provided me with numerous suggestions and has constantly cautioned me against oversimplifying or overgeneralizing transformational mysticism. Several other mentors at Marquette University, among whom Michel Barnes, provided over the years human and academic support. Then Prof. Rev. Alexander Golitzin, today my bishop, with his erudition in the Jewishness of early Christian mysticism, has contributed momentously not only to this study, but to my entire formation as a student of mysticism and of my own traditions. It ix

x

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

goes without saying that I am deeply grateful for his mentorship and friendship. I also owe special thanks to my friend, Andrei Orlov, who has followed the development of this monograph and my evolution as a student of Second Temple texts over many years and in so many discussions has contributed to them by sharing his vast expertise in Enochic traditions and pseudepigraphic literature. He has also constantly encouraged me to carry this project to completion and publication and this encouragement has been essential. The Department of Theology of Marquette University, which was a welcoming home to me and my family for several years, also made the work on this project a much more pleasant experience through its spiritual and financial support over the years. The participants in the Jewish Roots of Christian Mysticism seminar at Marquette listened to, and commented on many of the ideas incorporated herein. Many others have helped at later stages of this work. Jarl Fossum has enlightened me on several topics in many electronic dialogues. This book, as I trust it will be evident, benefited from his scholarship and knowledge of Adamic traditions. Many years ago John J. Collins of Yale Divinity School offered numerous insights which have prevented me from many inadvertencies and inadequacies. He was extraordinarily patient and kind toward someone with whom he did not see eye to eye. Today I am nearer his point of view, even if doubtlessly I am still far from his erudition. This final work is considerably improved due to his generous help, which far exceeds any possible expression of appreciation. After the first ten years of research I had to set this project aside for a while, as other projects gained more urgency. This proved to be a fortuitous move, as this distance from the work gave me fresher insights upon my return to it. That fresher look was helped tremendously by conversations with my friend and colleague Bogdan Bucur, of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, and my former graduate student and now colleague Ethan Smith, who, already during his doctoral studies, never let our conversations on Jewish mysticism stop, as he continues to do today. In these last years the argument has also sharpened against many conversations and collaborations, such as those with several of my colleagues at the University of Dayton,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xi

especially Brad Kallenberg, William Portier, and Dennis Doyle, and those afforded by the Ryterband Symposium housed at Wright State University, the University of Dayton, and United Theological Seminary. I am grateful to Prof. Mark Verman of WSU for the opportunity to serve on the committee of the symposium and to benefit even more deeply from the expertise of our invited lecturers, such as Daniel Boyarin, Rachel Elior, and Benjamin Sommer, upon whose scholarship I rely here heavily. Special mention deserve my graduate assistants over the years, who have asked the hard questions, and all the students in my graduate classes and seminars on topics and literatures of early Judaism. My heartfelt thanks go to my indefatigable editors, Tuomas Rasimus and Brice Jones, and to the anonymous reviewers who have saved me from several errors and oversights. This monograph could not have been possible without the continuous support of my family. My father and mother, Nicolaie and Silvia, and especially my grandmother and grandfather Elisabeta and Nicolaie, have encouraged and aided my interest and love for the Scriptures, even within the hostile environment of a Communist regime. In my great-grandmother Ana I encountered for the first time a true embodiment of what this monograph is about. My wife Maria and my daughter Ana often had to put up an unavailable husband and father. This book is ultimately the product of their support and it is only so appropriately dedicated to them. April 18, 2021 The Feast of St. Mary of Egypt Dayton, Ohio

Rev. Silviu Nicolae Bunta

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE THESIS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

The primary goal of this book is to offer a study of the early Jewish experience of what “divinity” and “humanity” mean and particularly of how they intersect, from exilic times to late antiquity, making three proposals along the way. Although the analysis proceeds in a (broadly) chronological fashion, it still brings together a web of experiential locations which map out a theological territory in flux.1 The many points discussed in this book are all essential locations on this map which is at once synchronic and diachronic. This same map could be drawn around a number of other theological nodes, but my attention here is dedicated to certain significant intersections of concerns with the exclusion and inclusion of humanity in God. A close analysis of the theologies of the earliest biblical texts leads to the conclusions that preexilic Israel describes the divine in the same manner as its neighbors and that it centers these descriptions in certain major features—particularly enthronement, enormity, and luminosity—which will serve as the primary markers of divinity throughout early Judaism (chapters 2 and 3). This Here and throughout the book I use “theology” not in its modern sense of religious speech, but in its etymological and ancient sense, as “speech about the divine” (which the ancients simultaneously define as speech from God). This was also its primary sense in Greek antiquity, both Christian and pre-Christian (see Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek [Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015], 932; G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961], 627). 1

1

2

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

analysis also leads to the argument that, in contrast to their neighbors both from within and from without Israel, the writers who compose and edit the biblical text are neither polytheists nor the monotheists of medieval and post-medieval imaginations. The first and primary submission of this book is that the Hebrew Bible overall subscribes to a fluid YHWH-only divinity. This is a twofold theology. On the one hand, it means that there is only one divine selfhood—YHWH’s. On the other hand, it shares this divine selfhood with other beings, including humans, to varying degrees and always at YHWH’s discretion. God surrounds himself with other gods. I will call this in short “deification,” borrowing a term from the ancient Christian readings of these very texts (chapter 4). It seems to me the Septuagint version of Ps 49:1 (50:1) gives the clearest shout to this theology: “The Lord, God of gods” (Θεὸς θεῶν κύριος).2 I found it only proper to use this shout for the title of this book. The second proposal of this monograph is that later on, in Ezekiel and the Priestly source, the human access to divinity is appropriated into a new anthropology which attributes humanity overall a special relationship with the divine: humanity functions as YHWH’s statue. Yet, this new anthropology finds that the human being is theomorphic, but no longer divine (chapters 5 and 6). Moreover, the same solidification of the divine selfhood generates a second and parallel phenomenon: the redefinition of the gods of old as “angels” (chapter 7). The third and final proposal of this book is that three texts— Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus—mark an important intermediary stage in the development of these traditions: the language of the postexilic theomorphic anthropology is incorporated into the forgiving fluidity of deification. On the one hand, there is nothing in these texts to prevent the conclusion that their human subjects—Moses and Daniel—are deified, in the sense that they present the aforeSimilar expressions occur in Dan 2:47 (“our God is God of the gods”) and Bel 7 (“the Lord God of the gods”). This and all ensuing translations from the Septuagint are my own, unless otherwise noted, and follow the critical text from Septuaginta. Editio Altera (2nd rev. ed. by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). 2

CHAPTER ONE

3

mentioned divine features (as gods, not simply as godlike), and in this aspect these texts revive the preexilic traditions which allowed some humans unhindered access to divinity. On the other hand, the inclusion of Moses and Daniel into the godhead is accompanied by the exclusionary language of the theomorphic anthropology prominent in Ezekiel. There is nothing in these texts to indicate that the two traditions are held in tension. Rather, their juxtaposition constructs a new model of deification, which holds both the inclusion and exclusion of humanity in the divine in a paradoxical simultaneity: human beings are made gods just as they remain distinct from God (chapter 8, 9, 10, and 11). In this new deification model, the boundaries between God and gods become at once clearer and less rigid. On closer inspection of the texts this is not a paradox: the fences come down between those who have learned well the boundaries. It is only clarity which affords greater fluidity. Thus in this newer model of deification theology there is nothing which one would naturally direct to God and which God does not also allow—and even prescribe—to be directed to his gods. The only limit is confusion— the deified gods can receive the entire treatment of God, even worship, but as gods and not as God. And indeed in these texts confusions are rare, so lessons in exclusion are rarely given. The point is theological: God is revealed as shared and unshared at once. The deification development in Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus is even clearer when placed in contrast with two texts from Qumran—4Q491c and 4Q427—which describe deified gods without setting any distinctions or exclusions (chapter 12). The final part of this book—an analysis of the so-called “transformational mysticism” of later sources—evidences the vitality of the divine features and of this deification theology in late antiquity Judaism, even if they find themselves under new pressures. In the pseudepigraphic and early rabbinic corpora, the deified human is depicted as the kabod, enthroned, luminous, enlarged, and an object of angelic veneration. Yet, despite the appropriations of all these divine features the deified human does not shed his humanness. Ultimately, the greatest heritage of the deification theology evidenced by Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus is this paradox, God’s simultaneity as shared and

4

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

unshared. This heritage survives even in the enveloping of rabbinic theology in a new boundary—modalism (chapters 13-18). In its encyclopedic scope this study is meant to contribute to the studies of the Jewish mysticism of late antiquity (particularly merkabah mysticism) by filling a void which still looms large over this field of study, namely, the manner in which this mysticism is connected to the Bible itself. The study of Jewish understandings of the divine in the Persian and early Hellenistic period has made major strides in the last two decades; old categories have been questioned, abandoned, adopted, readjusted, or sharpened, and new categories have been introduced. Yet, the study of ancient Jewish mysticism is still dominated by imprecise and/or problematic categories, such as “monotheism” and “mysticism.” The paradigm introduced here—deification—is offered as widely fluid and integrative. Once perceived through the lens of this paradigm, both the homogeneity and inhomogeneity of the transformational mysticism of late ancient Judaism, and its connections to the biblical world, come into sharper focus. My views of the categories of “mysticism” (including maaseh merkabah) and “monotheism,” of their usefulness and limitations, will illumine my very approach to the texts which I analyze herein.

1.2 MYSTICISM AND THE MAASEH MERKABAH

The question of what constitutes “mysticism” in general and “ancient Jewish mysticism” in particular is still very much open. A crucial gain has already been made in this regard: the understanding of this concept in antinomy to “rationalism” and “institution” (famously espoused by Gershom Scholem) has been largely abandoned. Yet, the field of ancient Jewish mysticism still has to discard reading practices which obscure rather than clarify its subject matter. It seems to me that among the most detrimental practices is the imposition upon the ancient Jewish mind of a formalism and conceptualism of which it would not have been capable. The evidence provided by intellectual historians place between us and the ancient Jew (and Christian) many shifts in mindset, of which the one dated to the Middle Ages is the most relevant to the present study. What this major shift ultimately supplanted is not theologies with other propositions, nor methods with other

CHAPTER ONE

5

presuppositions, nor systems gravitating around different pivots, nor alternative conceptualizations, intellections, or practices, but what it has supplanted is a way of being, “the ancient way of being” as it were, a simple and informal life (by which I do not mean life unexamined, but life undoubted). The renowned medievalist Johannes Fried summarizes this radical medieval shift as follows: Over time, a growing acquaintance with Aristotle’s dialectics changed the way in which people related one thought to another, the order in which they posed questions, and the manner in which they weighed up each answer. . . A mode of thought began to spread that was no longer beholden to magic and God. Secularization became widespread, developing in leaps and bounds. The entire worldview—the way in which life was organized; the interaction between the sexes; the economic means of production within the manorial system. . . etc.—became subject to the logical-dialectical process. Cosmology, the idea of man, ethics, and law came under corresponding pressure to redefine their terms of reference. Sooner or later, the whole of society, together with all its norms and values, was caught up in this rational, formal mode of thought and was transformed fundamentally.3

Of course, the ancients are still similar to us as beings fundamentally of the same fabric. The point made here is not that their existence was not built—as our existence is—on both observations and theories, on observations being understood, processed, collected, and transmitted, but rather that this entire process which we can also recognize in ourselves was done in a different manner. The first aspects of the ancient experience of the universally human “process of living” which would strike the contemporary reader as unusual (or even abnormal) would be its informality and physicality (as opposed to being formal and metaphysical). The second would be its unfragmentable unity. Life happened at the intersection of everything and as everything.

Johannes Fried, The Middle Ages (trans. Peter Lewis; Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 2015), 330. 3

6

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Examined against this and other discoveries of intellectual history, the imagining of early Judaism as formal and conceptual shows its anachronism. The presupposition that “mysticism” was to early Judaism only one mindset among many (peculiar and marginal at that) and the inclination to see this mysticism as an epistemological endeavor are aspects of this anachronism and have to be checked. As a consequence of this fundamental and widespread anachronism contemporary scholarship is often inclined not to see mysticism in our ancient sources rather than see it. Of particular significance to my study is the common reduction of early Jewish mysticism to the three biblical texts and topics of the well-known adage in m. Hagigah 2:1—the creation account, the merkabah of Ezekiel 1, and the forbidden relations of Leviticus.4 This focus has led to the unwarranted holding of experience in tension and even opposition to interpretation, but this seems to have been largely abandoned, as I will point out below. What still remains is the limitation of mysticism to these (and a few other) particular foci, all of which are adjudicated in a framework still largely determined by much later developments in Jewish thought, such as divine “transcendentalism” and, relatedly, “monotheism.” As a correction to this anachronism of formality and conceptualization it is important to realize that although the noun “mysticism” is an etic category, it is based on emic words which denote that which is hidden—the adjective “mystical” (µυστικός, ‫)נסתר‬, the noun “mystery” (µυστήριον, ‫רז‬, ‫)סוד‬, and the rare adverb “mystically” (µυστικῶς; 3 Mac 3:10-LXX). To the early Jewish mind seeing hidden depth all around was neither peculiar nor on the fringe of human experience. Rather, to it having a god—and divinity itself is by nature hidden, at least partly (cf. Isa 45:15; 1QHa V 19-24)—meant that all reality has hidden depth (cf. Prov 25:2; Deut 29:29), that sacred words have meanings which are not immediately obvious (cf. Job 28:20-21; Ps 78:2; 119:18), and that life is to be lived as a matter of this unveiling, or, in short, apocalyptically (expressed by verbs such as ἀποκαλύπτω, ‫גלה‬, ‫ערה‬, etc.). Prior to the great medieval shift to formality and epistemology, 4

Also known to Origen (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.2).

CHAPTER ONE

7

the apocalypse, the revelation of that which is hidden, is not a metaphysical process, but physical. Things are not mystical because they can be pried through proper epistemology. Rather, the access to the hidden is experiential and transformative even in the most bodily sense.5 As many early Jewish texts emphasize, humans naturally do not have access to the knowledge of the hidden things, which is ultimately God’s, but God—directly or through intermediaries—shares it with the human being who is also changed in anticipation of this sharing and in participation in it.6 It could be said that the substance of early Jewish mysticism is the fundamental and universal experience that divinity and the hidden are everywhere and that already in this life the human being can participate in them through deification.7 Therefore, although that which is manifestly “mystical” in early Judaism reaches us in extraordinary texts (e.g., Daniel 7), in remarkable genres (e.g., apocalyptic), and in peculiar themes or foci (e.g., merkabah mysticism), it would be a mistake to assume that mysticism undergirds only these locations. It is arguably more accurate to think of “mysticism” as a fundamental manner of “processing life” (as it were) which undergirds the entire early Judaism. To put it bluntly, there is no indication, in texts and or in material culture overall, that to early Jewish thought there was such a thing as a non-mystical life, a life void of hidden depth. Rather, life ran its course under a constant pull toward the divine and to live meant to be ceaselessly in an apocalyptic draw toward the hidden, in an uncovering of that which is concealed. This unveiling corresponds to one’s maturation; we are warned that there is an intrinsic danger in perceiving too much too soon. The process was treated with utmost caution and reverence, and was sealed with equivocation or silence (e.g., Ezekiel 1, m. Hagigah 2:1, etc.). Therefore, the scarcity Similar points are made in April D. DeConick, “What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?,” in Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism (ed. April DeConick; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 1-26, here pp. 7-8. 6 Cf. Isa 64:4; Prov 2:7; Ps 31:19-20; Wis 2:21-22; 1QHa IX 21-23, XX 1213; 1QpHab VII 4-8; 1 En. 106:19; T. Levi 2:10; Philo, Leg. 3.1 (3), 3.8 (27). 7 Cf. also DeConick, “What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?,” 2. 5

8

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

of markedly mystical texts is not an indication of lack of mysticism, but rather of its pervasiveness. With all of the above in mind, one can speak of mysticism in various ways. As such, texts should be suspected of being fundamentally layered, mystagogical, and addressed to experiential appropriations. Worship is theophanic and transformative. The destiny of the human being is to become divine through a process which at once transforms the self and unveils that which is hidden everywhere. Yet, the anachronisms exposed above (and others) still frame, to varying degrees, the discussions of the materials on which this book is focused. Of particular significance for this monograph is the research on merkabah mysticism. From its very beginning in the work of Gershom Scholem, two related presuppositions have given these studies a general orientation which they are still at pains to discard. The first presupposition is that ancient Jewish mysticism by and large upheld an unbridgeable distance between the Creator and creature. This presupposition has engendered a frame which is no longer attentive to the symbolic language of ancient Jewish texts but is rather constructed in definitions and categories inherited from medieval philosophical theology. For example, Scholem writes: It is only in extremely rare cases that ecstasy signifies actual union with God in which the human individuality abandons itself to the rapture of complete submersion in the divine stream. Even in this ecstatic frame of mind, the Jewish mystic almost invariably retains a sense of the distance between the Creator and his creature.8

Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 122-123. See also idem, Kabbalah (New York, Scarborough: Meridian, 1978), 176; Major Trends, 5, and especially 5556: “Throughout [ecstasy] there remained an almost exaggerated consciousness of God’s otherness, nor does the identity and individuality of the mystic become blurred even at the height of ecstatic passion. The Creator and His creature remain apart, and nowhere is an attempt to bridge the gulf between them or to blur the distinction. The mystic who in his ecstasy has passed through all the gates, braved all the dangers, now stands before the throne; he sees and hears—but that is all.” For a 8

CHAPTER ONE

9

The second presupposition comes as a consequence of this: bridgings of this ontological gulf are infrequent and they engendered mediatorial beings.9 Yet, just as these mediators straddle the distance between Creator and creature, their uniqueness rather makes them act as enforcers of this ontological gulf.

detailed criticism of Scholem’s position, see Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1988), 59-73; Elliot Wolfson, “Mysticism and the Poetic-liturgical Compositions from Qumran. A Response to Bilhah Nitzan,” JQR 85 (1994): 185-202. 9 E.g., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (2nd ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965), 43-55. In consequence several scholars have proposed that, at an early stage, the Second Temple period has identified the occupant of the throne-chariot—the kabod—with a primary vice-regent, often of a human identity. See, among other sources, Gilles Quispel, “Gnosticism and the New Testament,” VC 19 (1965): 65-85; idem, “The Origins of the Gnostic Demiurge,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (ed. P. Granfield and J. A. Jungmann; Münster: Aschendorff, 1970), 271-276; idem, “Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis,” VC 34 (1980): 1-13; Christopher C. Rowland, “The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature,” JSJ 10 (1979): 137-154, esp. 153-154; idem, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 94113; Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 182-205; idem, “The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 302-328; idem, Paul the Convert (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1990), 40-71; Jarl Fossum, “Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism,” VC 37 (1983): 260-287; idem, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985); Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christianity Devotion and Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); Carry C. Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1992); Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992); Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkabah Tradition,” JJS 43 (1992): 1-31; Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42; Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2002), 92-93, 346-350, 373-387; idem, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

10

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

These presuppositions allowed Scholem to place the maaseh merkabah traditions of Hekhalot literature in continuity with apocalyptic literature, and to relocate the mediatorial accounts at the center of early Jewish mysticism.10 Both of these maneuvers have been justly called into question in subsequent scholarship,11 but the two underlying presuppositions have impacted the field of Jewish mysticism to this day and they have obscured the pervasiveness of mysticism in early Judaism and its theological character: before describing the seemingly special, mediatorial destiny of certain humans or angels, early Jewish mysticism speaks to the character of God, to what I call in this book “theology.” I will revisit this point shortly, in relation to monotheism. First, further attention must be given to Scholem’s definitional and categorical approach. Despite it, Scholem himself argued that early Jewish mystical traditions are defined by their non-exegetical, experiential character: The most important of these old tracts and compilations, such as the “Greater” and “Lesser” Hekhaloth, are precisely those which are almost entirely free from the exegetical element. These texts are not Midrashim, i.e. expositions of Biblical passages, but a literature sui generis with a purpose of its own. They are essentially descriptions of a genuine religious experience for which no sanction is sought in the Bible. In short, they belong in one class with the apocrypha and the apocalyptic writings rather than with the traditional Midrashim. . . One meets here with an entirely new and independent spiritual and religious mood; only in the later stages of the movement, probably corresponding with its gradual decline, do the writings show a return to exegesis for its own sake.12

Major Trends, 40-79; idem, Kabbalah, 8-21. Thus Martha Himmelfarb, “Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature,” HUCA 59 (1988): 73-100; Peter Schäfer, Hekhalot-Studien (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988), 277-295; Philip S. Alexander, “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28 (1977): 156-180, esp. 173-180; David Halperin, “Ascension or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly Journey in Ancient Judaism,” Religion 18 (1988): 47-67, esp. 56-59. 12 Major Trends, 45-46. 10 11

CHAPTER ONE

11

Ironically, even when subsequent scholarship has justly emphasized the necessity for a methodology less speculative and categorical than Scholem’s, and for a more rigorous approach to the sensitive issues of dating and literary derivations, often this needed correction has ended up in a proposal that the maaseh merkabah texts are endeavors of a purely exegetical, speculative, and non-experiential character.13 The relationship of these late maaseh merkabah speculations with apocalyptic literature—the argument continues—is of mere literary inspiration. This dichotomy between exegesis and experience is—to say the least—problematic.14 First, it has been pointed out that in many texts reading and interpretation function as a portal into visionary experiences,15 which are appropriately deemed by

Ephraim E. Urbach, “Ha-Masorot ‘al Torat-HaSod,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on His Seventieth Birthday (ed. E. Urbach et al.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 1-28 (Hebrew); Peter Schäfer, “Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Literature,” JSJ 14 (1983): 172-181; idem, Hekhalot-Studien, 277-295; idem, “Merkavah Mysticism and Rabbinic Literature,” JAOS 104 (1984): 537-554; David Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (AOS 62; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980); idem, The Faces of the Chariot (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988); idem, “Heavenly Ascension in Ancient Judaism: The Nature of the Experience,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1987 (SBLSP 26; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1987), 218-232. 14 See the perceptive remarks in Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines. Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (2nd ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 119-124. 15 Thus Christopher Rowland points out that the visionary experience of Dan 9:1 originates in a meditation on Jer 25:11 and the one starting in 4 Ezra 6:38 is introduced by a mediation on the scriptural creation accounts (Open Heaven, 215-216). Cf. also 4 Ezra 12:11, 14; Testament of Levi 14:1; Testament of Judah 18:1; Testament of Naphtali 4:1; see also Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 26 n.14, 30; Christopher C. Rowland, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 170-189, here 180; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC-AD100 (London: SCM, 1964), 183-185; Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1980), 219-221. 13

12

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Markus Bockmuehl as “meta-revelations.”16 Second, while admittedly apocalyptic literature only infrequently focuses in a strictly interpretative manner on a biblical text, reliance on biblical imagery and thought underlies the entire framework of apocalyptic thought.17 Third, the practical/experiential character of the apocalyptic phenomenon is highlighted by its ascetical practices.18 Fourth, there are also extensive descriptions of the impact that visions have upon visionaries, which range from fear and other psychological states to physical transformations.19 Fifth and more fundamentally, in early Judaism the Bible overall was not reduced to a mere source of exegetical inspiration, but rather functioned as a living tradition.20 Its exegesis was not so much a metaphysical process, a sort of arrangement of methodology and meaning, as it was a physical appropriation into one’s life of an ancestral ethos. The text acted as a medium for this appropriation,21 and not as a referential source, explanatory or evidentiary.22 The visionary did not inform himself from text as much as Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 29. Rowland, “Apocalyptic Literature,” 173-180. 18 Several texts mention complex ascetical preparations for visions (Dan 9:3, 10:2-3; 4 Ezra 9:23-24, 14:38-39; 2 Baruch 9:2; 12:5; 21:1, 47:2; Apocalypse of Abraham 9:7; Ascension of Isaiah 2:11). On this see also Rowland, Open Heaven, 228-229; Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 2930 n.38; Russell, Method, 158-160. For asceticism in early Judaism see also Steven D. Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages (ed. Arthur Green; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 253-283; James A. Montgomery, “Ascetic Strains in Early Judaism,” JBL 51 (1932): 183-213. 19 Rowland, Open Heaven, 229-234. Thus Dan 10:9; Rev 1:17; 1 Enoch 14:13-14, 21-25, 71:11; 2 Enoch 20:1; Apocalypse of Abraham 10:2, 17:13; 3 Enoch 1:6-7. 20 To this end see the insightful remarks in Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion. An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985), and Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 21 See also the observations in DeConick, “What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?,” 1-24. 22 I emphasize this as a correction to Wolfson’s point, which stands in its phenomenological core: “The vision is itself informed by extant literary and oral traditions; thus, the interpretive process is already operative at the level of experience. Naturally, there can be postexperiential inter16 17

CHAPTER ONE

13

he found himself in text. Thus the living voice of the text was— often in imperceptible ways—the natural language of expressing any experience, including visionary experiences of the divine. It seems safe to assume that behind early Jewish literature there lies a pervasive continuum of mystical life which surfaces in the clearest ways in a variety of traditions and trends. One of the chief claims of this vast body of literature— biblical and nonbiblical, apocalyptic and rabbinic, exegetical and non-exegetical—is precisely this continuity: inherited life, which far exceeded individual teachings and practices, has been transmitted without interruption—so we are told—from the earliest authoritative figures of biblical times to the present times of the author.23 Thus, as April DeConick points out, apocalyptic writers—and this could be said of all early Jewish texts covered in this book—do not (consciously) make up traditions. They rather see themselves operating within existing traditions with roots in the authoritative past. For the religious sensibilities of the mystical experiencer it would have been highly sacrilegious to make unfounded claims for visions or revelations,24 just as much as it would have been pretation of the contents of the vision that deviate from the actual revelation; however, in the shaping of the vision itself there is clear evidence of interpretation of earlier visions recorded in authoritative documents. The dichotomy between revelation and interpretation is a false one. It seems to me, therefore, that it is of little value to distinguish between one text that assumes a ‘real’ ascent and another that is merely a ‘literary’ report of an ascent. Such a distinction is predicated on the ability to isolate phenomenologically an experience separated from its literary context questionable presumption, inasmuch as all such experiences occur within a literary framework.” (Through a Speculum, 120) 23 Najman’s Seconding Sinai is a particularly important study in this regard, as it covers and ties together the biblical materials with later interpretive texts. A major claimed source of such traditions is Moses and the revelation on Sinai: Jubilees prol. 1:1-5; 4 Ezra 14:3-6; Ascension of Moses 1:1-2, 10:11, 11:1; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 19:10. See also George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (London: SCM, 1981), 73; Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 29; Najman, Seconding Sinai. Another is Enoch, associated with a scribal tradition: 1 Enoch 81:1, 103:2, 106:19. 24 Cf. April DeConick, Voices of the Mystics (JSNTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 52.

14

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

sacrilegious to innovate or to claim authorship for a tradition, including for one’s own text as it gives expression to this tradition (innovation and authorship constituting one and the same reality by their standards).25 Therefore, the ultimate question the student of early Jewish mysticism must ask is not whether the ancient author (individual or collective) has the ability to construct false claims or build a complex belief system, but what this author would deem as improper ways of living, reading, and expressing. In other words, the vantage point of our studies should not be our ethics and epistemology, but rather the ancient experience of the divine itself. Once this is understood, many contemporary concerns—including the issue of authenticity—reveal their anachronism and uselessness.

1.3 MONOTHEISM

As already noted, the second key category which has framed the discussions on early Jewish mysticism from their very beginning, beside “mysticism,” is that of “monotheism.” The term “monotheism” has been defined in different ways, but a broad, commonsense definition would say “worship of, and faith in one single being as the possessor of divinity.”26 The idea is that all other beings are excluded from divinity. The conversation around the concept has evolved since Scholem’s statement on the radical distinction between God and creatures. The discussions around its applicability to the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism in general will be reviewed in due course, in relation to actual texts. Here it is only necessary to introduce a major component of these discussions which comes from scholars of the New Testament. These scholars, such as Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, and Crispin Fletcher-Louis, operate on early Judaism based on their interest in New Testament Christology.27 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 12-15. I build this definition on the discussion in Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford, New York: Oxford, 2001), 151-54. 27 Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth did Jesus Become God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005); Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: “God Crucified” and 25 26

CHAPTER ONE

15

They do not agree on all Christological matters, as they do not agree on monotheism. At one end of the spectrum, Bauckham and Hurtado adjudicate their Christologies against their assumption of a radical distinction and distance in Judaism between God and everyone else, similarly to Scholem.28 At the other end of the spectrum, Fletcher-Louis rejects this sharp distinction and sees the earliest Christologies as prefaced by depictions of deified creative agents, angels, and humans.29 Yet, Fletcher-Louis, in his own admission, begins from precisely the same presupposition as Bauckham and Hurtado—God is radically and absolutely distinguished from everyone else.30 He calls his view an “exclusive inclusive monotheism.”31 The only difference between Bauckham and Fletcher-Louis is that the latter sees this distinction breached in Judaism in the aforementioned special instances and, in Christianity, in Jesus. It must be pointed out that these reconstructions of early Christologies are not without problems and that an appreciation of these problems will place the discussion of Jewish “monotheism” in clearer focus. The first and fundamental problem is a misreading of how early Christians build their knowledge of Christ and God. That God can only be seen and known in Christ is a fundamental early Christian claim (e.g., John 1:16; 6:46; 14:6-9; Mt 11:27; Luke 10:22; 2 Cor 4:4). Christ is the “image of the invisible God,” Col 1:15 puts it succinctly. In the Gospel of John Jesus insists that Israel has never had an experience of the Father and that the God whom they have seen and to whom they have talked—YHWH—is himself, this to the point of being asked to “show the Father” (John 14:8). Jesus, so the claim goes, is YHWH who appeared to the patriarchs

Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2008), esp. 60-126; Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism. Volume 1. Christological Origins (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2015), 293-316. 28 See particularly Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 1-59, and Hurtado, How on Earth, 111-133. 29 He also uses the vocabulary of deification extensively, but only to refer exclusively to such instances of shared divinity. 30 Christological Origins, 309-310. 31 Ibid., 309-316.

16

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

and prophets, who gave the Torah to Moses and took Israel out of Egypt.32 As Bogdan Bucur summarizes the evidence, “from the Gospel of John to John Damascene the theological assumption is. . . that the ‘Lord’ of the Old Testament narratives is the Lord Jesus Christ.”33 In this identification, early Christian texts make a fundamental procedural claim: Christology and theology do not proceed from a paradigmatic “God” to Christ (as if “God” and “Christ” are two distinct realities in a diachronic relationship, the first one metaphysical and clear, the second historical and ambiguous), but rather begin and end with Christ-as-God (as one perichoretic reality, to use another early Christian term).34 In other words, early Christians claim a theological procedure that is not paradigmatic, but experiential: knowledge of God is how Jesus is experienced and it is not a process which begins with how God is (to be) conceived. The Christian Trinity is fundamentally Christological: a look at God begins and ends with an encounter of Christ. This encounter—early texts are wont to mention—is not metaphysical, but physical, ascetical.35 Moreover, it is internal: the “mystery among the nations On this early Christian claim see Jarl Fossum, “Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7,” NTS 33 (1987) 226-243; David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (WUNT 2/47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); Charles Gieschen, “The Divine Name in Ante-Nicene Christology,” VC 57 (2003) 115-158; idem, “The Real Presence of the Son before Christ: Revisiting an Old Approach to Old Testament Christology,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 68 (2004) 105-126; Walther Binni and Bernardo Gianluigi Boschi, Cristologia primitiva: Dalla teofania del Sinai all’Io sono giovanneo (Bologna: Dehoniane, 2004); Suzanne Beth Nicholson, Dynamic Oneness: The Significance and Exibility of Paul’s One-God Language (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2010); Bogdan G. Bucur, “The Mountain of the Lord: Sinai, Zion, and Eden in Byzantine Hymnographic Exegesis,” in Symbola Caelestis: Le symbolisme liturgique et paraliturgique dans le monde chrétien (ed. B. Lourié and A. Orlov; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009), 129-172; idem, Scripture Re-envisioned. Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2019). 33 Scripture Re-envisioned, 265. 34 See also the remarks in John Behr, John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 15-29. 35 What is needed at this point in the investigation of early Christian sources is an abandonment of the western and modern dependence on metaphysics as clarity and certainty. For the early Christian insistence that the 32

CHAPTER ONE

17

is Christ in you” (Col 1:27). “Test yourselves. Or do you not recognize yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? (ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν)” (2 Cor 13:5).36 All three of our scholars proceed precisely backwards in comparison to their sources—from God to Christ. In their view the utmost pressure of a high Christology was to show that Jesus is God as the Father is God. In this they all replicate a radical medieval shift in Christian theology, and not the Christology of the New Testament. It is only in the Middle Ages that metaphysics (established on categories and definitions) and philosophy were so firmly set in the divine world as to afford a theology which begins with an abstract Trinity and then proceeds to the Incarnation, diachronically, through salvation history.37 Therefore, pace Fletcher-Louis the claims of early Christology are not to the deifications of Moses or Abraham, but to biblical theophanies. It should also be emphasized this early Christology is not making a doctrinal, categorical, or even testimonial point in its exegesis of theophanies.38 To the early Christians not even “the Scriptures” (as the Old Testament was commonly called) offer themselves as deposits of theological categories. knowledge of Christ-God is not metaphysical but physical (a claim which continues in the Christian east to this day), see Maximos Constas, “The Reception of Paul and of Pauline Theology in the Byzantine Period,” in The New Testament in Byzantium (eds. Derek Krueger and Robert Nelson; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2016), 147-176; idem, “Paul the Hesychast: Gregory Palamas and the Pauline Foundations of Hesychast Theology and Spirituality,” Analogia 4/2 (2017): 31-47. 36 The emphasis on this internality leads to the insistence that the knowledge of God is ultimately a descent into oneself. Among many sources, see Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue 3.1; Basil of Caesarea, Letter 2; Gregory of Nyssa, Concerning those who have died. 37 On this turn and its significance see Ethan D. Smith, The Crucified Lord of Glory: Apophatic Theology as Transformational Mysticism (Dayton: Cherubim Press, forthcoming). I wish to thank Ethan for having shared with me this splendid look at apophaticism and the language of theology in general. 38 On this see also Behr, John the Theologian, 1-15, and my slight correction of his points in “Tradition: Generated by or Generating Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

18

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Rather, seeing the Scriptures as Christological and their theophanies as christophanies constitutes the unveiling of a synchronicity between life experiences (visions of Christ, liturgical practice, the received kerygma, etc.) and texts: texts and experiences “make sense” together. And this is true of both early Christian and early Jewish readings of Scripture. The fundamental point behind this ancient practice of scriptural hermeneutics as essentially apocalyptic in nature is that the scriptural text is not out-referential, but in-referential. In the holy text one discovers not a position or proposition, but oneself. Arguably the single most important theological innovation which is at the foundation of the aforementioned medieval procedure from God/Trinity to Christ is Augustine’s reinterpretation of the Old Testament theophanies as not christophanies.39 Once de-christified, the Old Testament becomes the time of a pre-incarnate Son and conceptualized Trinity (conceptualized precisely along the categories preferred by our three scholars—creator and creature, uncreated and created). Pace Bauckham and Hurtado, in this early Christology Christ as God (YHWH, to be more precise) is not held in tension with Christ as human. On the contrary, enfleshment in creation seemed to come naturally to YHWH. This naturalness, I will argue here, was an inherited biblical reality. At least this is what early Christians both perceive in their own theology and, even more significantly, expect and find in the theology of contemporary Judaism, arguably as a shared biblical tradition. It is telling that Paul does not consider the snare (σκάνδαλον) of Christ for Jews to be the incarnation, but the cross (1 Cor 1:23). Similarly, in Justin Martyr’s words, Trypho, his Jewish interlocutor, does not reject the interpretation of biblical theophanies as christophanies, but their attribution to a crucified person: “you spoke much blasphemy expecting to pursuade us that this crucified one (τὸν σταυρωθέντα τοῦτον) was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar

On this see Michel René Barnes, “The Visible Christ and the Invisible Trinity: Mt. 5:8 in Augustine’s Trinitarian Theology of 400,” Modern Theology 19/3 (2003): 329-355; Bogdan G. Bucur, “Theophanies and Vision of God in Augustine’s De Trinitate: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective,” SVTQ 52/1 (2008): 67-93. 39

CHAPTER ONE

19

of cloud” (Dialogue with Trypho 38.1).40 Trypho’s enduring issue is with the particularities of Jesus’ life and especially the cross (32.1, 36.1, 39.7, 46.1, 48.3, 63.1). Even when Trypho finds the deification of a human Christ “more persuasive (πιθανώτερον)” than the incarnation (49.1) and considers the incarnation “a thing nearly unbelievable and impossible (ἄπιστον καὶ ἀδύνατον σχεδὸν πρᾶγµα)” (68.1), he, tellingly, still does not dismiss the incarnation outright. We are bound to conclude that at least in early Christian self-understanding the incarnation of YHWH is an element of (biblical) tradition presumed to be shared with Judaism, or at least an element expected not to be a point of contention with Judaism. Indeed, in the Dialogue Trypho—as a Christian-imagined Jew or not—does not dismiss the incarnation, but rallies his Jewishness around an equally traditional element, but now of newly-gained polemical value—the deification of humanity. In this maneuver he offers an early witness to a polemical argument which in later Judaism will engender vehement refutations of any divine incarnation and even corporeality.41 The issue could be naturally raised whether these and other early Christian voices read Judaism correctly or they imagine a Judaism desirable as a polemical other. Such questions bear no significance for my current argument, which is rather about Christian self-understanding, but it may be useful to point out that, although this early Christian understanding of Judaism on the topic of the incarnation has gone largely unnoticed in recent scholarship, some studies have come to present similar opinions on early Jewish theology. For example, in Daniel Boyarin’s My translation of the Greek text from Edgar J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914), 134. 41 As Deborah Forger notes, until recently these refutations have come to dominate the self-understandings and understandings of Judaism to the point of drowning out the earlier incarnation traditions (“Divine Embodiment in Philo of Alexandria,” JSJ 49/2 [2018]: 223-262). Ironically, I must depart from Forger’s interpretation of early Jewish sources in precisely this regard: it seems to me that these refutations still dominate her own reading of earlier sources, making her insensitive at times to the nuances of these texts. Thus, for Trypho to say that the incarnation is “nearly (σχεδὸν) unbelievable and impossible” is not the same as to say that it is “incredible and preposterous” (p. 224). 40

20

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

estimation “Justin [Martyr] is very concerned to define the Jews as those who do not believe in the Logos,”42 a definition with which Boyarin disagrees, for well-argued reasons.43 But this is not what Justin says and, even more importantly, this is not what Justin has Trypho say. On the contrary, on the topic of the Logos Justin’s self-understanding and his understanding of Judaism match. The point of contention between Justin and Trypho is Jesus, not the Logos per se. This reality is obscured by the fact that their discussion about the Logos is fundamentally guided by the issue of Jesus as a person, as a particular story, especially as a story of the cross. Underneath this contended story lies a sea of agreements, including on the Logos. Ironically, on the topic of the Logos Justin understands Judaism precisely as Boyarin does. To revisit the Gospel of John in light of this point, the fact that John does not expect the incarnation to be a problem for Jews is obscured today by the common understanding of the blasphemy accusation against Jesus as a denial of the possibility that a human can be also divine.44 The text does not support this understanding. John expresses this accusation twice, in 5:18 and 10:33, and both times in very similar words: Jesus is “making himself equal to God” (ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ) and respectively “being human, you [Jesus] are making yourself god” (σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν).45 These words are very precise and the objection is not to Jesus being YHWH incarnate or to Jesus being deified (as Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 38. 43 Ibid., 112-127. 44 Among others, see this understanding in J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2010), 274; James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context (Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 58-61; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:647. 45 This and all ensuing translations from the New Testament are my own, unless otherwise noted, and follow the critical text from Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.; ed. B. and K. Aland et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012) and The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (ed. Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont; Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005). 42

CHAPTER ONE

21

Trypho would prefer), but to Jesus’ self-deification and arguably—given the conciseness of the accusation—even to the very possibility of self-deification, that one can make oneself into a god. Support for this conclusion comes from Philo’s explanation of the Jewish refusal of the apotheosis of Roman emperors. The Jewish opposition, he says, is not to the existence of a God-human, nor to the incarnation of God, nor to God’s deification of a human being, but rather to the impossible claim that a human can make oneself god, independently of God (Leg. ad Gaium 114118).46 In one word, as in the Gospel of John, the issue is selfdeification.47 This claim, in Philo’s own estimation, is inherently self-loving and godless (φίλαυτος καὶ ἄθεος, Leg. 1.49). It is thus significant that in the Gospel Jesus immediately counters the two accusations of blasphemy with an insistence that he has received everything from the Father (John 5:19-44, 10:37-38), insistence which punctuates the entire text of the Gospel (e.g., 3:35, 5:26, 12:48-50).48 Nevertheless, the true response to the blasphemy 46

The essential paragraph (118) reads as follows:

But the change [of apotheosis] was not small, but the greatest of all, namely that the created and perishable nature of the human being divinely forms, as it seems, into the uncreated and imperishable nature of God, change which [the Jewish nation] judged to be the most grievous of impieties—for rather God would change into a human being than a human being into God—and, besides this, to also manifest the other supreme evils—unbelief and ingratitude toward the one who works the good toward the entire world, who through his power bestows an unreserved abundance of good things upon all the parts of the whole [universe]. (my translation of the Greek from Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium [ed. and trans. E. Mary Smallwood; Leiden: Brill, 1961], 83)

Possibly as a prevention of such misunderstandings of imprecise language, when naming the destiny of the holy person to share in divinity, some early Christian writers (e.g., Athanasius of Alexandria) prefer the clearer term θεοποίησις “god-making” to θέωσις “god-becoming.” With the former the sense is clearer that humans are made gods by God and are not making themselves gods. 48 Jesus’ response to the second blasphemy accusation, although it does not bear on the Christological point I am making here, is directly relevant to the larger argument of this book. As part of his counter-argument, he appeals to a tradition which he expects his accusers to recognize as their 47

22

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

own, namely that humans are, in some sense, gods: “Is it not written in your law, ‘I have said (εἶπα), you are gods’? If those to whom the Word of God came he called (εἴπεν) ‘gods’ and the scripture cannot be loosened, you call (ὑµεῖς λέγετε) the Word whom (ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασε καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσµον, ὑµεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφηµεῖς) the Father sanctified and sent into the world ‘You blaspheme’ because I have said (εἴπον) ‘I am son of God’?” (10:34-36). The translation of vv. 35 and 36 is somewhat difficult and the most well-known English translations are incorrect. First, in v. 35 they assume that the subject “he” (implicit in the verb “called”) is someone distinct from the Word, only because the verb comes before the noun. This reading is possible, but “he” is in this case without a referent (e.g., “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came”—RSV). Second, in v. 36 they assume that the relative pronoun ὃν “whom” (which is accusative singular masculine) does not have a referent, and therefore, in order to produce a fluent English translation, they supply it either with a personal pronoun (“him whom”—ESV, KJV, NASB) or an indefinite pronoun (“[the] one whom”—NIV, ISV). Yet, the relative pronoun does have a logical referent and the only grammatically sensical one—the “word” (λόγος), which is a masculine singular noun. In order to preserve this sense of the Greek (and a good English word order), in my translation I have repeated “Word” before the relative pronoun. This closer attention to the Greek means that Jesus is the Word, which is an identification already introduced in the prologue. This identification provides the symmetry to the obvious reverse parallelism: the Word called you gods, you call me blasphemer. The point of the entire passage hangs on this sharp contrast: I the divine Word call you humans “gods” and “sons of God,” and yet you humans call me the divine Word “blasphemer.” (The quoting of the first half of the divine words in the psalm verse is supposed to bring to mind the second half, in which people are called “sons of the Most High.”) Or to put it in different words: I have made you sons of God, but you will not allow me to call myself “son of God.” The issue of proper vocabulary (what Jesus can be called) is paired with an issue of transformation (what Jesus makes the people). The “Word who came” imagery is complex: it refers at once to a person— Jesus, a text—the psalm, and, in a unifying maneuver, the person who speaks within the psalm and said “you are gods.” The sense is that Jesus is the one who speaks to the Jews, who speaks the psalm, and who speaks in the psalm. This is also revealed by the fact that Jesus introduces indirect speech twice, both times with “I said”: the first time he is quoting the voice in the psalm—”I have said, you are gods,” the second time he is quoting something he said to the audience—”I have said, I am son of God.” In other words, he is quoting himself twice. The passage opens with another irony: in this context “your law” (that is, of the audience) is supposed to ring untrue and place the people again in contrast with

CHAPTER ONE

23

accusation and the ultimate explanation of Christ is the prologue, which offers the unveiling of Christ throughout history and beyond. Yet, the prologue is the encounter with the already resurrected Christ, the experience the disciples have of him as the resurrected YHWH. Short of this panoramic view of history offered by the prologue, the readers of the Gospel and the audiences of Jesus are left with the insistence that the Father is in Christ. Again pace Bauckham, the tension which this YHWH Christology generated was not between the divinity and humanity of Christ, but rather within the godhead itself. What the claim that Christ is YHWH meant was that, in a sense, YHWH is many. The baptismal formula, which speaks of the divine name as shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19), points to this. As others have already noted, Jesus is first and foremost a bifurcation within God, but, as the evidence goes, this bifurcation also has Jewish precedents49 and, I would add, is part and parcel of the fluidity of YHWH which I am proposing here. Also pace Bauckham, there is no indication that in the New Testament Christ—the incarnation of YHWH—is contained within himself. On the contrary, as an increasing body of research is evidencing, New Testament writers do not hold Christ’s uniqueness as YHWH in opposition or tension with a christifying participation in

the Word who speaks the law/psalm, and who speaks in the psalm. This prideful human claim over the law contrasts with Jesus veiling his identity under the third person. The ironic connections are deep and complex throughout, leading to the following message: when I said that you are gods, you believed me, but when I say I am son of God (the lack of a definite article reveals its significance!), you call me a blasphemer. This also makes sense of the reference to the Scriptures as not losing applicability: it refers at once both to the psalm in all its (other) applications and to Jesus as its ultimate application. The psalm is as true and actual when Jesus speaks as it was when it was given to Israel. For early Christian interpretations of the psalm, see Carl Mosser, “The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification,” JTS 56/1 (2005): 30-74. 49 See particularly Segal, Two Powers in Heaven; Boyarin, Border Lines, esp. 112-127; Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

24

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

him.50 To most ancient authorities the deification of humanity is an aspect of Christology, because Christ himself is divine inclusivity (cf. Eph 2:14; Heb 12:2). As some state explicitly, Jesus’ incarnation carries two concomitant transformations: God becomes human and humanity becomes divine. The incarnation of God is the deification of humanity.51 By these standards, non-participation in Christ vitiates Christ. If salvation is the union of God and human, that union, accomplished in Christ, must be participated in by humans. Pace Fletcher-Louis, rather than making the point that what has been said of these deified humans must also be said of Christ, many early Christian texts make the reverse point, that which has been said of other beings is ultimately a description of Jesus. They see the holy persons of Israel—Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.—as patterned on Christ. They not only do not threaten Christ’s uniqueness, but Christ, so to speak, is shown in them. The tension of the earliest Christologies is not to say, in one breath, that Jesus is divine and human, which is rather a fact established at once by experience and the biblical texts of the community (even though this was understood differently in different traditions), but rather it is to work out how this statement is true in the particulars of Christ’s existence, especially the cross. And this pressure is applied at once in both directions: to work out the experience of the God-human both against his human existence, with all its frailty, and against his divinity, his co-enthronement

E.g., Ben C. Blackwell, Christosis: Engaging Paul’s Soteriology with His Patristic Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016); idem, Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria (WUNT 314; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); M. David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology (BZNW 187; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012); Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Regrettably, Gorman’s argument has not fully discarded the much later category of covenant, although he wishes to define it less in forensic terms and more in terms of religious experience. 51 E.g., the analyses in John Behr, The Formation of Christian Theology. Volume 2. The Nicene Faith. Part One. True God of True God (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 168-207. 50

CHAPTER ONE

25

with the Father.52 A second tension, due to an increased need of clarification, appears only later on and mostly in Greek and Latin theologies, with the juxtaposition of the symbolic language inherited from Scripture with a language which is more precise and philosophical (but not necessarily with a philosophical mindset). In this historical reality hides an important methodological point: the language of the sources analyzed here—which predate or are outside the world of this appropriation of philosophical language—is symbolic and not categorical.53 Relatedly, it would be equally problematic to take the religious ideas or thoughts in these ancient texts to function as metaphysical entities, as “beliefs” or propositions which relate to other propositions in a web of “religion.” Without attention to the informality of early Judaism, to borrow Fried’s language and to revisit the point I initiated above, even the most rigorous study of ancient Judaism will inevitably end up in a paradoxical position: the more the ancient authors are given concrete shape by being re-imagined in our likeness, as having similar minds, using similar language, and expressing similar conceptions and concerns, the more they lose their personality and become disembodied into shadows of ourselves. I submit these criticisms of recent operations on early Jewish theology from Christian positions in order to place the first century Jewish experience of God and world in the clearest focus. Neither the “exclusive monotheism” of Bauckham and Hurtado nor the “exclusive inclusive monotheism” of Fletcher-Louis see the early Jewish divine world fluidly enough to replicate early

For more cogent analyses of early christologies in relation to Jewish mysticism see Andrei Orlov, The Glory of the Invisible God: Two Powers in Heaven Traditions and Early Christology (Jewish and Christian Texts in Context and Related Studies 31; London: Bloomsbury, 2019). 53 Arguably the greatest turn from symbolic language to categorical language, and from recognition to proposition, is Augustine’s detachment of the “signifier” from the “signified.” On this turn see particularly Phillip Cary, Outward Signs: The Powerlessness of External Things in Augustine’s Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); John M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 23-91 (which also explores the implications of this turn). 52

26

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Christian and Jewish lack of surprise in front of the experience of YHWH in the flesh and of the flesh in YHWH.

1.4 METHODOLOGY AND VOCABULARY

This monograph is a historical examination of traditions as extant in texts. It is not a study of archaeological or historical realities, but rather of perceptions of religious experiences. The internal subjectivity of the texts—it is important to keep in mind subjectivity is a category applied from without, from someone else’s vantage point (such as ours)—and their symbolic language are not circumvented, but valued and pursued. It could be said that this study is a work in the art of religion, a historical study of self-descriptions and images in ancient Jewish texts. Yet, this being said, this is not a direct study on religious experience. How one wants to adjudicate religious experience is not within the purview of this work. This study only looks at the records of experience, at texts. One major aspect of this recording of experience is being left out of this study, for strictly practical reasons, namely for the fact that its inclusion would have given this book an unmanageable size. This aspect is liturgy. It is easy to concede the fact that to the ancients to have a god meant to worship. Moreover, one’s theology was first and foremost shown in one’s worship. Regrettably, this study will only make the occasional short notes of this fundamental reality. Also for practical reasons, this monograph will analyze very few Christian sources. They will be used only tangentially. This exclusion also requires a vocabulary note: throughout this study, when I refer to “the Bible,” I mean the “Hebrew Bible” or “Old Testament.” I do this for two reasons. The first and most obvious lies in the aforementioned exclusion of Christian sources. Therefore it makes sense to avoid gratuitous, constant reminders of this fact. The second reason is not obvious at all. Although I am a Christian myself, I am of the opinion that it is more in line with early Christianity (and with the theology of my own Christian tradition) to speak of “the Old Testament” as “the Scriptures,” which are then paired with “the New Testament.

CHAPTER TWO. THE BIBLICAL FEATURES OF DIVINITY The God and gods of the Bible have bodies. And they do so throughout early Judaism, as the growing scholarship on the topic has documented extensively.1 This vast literature does not differ on whether God has a body or on whether the divine body is human-like, but only on the particular ways in which it represents the substance of this anthropomorphic corporeality and on its location and accessibility.2 In other words, God always has a

Andreas Wagner, Gottes Körper: Zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung des Menschengestaltigkeit Gottes (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2010); Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Esther J. Hamori, “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (BZAW 384; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8; Münster: UGARIT-Verlag, 1990), 87-590; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2002); idem, “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” ZAW 100 (1988): 424-427; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth. Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConBOT 18; Lund: Wallin & Dalholm, 1982); James Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,” Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 31-38. For a thorough textual survey of the physical and psychological features of YHWH, see Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 88-185. 2 Beside the titles in the above footnote, see also Mark S. Smith, “The Three Bodies of God in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 134 (2015): 471-488. On divine corporeality in rabbinic Judaism, see particularly Alon Goshen1

29

30

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

body and the divine body is always human-shaped,3 but it is not always physical and it is not always accessible. Older presuppositions and arguments that certain biblical texts or theologies are anti-corporeal or anti-anthropomorphic, have to be abandoned or corrected in light of this evidence.4 Thus, the Deuteronomistic author’s emphasis that YHWH was not seen on Sinai or is in the heavens (e.g., Deut 4-5; 1 Kings 8:14-66) could better be explained as a tendency to render the divinity not void of form, but inaccessible to human eyes.5 An Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87 (1994): 171-95. 3 Textually and even artistically YHWH is depicted at times in non-human terms: a sun in Ps 84:10-12, “the bull of Jacob” in Gen 49:24, Ps 132:2, 5, Isa 1:24, 49:26, and 60:16, or as having horns in Num 24:8 and Hab 3:4. Yet, this language seems to be symbolic. 4 It is safe to assume that to a certain extent these presuppositions and arguments express deeply ingrained Christian or Jewish theologies which are too recent to bear on our ancient documents. 5 Although the documentary hypothesis has been contested for the last four decades (especially by such scholars as Thomas Thompson, John Van Seters, and Philip Davies), it has received renewed interest and support in more recent studies, such as in Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), and the identities of P and D had largely remained unquestioned. A short survey of pre-1982 opinions on the date of D is provided in Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 38 n.1. For more recent proposals, see the essays in Gary Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). Mettinger dates the emergence of the ‫ שם‬theology of D to 597, when he places the destruction of the cherubim throne (The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 38 n.1, and especially 59-66). Josiah’s reform of cultic centralization in the seventh century B.C.E. has been confirmed by archaeological evidence (cf. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998], 354-367), but it was brought into question as a possible promotion of an existing D theology (cf. C. Levin, “Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” ZAW 96 [1984]: 351-371). Yet, as many have pointed out, there is nothing in archaeological findings to contest the biblical account of Josiah’s reform (e.g., William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? [Grand Rapids, Mich., Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003]; Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed.

CHAPTER TWO

31

entirely bodiless and formless deity would have no need to hide. The fact that the denial most often involves YHWH’s ‫ פנים‬seems to identify the latter as the most intimate side of the deity; a vision of the ‫ פנים‬would thus mean a dangerously close encounter with the deity. Deutero-Isaiah’s emphasis on God’s incomparability to human form (e.g., Isa 40:18, which uses ‫ )דמות‬appears in the context of a vehement critique of Babylonian idol worship and expresses the need to re-evaluate the preexilic theology of YHWH’s physical presence in the Temple which is no longer extant. In this light, Deutero-Isaiah’s message is not anti-anthropomorphic, but rather makes the point that YHWH is beyond any comparison to idols. The point may be aniconic, and often is (such as in DeuteroIsaiah), but not always and not absolutely.6 Early Jewish aniconism must be evaluated against a further distinction: being against idols is not necessarily to oppose an image of YHWH himself. It is theologically possible to say that YHWH is not like any human form and simultaneously worship him in an image which is defined as his own (and therefore as not-a-human-form), especially since he does possess a form of his own (cf. Ezek 1:16, which speaks of the Glory’s own ‫)דמות‬.7 Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts [New York: Free Press, 2000; reedited New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002]). 6 The undifferentiated use of ‘aniconism’ for all stands against images can obscure deep-seated theological differences. For thoughts on the necessity of such differentiations see Izak Cornelius, “The Many Faces of God: Divine Images and Symbols in Ancient Near Eastern Religions,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Veneration of the Holy Book in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 21-43, here p. 22; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins,” in van der Toorn, The Image and the Book, 173-204, here pp. 199-200. Yet, the term serves here as shorthand for the broad phenomenon encompassing such differences. 7 As an example from the world of the appropriations of the Bible, images of Christ are not defined as idols or as “human forms” in the thoroughly iconic tradition of the Orthodox Christian east (to which I myself belong). This Christianity is not supersessionist and sees its iconic tradition in direct lineage with the prophets of Israel (including Isaiah) and the Deuteronomist prohibitions. Those prohibitions—it is said—are, on the one hand, against images of God which do not have God’s own resemblance

32

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

To return to God’s body, the broader theological culture in Jewish antiquity did not offer any venue for experiencing the divine in an entirely incorporeal manner, as would do later Muslim theology.8 Within the broader ancient Near Eastern context of both the preexilic and postexilic periods, “believing” in gods meant relating to someone concrete and concreteness meant corporeality of some sort. This framework did not change with the destruction of the temple; Jewish theology was unabatedly corporeal. What changed (quite immediately) was rather the location of YHWH’s body out of common reach, to heaven (often, but not always, this meant aniconicity). Ronald Hendel has aptly called this phenomenon “transcendent anthropomorphism.”9 Nevertheless, as a fundamental methodological matter, this “transcendent anthropomorphism” should not be assumed as an overwhelming or widespread position of biblical voices. An iconic theology of the First Temple, centered in the physical presence of YHWH in the temple, can be discerned even between or behind the aniconic revisions of exilic and postexilic editors and authors. Several texts suggest that YHWH was conceived as dwelling in the tabernacle and the First Temple, most probably as a statue.10 and, on the other, against the veneration of the real images as actually God (rather than relational presences). No biblical text is seen as forbidding an image of God in his own resemblance, to be treated just as such. For this iconic tradition and its exegetical foundations see Christoph von Schönborn, God’s Human Face: The Christ-icon (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994); Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon (2 vols.; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978, 1992). 8 See particularly Alain Besançon, The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Year: 2000), 77-91. 9 Ronald S. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in van der Toorn, The Image and the Book, 205-228. 10 Exod 15:17, 25:8; 2 Sam 7:5-7; 1 Kgs 6:1-2; 8:12-13; Isa 8:18; Pss 46:45, 48:9, 50:2, 76:3, 132:13-14. For secondary literature, see M. Görg, “‫ישב‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 6:420-438, and idem, “‫שכן‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 14:691-702. Exilic and postexilic theologies revised this conception about YHWH’s habitation in the temple. Notice should be taken of the LXX version of Exod 25:8, namely “and you will make me a holy place, and I will be seen in you” (ποιήσεις µοι

CHAPTER TWO

33

YHWH’s garments are mentioned in several texts.11 Jewels are also mentioned in connection with YHWH’s throne.12 In several texts cult offerings are described as nourishment for YHWH.13 Incense and sacrifices are burned to please the sense of smell of the present deity and to conjure his physical presence.14 All these cultic acts would have no purpose if they were not addressed to a statue of YHWH. An immaterial or aniconic presence of YHWH would not need this extensive physical care and would not occasion such descriptions. Moreover, these acts and descriptions are also addressed (illegitimately) to other gods. According to both biblical accounts and archaeological records, the early periods of Israel and Judah commonly witnessed and accepted an extensive practice of polytheism, of offering of incense and sacrifices to other gods, especially Baal.15 We do know that these offerings were performed in front of cult images.16 It is most probable that similar offerings to YHWH were also performed in front of cultic representations of YHWH. Incensing and offering for YHWH would not have carried a different purpose and meaning than the incensing and offering given to other gods or goddesses. ἁγίασµα, καὶ ὀφθήσοµαι ἐν ὑµῖν). The use of ὁράω is significant: YHWH does not simply dwell in the tabernacle, he makes himself “seen” in it. 11 Isa 6:1; Ezek 16:8; Isa 63:1-3. See also the detailed analysis in Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 367-370. 12 Exod 24:10; Ezek 1:22, 26, 10:1. 13 Gen 35:14; Exod 25:29-30, 29:38-41, 35:13, 37:16, 39:36; Lev 3:11, 16, 21:6, 8, 17, 21-22, 22:25; 23:13, 18, 37; Num 4:7, 28:2, 4; 1 Sam 21:6; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2 Chr 4:19; Ezek 44:7; see also Judg 6:20-21. Ps 50:815 seems to be a critique against the belief that YHWH actually consumes the offerings. See also the detailed expositions of this motif in Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 418-424; Menahem Haran, “The Complex of Ritual Acts Performed Inside the Tabernacle,” ScrHier 8 (1961): 272-302, here pp. 286-287. 14 E.g., Gen 8:20-21; Exod 25:6, 29:18, 25, 41, 30:7-9, 34-38; Lev 23:13,18; Deut 33:10; 1 Sam 2:28; Isa 1:13; Ezek 20:41. See also Haran, “The Complex of Ritual Acts,” 276-277; Ronald E. Clements, “‫קטר‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 13:9-16. 15 E.g., 1 Kgs 22:44; 2 Kgs 22:17; Jer 1:16, 7:9, 11:13, 17, 19:4, 32:29, 44:3, 5, 8, 15, 17. 16 E.g., Jer 1:16, 44:8; Hos 11:2.

34

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

My interest in this chapter lies not with this transcendence, nor with the substance of YHWH’s anthropomorphic corporeality, but with the particular features of this corporeality, be it hidden or iconic. Of primary interest are YHWH’s royal features, which— it seems to me—are the focal point of his portraits. Several such depictions stand out. 1 Kings 22:19b-22 describes a vision attributed to Micaiah ben Imlah, a northern prophet placed by the text in the ninth century B.C.E. The text avoids a detailed description of YHWH, but his royalty comes through in no unclear terms: “I saw YHWH sitting (‫ )יייי ישב‬on his throne and all the rank of heaven ( ‫כל־צבא‬ ‫ )השמים‬standing at his right and from his left.”17 Even though it is in a Deuteronomistic hand, the vision is not explicitly located in the remote heaven preferred by the Deuteronomist. This would support its preexilic self-dating, since, as Othmar Keel notes, in that context it was “out of place to inquire whether the scene is set in the temple or in heaven.”18 There is nothing in textual or physical evidence to prevent the conclusion that in preexilic times the temple is heaven on earth; this presence is not simply a union, as it would come to be seen later on,19 but rather an identity.20

This and all ensuing translations from the Hebrew Bible are my own, unless otherwise noted, and follow the critical text from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (eds. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph; 5th ed.; Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1997). 18 The Symbolism of the Biblical World. Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (New York: Crossroad, 1985), 174. 19 For this union see Martha Himmelfarb, “From Prophecy to Apocalypse: The Book of Watchers and Tours of Heaven,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible to the Middle Ages (ed. A. Green; World Spirituality 13; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 145-165, here pp. 150-151. 20 See also the remarks in Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Yahweh Zebaoth,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; ed. K. van der Toorn et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 920-924, esp. 923; idem, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 29-32; Martin Metzger, “Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Jahwes,” UF 2 (1970): 139-158; Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (SBS 84-85; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 51-53; idem, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 172-173; Johann Maier, Vom Kultus zur Gnosis. Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte der 17

CHAPTER TWO

35

With YHWH dwelling literally in the temple, the temple constitutes heaven on earth (cf. also Ps 14:2,7; 20:3,7; 76:3,9).21 As Herbert Niehr sums up the evidence, from the times of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (ca. 950586 BCE) onward, there are no traces of the idea of YHWH living in heaven [as distinct from the temple]. What we do have from the 8th century BCE onwards, however, are traces of YHWH’s solarization, his conjunction with a host of heaven, his commanding of meteorological phenomena and his riding in heaven. Not once, however, is heaven presented as YHWH’s habitat. Heaven becomes YHWH’s dwelling place only after the exile. This seems to be both a reaction against the destruction of YHWH’s earthly abode, viz. the Temple of Jerusalem, in 586 BCE, and a logical continuation of YHWH’s cosmic powers, a concept which developed from the 8th century onwards.22

“jüdischen Gnosis.” Bundeslade, Gottesthron und Märkabah (Religionswissenschaftliche Studien 1; Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1964), 101-105. 21 The identification of the sanctuary with heaven is also attested in Iron Age II Egypt and Mesopotamia and in the Late Bronze religion of Ugarit. On this, see Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 29-30, n.40 and 41; Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 172-173. Thus, in Ugaritic literature a temple is called “high heaven.” In Egypt a formula uttered at the opening of the gates to the inner chamber of the temple was: “The gates of heaven are opened.” The entering priest proclaims: “I enter into heaven to behold (the name of the god).” 22 Herbert Niehr, “In Search of YHWH’s Cult Statue in the First Temple,” in van der Toorn, The Image and the Book, 73-96, here 75. For the separation of heaven from the temple and the subsequent seclusion of heaven from regular human access, see also Victor A. Hurowitz, ‘I Have Built You an Exalted House.’ Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSupp 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 313-321; Herbert Niehr, “God of Heaven,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 370-372; idem, “Host of Heaven,” in K. van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 428-430. Yet, the location of YHWH in the temple is evident even in texts revised or authored in the exilic and postexilic period. YHWH is king in Zion, enthroned upon the enormous cherubim throne in the temple (1 Sam 4:4, 2 Sam 6:2, Ps 80:2, 2 Kgs 19:15), or dwelling in the temple (1 Kgs 8:12-13, Exod 15:17, 2 Sam 7:1-6). The psalms dedicated to Zion and the temple, the so-called “songs of Zion,”

36

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Two details in 1 Kings 22:19b-22 suggest that Micaiah had this vision in the temple: the sitting of YHWH (‫ )יייי ישב‬and his surrounding with all the rank of heaven (‫)כל־צבא השמים‬. The two images and their wording echo closely two titles which were used (almost exclusively) for the divine presence enthroned upon the cherubim throne in the temple: “the sitting-one of the cherubim” (‫ ;ישב הכרבים‬but in LXX “the one sitting upon the cherubim” καθήµενος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβιν), a phrase which occurs seven times in the Bible (1 Sam 4:4, 2 Sam 6:2=1 Chr 13:6, 2 Kgs 19:15=Isa 37:16, Ps 80:1, 99:1),23 and “YHWH of the ranks” (‫)יייי צבאות‬, a phrase which occurs 284 times in the Bible.24 It has been suggested that originally the two most probably constituted one

which are most probably rooted in theologies of the monarchic period, emphasize the same idea that the temple (Zion or Jerusalem) is literally the house of YHWH (Ps 43:3, 46:5, 48:9, 50:2, 76:3, 132:13-14). 23 On this title see Alice Wood, Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim (BZAW 385; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 9-22; Jack M. Sasson, “‘The Lord of Hosts, Seated over the Cherubs’,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer; BZAW 294; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 227-234; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 19-37; idem, “YHWH SABAOTH—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays; Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979 (ed. T. Ishida; Tokyo: YamakawaShuppansha, 1982), 109-138. The title suggests that the throne of the seated God in the holy of holies either had a seat which was formed of the conjoined inner wings of the two cherubim or, which is less probable, it was a throne placed between two separated cherubim. The feet of the enormous god enthroned on the cherubim throne would rest on the ark as on a footstool (cf. 1 Chr 28:2; Pss 99:5; 132:7; Lam 2:1; Isa 66:1; see the evidence adduced in Menahem Haran, “The Ark and the Cherubim,” IEJ 9 [1959]: 30-38, 89-98; R. de Vaux, Bible et Orient [Paris: Cerf, 1967], 254-259, 272-276; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 23). For descriptions of the divine throne, see Haran, “The Ark and the Cherubim,” 35-36; Keel, Jahwe-Visionen, 24; Mettinger, “Cherubim,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 189-192. 24 On this title see Mettinger, “Yahweh Zebaoth,” 920-924; idem, “YHWH SABAOTH,” 109-138.

CHAPTER TWO

37

single title and they indeed occur together four times.25 I would contend that in 1 Kings 22:19b-22 also the two titles are echoed together. It is not surprising that a second vision of the enthroned YHWH is located in the temple—Isaiah 6. In contrast to 1 Kings 22:19b-22, this vision offers more detail on YHWH’s royalty: I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up ( ‫כסא רם‬ ‫ )ונשא‬and the hem of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim stood above him, with six wings and six wings to each. With two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said, “Holy, holy, holy, YHWH of ranks, his glory fills the whole earth.” And the posts of the threshold shook from the voice of the one crying out, and the house was filled with smoke.

The throne “high and lifted up” (the same in LXX: ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ καὶ ἐπηρµένου)26 is arguably the ten-cubit high cherubim throne in the holy of holies (1 Kgs 6:23-28; 8:6-7; 2 Chr 3:10-13). This description of the throne and the divine hem filling the temple suggest the gigantic proportions of the enthroned YHWH.27 Mettinger, “Yahweh Zebaoth,” 922; Wood, Of Wings and Wheels, 1418. 26 The description of the throne as “lifted up” is peculiar. The word can be taken metaphorically, as referring to liturgical exultation. Yet, in a portrait which is deeply non-metaphorical, it is most probably meant physically. In this sense, I would argue, it does not refer to a sort of levitation, but rather to the fact that the throne is carried, it is borne up. It is tempting to relate the imagery to the description of the merkabah in Ezekiel 1, which bears the divine Glory. 27 See also Jonas C. Greenfield, “Ba’al’s Throne and Isa 6:1,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (ed. A. Caquot et al.; AOAT 215; Kevalaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 193-198; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 19-37; idem, “YHWH SABAOTH,” 109-138; Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 186-188; Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 424-427. It does not seem likely that, as several scholars suggest, the size of the throne was exaggerated in postexilic times at the expense of the statue of YHWH seated on it (cf. Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 82). It would rather seem that the enormous throne was meant to accommodate an enormous statue of a seated YHWH. 25

38

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Furthermore, this sense of enormity is heightened by the fact that the garment filling (‫ )מלא‬the temple is in parallelism with the glory (‫ )כבוד‬filling (‫ )מלא‬the earth in verse 3.28 The garment of YHWH is mentioned in many other biblical texts. All these references to YHWH’s garments, I would argue, probably point to the clothing of a cultic statue.29 Whereas the archaeological attestation that ancient Judah was not devoid of cultic images is widely accepted,30 only a growing minority of scholars allows for the possibility that monarchic Judah worshipped a cultic statue of YHWH in the First Temple.31 For example, the point has The imagery is common to the accounts describing the dedication of the temple or of the tabernacle (Exod 40:34-35; 1 Kgs 8:11; see also Ezek 10:4; 43:5; 44:4). Moshe Weinfeld notes that “in Mesopotamia, too, the splendor (melammu) of the gods and kings covers (katāmu, saḫāpu) heaven and earth or fills (malû) the whole earth” (“‫כבוד‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 7:22-38, here p. 29). The parallelism also reflects a common ancient Near Eastern association between divine majesty and divine garments. In Mesopotamia gods are envisioned as clothed in splendor. For this, see A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8 (1949): 172-193. 29 Several Near Eastern texts attest to the fact that cultic statues were dressed with the royal clothing envisioned for the gods. See especially Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments.” 30 See for example the evidence collected and commented upon in the following massive studies: Othmar Keel et al., Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel I-IV (OBO 67, 88, 100, 135; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985-1994); Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God; Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh. Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 261; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). 31 For debates on the issue of a cultic statue of YHWH in the Jerusalem temple, see A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Bildlosigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament,” Henoch 6 (1984): 257-270; Bob Becking, “Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in Ancient Israel?,” in van der Toorn, The Image and the Book, 157-171; Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue”; Cornelius, “The Many Faces of God,” 21-43; Christoph Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images,” in van der Toorn, The Image and the Book, 97-155; idem, “Israelite Aniconism in Context,” Bib 77 (1996): 540-549; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9; Münster, 1992); N. Na’aman, “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image: Notes on the Assumed 28

CHAPTER TWO

39

been made that YHWH’s title ‫ ישב הכרבים‬works best in reference to a statue.32 Also, as I already mentioned above, theologically and culturally aniconism would have been extremely exceptional and nonsensical in the context of the First Temple.33 Historically, Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Preexilic Period,” UF 31 (1999): 391-415; T. S. Lewis, “Divine Images: Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” JAOS 118 (1998): 36-53; B. B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Readings Images and Viewing Texts,” in The Triumph of Elohim; From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. D. V. Edelman; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995), 75-105; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (ConBOT 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995); idem, “Aniconism: A West Semitic Context for the Israelite Phenomenon?” in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 1994), 159-178; idem, “The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God in Israel,” in Religious Symbols and Their Functions (ed. H. Biezais; SIDA 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979), 15-29; idem, “Israelite Aniconism,” 173-204; K. van der Toorn, “The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah,” in van der Toorn, The Image and the Book, 229-248; Johannes C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism (Leuven: Brill, 1990; second edition 1997), 170-172; Silviu N. Bunta, “YHWH’s Cultic Statue after 597/586 B.C.E.: A Linguistic and Theological Reinterpretation of Ezekiel 28:12,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69/2 (2007), 212-232; Bob Becking, “Silent Witness: The Symbolic Presence of God in the Temple Vessels in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (eds. N. MacDonald and I. de Hulster; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 267-282; S. Anthonioz, “La destruction de la statue de Yhwh,” Cahiers du Cercle Ernest Renan 269 (2015): 1-15. 32 O. Loretz, Ugarit und die Bibel (Darmstadt, 1990), esp. 210-215; idem, “Gottes Thron im Tempel und Himmel nach Psalm 11,” UF 26 (1994): 258-262; Dietrich and Loretz, “Jahwe und seine Aschera”, 106-110; Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary,” 148-149. 33 If the cult of YHWH had been purely aniconic, a practical and theological duplicity would have been particularly acute in the case of the presumed divine pair YHWH-Asherah. Biblical accounts (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:13) and archaeological finds attest to an iconic veneration of Asherah, alternatively anthropomorphic or dendromorphic, during the monarchic period (Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, esp. 198248, 369-370). Asherah even had an image placed in the temple alongside YHWH during the time of Manasseh, according to 2 Kgs 21:7 (also possibly 2 Kgs 23:6). For the complex issues regarding Asherah and her

40

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

biblical polemics support the archeological evidence suggesting that preexilic Judah had iconism at heart. Indeed, the practice of clothing divine statues is not unknown to ancient Judah (cf. Jer 10:9; Ezek 16:18; cf. also Hos 2:9-10). Yet, regardless of whether one accepts the existence of a cultic statue of YHWH, it is very clear from both widespread liturgical practices and biblical texts that resplendence or luminosity is an essential element of the divine garment. Ps 104:1b-2a states this succinctly: “you (YHWH) are clothed with majesty (‫)הדר‬, who don light (‫ )אור‬like a garment.” I would argue that resplendence is implicit in Isaiah’s vision. Its parallelism between the garment and glory points to the connection of ‫ כבוד‬with the Mesopotamian terms puluẖtu, rašubbatu, namurratu, and melammu, all of which indicate the majesty of gods (and kings) as it is embodied in the luminosity of their garments (and, more rarely, crowns).34 association with YHWH, see especially, Smith, The Early History of God, esp. 47-54, 108-147; Saul Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); J. A. Emerton, “‘Yahweh and his Asherah’: The Goddess or Her Symbol,” VT 49 (1999): 315-37; J. M. Hadley, The Cult of the Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah; Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, esp. 209-248; Keel, Goddesses and Trees; William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). The duplicity issue is still in place even if or after Asherah had been incorporated into the persona of YHWH as a mediating symbol or aspect (thus Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, esp. 236-237, 278). It remains to be explained how a mediating aspect of YHWH was venerated iconically while a ‘direct’ cult of YHWH was consistently void of any iconicity. 34 On this connection and these terms see CAD M/2 9-12; A. Leo Oppenheim, “Akkadian puluẖtu and melammu,” JAOS 63 (1943): 31-34; idem, Ancient Mesopotamia (2nd revised ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 98; Elena Cassin, La Splendeur Divine: Introduction à l’Étude de la Mentalité Mésopotamienne (Paris: Mouton, 1968), esp. 5-32; Weinfeld, “‫כבוד‬,” 26, 28-31; Menahem Haran, “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” in In the Shelter of Elyon (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 159-173, here 167-168, also nn. 18-21; Shawn Zelig Aster, The Unbeatable Light: Melammu and Its Biblical Parallels (AOAT 384; Muenster: Ugarit Verlag, 2012).

CHAPTER TWO

41

The Isaianic scene35 is by far not the only biblical text which concerns itself with YHWH’s size. The size of the divine body is so commonly stated or implied that Mark Smith proposes a categorization of biblical divine bodies in relation to it.36 Keel argues that even “statements such as ‘Yahweh is great,’ ‘Yahweh is highly exalted’ (cf. Ps 47:2, 9, 86:10, 95:3, etc.), and personal names such as Ramiah or Jehoram (Joram) (‘Yahweh is lofty’), were perhaps originally meant more literally than was the case at a later time (cf. Amos 4:13).”37 I will not review this evidence here. Yet, one text commonly escapes the lists of evidence (including Smith’s) and I will analyze here as a proposal for its addition—Ps 24:7-10. Lift up your heads, gates, and be lifted up, entrances of old, and the king of glory will come in! Who is this king of glory? YHWH strong and mighty, YHWH strong in battle. Lift up your heads, gates, and lift up, entrances of old, and the king of glory will come in! Who is this king of glory? YHWH of ranks (‫)יייי צבאות‬, he is the king of glory.

The prevalent interpretation of this scene is still that of Frank Moore Cross, who finds the passage strikingly similar to KTU 1.2 i:27, in which Baal encourages his fear-stricken co-members of the divine council to lift up their heads in front of his archenemy, and consequently argues that the psalmic call is for the personified gates of Jerusalem to lift their heads in front of YHWH.38 I cannot agree with the interpretation. The gates in the Ugaritic The scene closely resembles the iconographic depiction of an encounter between king Nabuapaliddin of Babylon and Shamash in the latter’s temple. The sun-god is seated on a lofty throne in an inner-room of the temple. In comparison to the king, the god is of enormous proportions. Reproductions of the scene can be found in André Parrot, Assur: Die mesopotamische Kunst vom XIII. Vorchristlichen Jahrhundert bis zum Tode Alexanders des Grossen (Munich, 1961), fig. 215; Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 174 fig. 239. 36 Smith, “The Three Bodies of God.” 37 Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 171. 38 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 97-98. The interpretation is picked up in the equally influential study of Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 29-30. 35

42

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

text are not simply bewildered, as verses 8 and 10 depict the biblical gates, but are outright defiant and inimical. I would suggest that the call rather echoes the ceremonial return of an ancient Near Eastern victorious king to his city and that it should be taken literally. Niehr also makes the intriguing argument that, in the context of ancient Near Eastern rituals of processions with cult statues, it would make sense to associate the scene with a procession with YHWH’s cultic statue (cf. also Ps 68:24-25).39 It is indeed very likely that Psalms 47, 93, 95, and 96-99 refer to processions with an enthroned statue of YHWH on feasts of his enthronement.40 Consequently I would submit that the gates (either of the city or, more likely, of the temple)41 impede the entrance of the divine body whose size exceeds their clearance, and the two verbs solicit the removal of the impediment—the elevation of the gate arch (i.e., the “heads”) or of the gate altogether.42 Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 86. For these processions, see also Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 67-77; P. Welten, “Königsherrschaft Gottes und Thronbesteigung,” VT 32 (1982): 297-310; Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 87. Psalm 47 suggests that YHWH is enthroned during the procession. Psalm 95 describes a ritual celebration of YHWH’s kingship “in front” (‫ פניו‬twice) of YHWH. Psalm 99 specifically mentions the enthronement of YHWH upon the cherubim throne. However, the people do not seem to venerate the enthroned deity directly, but instead worship at YHWH’s “footstool,” a common appellation of the ark which sits in front of the cherubim throne. The evident inconsistency seems to be an attempt to purge the liturgical scene or the collective memory of any statue processions. All these ceremonies in which YHWH moves, marches, ascends and is enthroned amid public veneration, suggest processional carrying of YHWH’s cultic statue. As Niehr emphasizes, “YHWH’s ascension and enthronement can only be realized with a cult statue. When a verb of movement is combined with a divine name, it implies movement of the divine statue” (“YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 87). Niehr also points that the most plausible meaning of the language of “seeing YHWH” within the temple is in reference to a cultic image (ibid., 83-85). 41 The gate of the temple is more likely to be called “of old” and be referred in the plural than the gate of the city. See also Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 172; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 32. 42 Several scholars have proposed that the passage refers to a procession of the ark into the temple: Martin Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985), 362-363; Jörg Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes 39 40

CHAPTER TWO

43

in den Psalmen (Göttingen, 1987), 60-62. However, while a procession into the temple is strongly suggested in the passage, the ark could not function as the representation of YHWH’s body. The ark is nowhere described in such terms, either as the divine body itself or as its image. For example, the ark could not serve as the face (‫ )פנים‬of YHWH, which is specifically identified as the object of cultic visions in several texts (e.g., Isa 1:12; Pss 11:7; 42:3; Exod 24:17; 34:23-24; Deut 16:16, 31:11; 1 Sam 1:22). In Ps 17:15 the face of YHWH beheld in the temple is also his “visible form” (‫)תמונה‬. The ark could not have supplied YHWH’s form in the preexilic Judahite theology reflected in these texts. As the choice for ‫ארון‬suggests (‫ ארון‬is used for other boxes in the temple, e.g., in 2 Kgs 12:10-11), the ark seems to have been originally a depository box for the covenant of YHWH (cf. Deut 10:1-5). It thus became “the ark of the covenant [of YHWH etc.]” (‫ )ארון ברית‬to the Deuteronomists and “ark of the testimony” (‫ )ארון העדות‬in the Priestly theology (cf. Seow, “Ark of the Covenant,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed. Freedman, David N; New York, 1992), 1:386-393, here p. 387; idem, “The Designation of the Ark in Priestly Theology,” HAR 8 [1985]: 185-198). Whether the ark also constituted at this early point the pedestal of a portable statue of YHWH is not absolutely clear, but it is a distinct possibility. This early theophoric application of the ark would explain why the latter functions throughout the “ark narrative” of 1 Samuel 4-6 very much like a divine image (cf. K. van der Toorn and C. Houtman, “David and the Ark,” JBL 113 [1994]: 209-231, esp. 216; W. Dietrich and T. Naumann, Die Samuelbücher [Darmstadt, 1995], esp. 121-143; P. D. Miller and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the ‘Ark Narrative’ of 1 Samuel [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977], esp. 10-17; M. Delcor, “Yahweh et Dagon ou le Jahwisme face à la religion des Philistins, d’après 1 Sam.V,” VT 14 [1964]: 136-154; ; John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth. Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel [BJSUC 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 109-113). The ark in itself could not have supplied such numinous meaning. Consider the identity of the ark as the kabod of YHWH in 1 Sam 4:21-22 and the reaction attributed to the Philistines in 1 Sam 4:3-8 (see also Miller and Roberts, The Hand of the Lord, 42). The reaction would hardly be conceivable in front of a depository box. A statue of YHWH, on the other hand, could have naturally received such reaction. Moreover, in 1 Sam 5:1-4 the ark is treated in a manner that recalls the treatment of captured divine images (thus Miller and Roberts, The Hand of the Lord, 10-17, 4245; Delcor, “Yahweh et Dagon”). It is presented in a direct conflict with Dagon’s statue. If behind these severely edited texts one could possibly read ancient accounts about a statue of YHWH standing on the depository of his covenant, with the creation of the cherubim throne the ark lost its theophoric function. A distinction between the ark and the

44

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

The evidence provided by these few texts alone suffices to amass the most important biblical features of the divine body: enthronement, radiance, enormity. Yet, in these central features of divinity YHWH is not depicted differently from the way in which neighboring civilizations imagined their gods. I am now turning to these, briefly.

enthroned upon the cherubim is evident in the phrase “the ark of the covenant of YHWH of the ranks, the sitting one of the cherubim” (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4; see also 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Chr 13:6.), a phrase “usually regarded as the fullest and most ancient liturgical name of the ark” (Seow, “Ark of the Covenant,” 387). It is therefore most plausible that originally the ark was not YHWH’s physical presence in the temple. The numinous presence was enthroned upon the cherubim. Moreover, the ark was not originally even the place of YHWH’s enthronement. YHWH, as already mentioned, was ‫ישב הכרבים‬. In relation to this enthroned presence, the ark seems to have simply constituted the footstool of YHWH’s throne, as I already mentioned above. In the revisionist accounts of the Priestly theology, the ark seems to have absorbed the cherubim into its own adornment (cf. Exod 25:10-22; 37:1-15). However, the divine presence upon the new ark becomes a mere source of divine commandments (cf. Exod 25:22; Num 7:89). While this portrayal contains vestiges of the ancient throne theology, the ark does not bear an iconic presence of YHWH any longer. Both Priestly and Deuteronomic theologies exhibit ark conceptions of evident aniconic connotations. YHWH does not reside physically in a cult image, but he is rather dynamically present with the depository of his covenant. Thus the portrayal of the ark in 1 Samuel 4-6 bears the signs of an aniconic revision of an original reference to a statue of YHWH, probably mounted on the ark. Further efforts to introduce the ark into the accounts of cultic visions of YHWH are evident in several instances (see Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 121).

CHAPTER THREE. THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CONTEXT OF JUDAHITE THEOLOGIES More recent scholarship has increasingly proposed, based on both textual and artifact evidence, that the Israelites and Judahites of the Iron Age period are better understood as the gradually distinct, ethnicized heirs of the polymorphous Late Bronze ‘Canaanites’ (i.e. the Semitic populations of Syro-Palestine), alongside the neighboring Phoenicians, Moabites, Edomites, Arameans, and Ammonites.1 Analogously, the religious ethos of ancient Israelites I take ‘Canaan’ to simply apply to the geographical region within SyroPalestine, and not to a national identity. I understand ‘Canaanites’ as the Late Bronze and Iron I Semitic inhabitants of Syro-Palestine, without a unified ethnic identity. In Iron II ethnic identities and boundaries are formed between the descendents of this Late Bronze population, creating the nations and states of the Israelites, Judahites, Amorites, Ammonites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Moabites, and Edomites, sufficiently distinct to allow national denominations. In relation to this period of distinct ethnic identities, ‘Canaanite’ can only to used to apply collectively to the general cultural traits common to all these separate peoples. A ‘Canaanite’ national entity— as correlative to ‘Israelite’ or ‘Edomite’—did not exist. Archaeology has unearthed such ‘Canaanite’ roots for ancient Israelites and Judahites. For this advancement, see especially Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites; idem, “Archaeology and Israelite Origins: A Review Article,” BASOR 179 (1990): 89-95; Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed; Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman, eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994); Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988); idem, “The Emergence of Israel in Canaan: Consensus, Mainstream, and Dispute,” SJOT 2 (1991): 1

45

46

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

and Judahites is viewed as a local development of the Late Bronze religions of the central high lands, in both continuity and discontinuity to the latter. Therefore, the theologies of ancient Israelites and Judahites have been increasingly analyzed in conjunction with other local developments and these comparative studies have led to an increased awareness that most of the features of divinity in the Bible also appear in neighboring religions. This is particularly the case with the religious thought of Ugarit, which has been properly redefined as a “local expression of Late Bronze Age Syrian religion”2 and it has been advanced, although advisedly,3 as illustrative of the common religious matrix of all the ‘Canaanite’ populations of the Iron Age. Moreover, the cultural continuity between Ugarit and Iron Age Phoenicians warrants at least comparisons between the early texts of Ugarit and the much later texts of Judah (i.e., the Hebrew Bible and beyond).4

47-59; Lawrence E. Stager, “Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 123-175; Robert E. Coote, Early Israel: A New Horizon (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) ; Robert E. Coote and Keith W. Whitelam, The Emergence of Early Israelites in Historical Perspective (Sheffield: Almond, 1987). On a much more minimalist reading of Israelite and Judahite ethnicity (although not significantly different in regard to the Canaanite roots of Israelites and Judahites), see N. P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (JSOTSup 110: Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), esp. 25-62; Philip R. Davies, In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (JSOTSup 148; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), esp. 22-59; Thomas L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE 4; Leiden: Brill, 1992), esp. 310-316. See also Dever’s reaction to this position in “Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up? Archaeology and Israelite Historiography: Part I,” BASOR 197 (1995): 37-58; and in Who Were the Early Israelites. 2 Herbert Niehr, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspect,” in Edelman, The Triumph of Elohim, 45-72, here 46. 3 Thus already R. Rendtorff, “El, Ba’al und Jahwe,” ZAW 78 (1966): 277292. See also Thompson, Early History, 216-300. 4 The royal Jerusalem temple shows clear similarities to Phoenician temples. See especially Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God.

CHAPTER THREE

47

To focus on features of divinity, at Ugarit El (or Ilu, i.e., “god”)5 resides on the sacred mountain as an enthroned king and ultimate ruler (mlk: KTU 1.1 iii:23; 1.2 iii:5; v:8; 1.4 i:5; iv.24,38,48; 1.6 i:36; 1.17 vi:49; 1.117:2-3).6 He is commonly portrayed as an old and gray-haired (KTU 1.3 v:2)7 possessor of infinite wisdom and as the supreme judge (KTU 1.3 v:30; 1.4 iv:41; v:3-4), the ultimate governor of gods and humans. El decides both life (specifically human birth) and death (KTU 1.14 iii:7-8); no decision can be made in heaven without his consent and command (KTU 1.1 iii-iv; 1.2 i:36-38; iii; 1.3 v:5-19; 1.4 iv:25-v:5; 1.6 i:43-55; 1.18 i). The authority which subordinate gods have is ultimately his, not their own.8 As Bernhard Lang notes, “when conflict arises, the divine assembly can discuss the issue, but it is El as president who decides.”9 In one instance he is called “Lord of the gods” (KTU 1.3 v:4), while another text depicts him enthroned in the divine council, over which he governs unquestioningly (KTU 1.2 i).10 In art he

For descriptions of El, see W. Herrmann, “El,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 274-280; Marvin H. Pope, El in Ugaritic Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1955); Cross, Canaanite Myth, 2024. 6 For El’s abode on the sacred mountain, see Pope, El in Ugaritic Texts, 62-72; E. Lipinski, “El’s Abode: Mythological Traditions related to Mt. Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia,” OLP 2 (1971): 13-69; Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), esp. 35-37; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 36-39; E. Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 128-168. However, another abode of El is the middle of the cosmic waters: KTU 1.2 iii:4; 1.3 v:6; 1.4 iv:20-22; 1.7 v:47-48. 7 See also Cross, Canaanite Myth, 16-17; Mullen, The Divine Council, 2223. 8 Johannes C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 85 n.41. 9 Bernhard Lang, The Hebrew God. Portrait of an Ancient Deity (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2002), 24. 10 For the divine council of El at Ugarit, see Mullen, The Divine Council, 120-168; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 36-39; Miller, The Divine Warrior, 12-18. For El’s predominance at Ugarit, see also the Story of King Keret (esp. KTU 1.15 ii:12-28) and the Story of Aqhat (esp. KTU 1.17 i:16-26, 33-43). 5

48

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

is portrayed as an old male figure, sitting on a throne, wearing a crown, blessing with one hand and in the other holding a scepter.11 Local cults of El existed in Judah probably under Phoenician influence, although in the Iron Age El was no longer the supreme god in the Phoenician pantheon.12 Although biblical depictions of YHWH show strikingly similar features to the Ugaritic El, direct connections could only be assumed cautiously, given the significant time lapse between the Ugaritic El texts and the Bible.13 It is rather probable that there existed in Iron Age II Syro-Palestine local forms of El worship which may have preserved characteristics of the older cult, although the two stages of El worship must be clearly distinguished. This is so because El’s heavenly kingship was eventually usurped by Baal, whose cult survived into biblical times and, according to several biblical texts, was the religion of a segment of the Judahite and Israelite populace.14 The usurper Baal also is described as a royal (i.e., enthroned) ruler of heaven and earth (KTU See the Ugaritic El statuette, reproduced in Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 206; Lang, The Hebrew God, 25; and Mettinger, No Graven Image, 126, and the so-called “El stele,” reproduced in Mettinger, No Graven Image, 124. 12 Rendtorff, “El, Ba’al und Jahwe”; Herbert Niehr, Der höchste Gott; Alttestamenticher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-kannanäischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (BZAW 190; Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1990), 17-21. 13 For features that YHWH seems to share with the Ugaritic El, see also Cross, Canaanite Myth, 44-60, 177-180, 185; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 124, 225, 235-237; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., Cambridge, Mass.: Eerdmans, 2002), 7-8, 32-43; John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 13-41. 14 Some texts simply mention Baal cults (1 Kgs 18: 21,26; 2 Kgs 10:1920, 28), while others also refer to temples and altars of Baal (Judg 6:25, 28, 30-32; 1 Kgs 16:32; 2 Kgs 10:21, 23, 25-27; 11:18; 21:3) supervised by priests (2 Kgs 11:18). See also M. H. Pope, “Baal Worship,” EncJud 4:7-12; Smith, The Early History of God, 65-79; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses, 70-85. For parallelisms between the biblical YHWH and the Ugaritic Baal, see also Cross, Canaanite Myth, 147-177; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 106, 225-226; Smith, The Early History of God, 43-47, 80-91; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses, 91-127. 11

CHAPTER THREE

49

1.1.iv:24-25; 1.2.iv:10, 32; 1.3.iv:2-3; 1.3.v:32; 1.4.iv:43-44; 1.4.vii:44, 49-50; 1.6.v:5-6; 1.6.vi:34-35; 1.10:13-14).15 In this position he is the supreme judge (KTU 1.3.v:32; 1.4.iv:43-44) and king over the other gods (KTU 1.4 vii.49-50; KTU 1.3 v:32-34; 1.4 iv:43-46). KTU 1.101 contains a hymn to Baal which merits full quotation for its many details: mountain; mountain, Saphon, of victory.

right hand.

wrath. heaven, ing water. ], jars,

Baal sits like the base of a Hadd se[ttles] as the ocean, in the midst of his divine in [the midst of] the mountain Seven lightening-flashes [ ] eight bundles of thunder, a tree-of-lightening [in his] His head is magnificent, his brow is dew-drenched, his feet are eloquent in his [His] horn is [exal]ted; his head is in the snows in [with] the god there is aboundHis mouth is like two clouds [ [his lips] like the wine from his heart [

]… (KTU 1.101)16

Although the enormity of the god is not explicit in this text, it is implied in the comparison of his limbs and majesty with the mountain and with other natural elements (e.g., clouds). His head seems to reach from the dew of the earthly mountain to the snow For the usurpation of El’s kingship, see de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 71-72; Mullen, The Divine Council, 7-110. 16 The translation is from Nicolas Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit (2nd ed.; London, New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 388-390. 15

50

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

of heaven.17 According to M. H. Pope and J. H. Tigay, the passage depicts “Baal’s sitting on his throne in such a way as to highlight his enormous size.”18 The throne of Baal is so enormous that the god Atthar cannot literally measure up to it (KTU 1.6.i:56-65).19 Baal’s palace covers “a thousand fields, ten thousand kumanu” (KTU 1.4.vi:56-57). Smith notes that “such a massive palace accommodates the superhuman size of Baal’s throne and of Baal himself.”20 The Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash is generally portrayed as the omniscient revealer of knowledge, architect of the heavenly geography, governor of the celestial and earthly structures, and judge enthroned in heaven. Representative for this cult is the Great Hymn to Shamash,21 which depicts the sun-god as luminous, enormous, and enthroned. In art too Shamash is portrayed as an enthroned old male figure, crowned with a cap of horns, holding a scepter in his right hand, and emanating rays of light from his shoulders.22 His enormity is represented through the disproportion in size between him and worshipping subjects.23

Baal’s enormity is also evident in the difference in proportion between the god and the worshipping king in the Baal stele from Ugarit. The stele is reproduced in Mettinger, No Graven Image, 124, and A. Caquot and M. Sznycer, Ugaritic Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1980), pl. x. See also the relief AO 15775 in Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 213 fig. 291; Lang, The Hebrew God, 147 fig. 28. 18 “A Description of Baal,” UF 3 (1971): 122. See also W. H. Irvin, “The Extended Simile in RS 24.245 obv.,” UF 15 (1983): 54-57. 19 See Johannes C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Myth of Ba’lu According to the Version of Ilimilku (AOAT 16; Kevalaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971), 202-206; Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 424-425. 20 “Divine Form and Size,” 424-425. 21 The text is transliterated and translated in Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 121-138 (with an introduction). 22 See the stele from Hammurabi’s law, reproduced in Lang, The Hebrew God, 31, and also the relief from Nabu-apla-iddina’s stone tablet from Abu Habba, reproduced in Mettinger, No Graven Image, 48. 23 Thus in the relief from Nabu-apla-iddina’s stone tablet from Abu Habba. 17

CHAPTER THREE

51

A solar cult in ancient Israel and Judah is attested in Ezek 8:16, 2 Kgs 23:5,11, and Job 31:26-28, and also archaeologically, but it does not seem to have been prominent.24 There is an old argument for its Mesopotamian roots,25 but it is more reasonable to assume, as Niehr was quoted above, that the indigenous cult of YHWH appropriated solar features starting with the late eighth century B.C.E., possibly only under indirect influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian practices.26 Marduk, originally the city god of Babylon, was raised to the position of national god by king Hammurapi (18th century B.C.E.). In subsequent myths he possesses hegemony among the other gods For this cult, see Morton Smith, “Helios in Palestine,” in Harry M. Orlinski Volume (ErIsr 16; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982), 199214; Smith, The Early History of God, 148-159; idem, “The Near Eastern Background of Solar Language for Yahweh,” JBL 109 (1990): 29-39; H. P. Stähli, Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO 66; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); Bernd Janowski, “JHWH und der Sonnengott. Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit,” in Die rettende Gerechtigkeit. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 2 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1999), 192-219. 25 W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia: SCM, 1970), 127; M. Sarna, “Psalm XIX and the Near Eastern Sun-God Literature,” in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, vol.1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), 171-175. 26 Tallay Ornan, “A Complex System of Religious Symbols: The Case of the Winged Disc in Near Eastern Imagery of the First Millennium BCE,” in Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE (eds. Claudia E. Suter and Christoph Uehlinger; OBO 210; Fribourg: Academic Press; and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 207-241; Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 248-298, 341-354; Smith, “The Near Eastern Backgound,” 29-39; idem, The Early History of God, 150-159; ; E. Lipinski, “Shemesh,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 764768; idem, “‫שמש‬,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (16 vol.; ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren; trans. J. T. Willis et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2018), 15:305-315; idem, “Le culte du soleil chez les Sémites occidentaux du Ier millénaire av. J.-C.,” OLP 22 (1991): 57-72; Stähli, Solare Elemente; Niehr, “The Rise of YHWH,” 67-71; idem, Höchste Gott, esp. 43-60, 141-147; P. E. Dion, “YHWH as Storm-god and Sun-god. The Double Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected on Psalm 104,” ZAW 103 (1991): 43-71. 24

52

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

of Babylon. Enuma Elish I:81-82, 87-104 describes his birth with a full depiction of his corporeality: he is enormous, with luminous lips and eyes capable to scrutinize the entire world.27 Later in the poem (IV:1-30),28 at the proclamation of the gods, Marduk is ceremoniously enthroned in their midst. The enthronement takes place in the council of the gods and Marduk dons all the regalia: scepter, garment, crown, and a king’s choice of weapons.29 The new function comes with absolute power of judgment and governance over the entire earth and heaven, including over the other gods. Further in the poem Marduk becomes the possessor of all the functions of the other gods and amasses all divinity in himself, the others functioning as mere aspects or manifestations of him.30 He is not the only ancient Near Eastern god to have such self-fluidity, although this seems to be mostly the prerogative of supreme gods.31 This cumulative evidence leads to several conclusions: 1. Anthropomorphism is a widespread element in ancient Near Eastern descriptions of gods. Generally gods have a human form and psychological structure. They only The translation is from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.; ed. James B. Pritchard; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 62. 28 Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 66. 29 For endowment with a special royalty-befitting weapon, see Klaus-Peter Adam, Der königliche Held: Die Entsprechung von kämpfendem Gott und kämpfendem König in Psalm 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 2001), 86-93. For the concept of divine weapon in ancient Israel, see Lang, The Hebrew God, 56-57, and Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 510-512. 30 For this development, see Sommer, The Bodies of God, 16-17; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 58; W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks (AOAT 213; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 174-181; J. Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk, l’écriture et la ‘logique’ en Mésopotamie ancienne,” in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (ed. M. de Jong; Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977), 5-28; W. G. Lambert, “The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 191-200; F. M. Böhl, “Die fünfzig Namen des Marduk,” AfO 11 (1936): 191-218. 31 Sommer, The Bodies of God, 12-30. 27

CHAPTER THREE

2.

3.

4.

53

surpass humanity in quality (particularly radiance), self-fluidity, and size.32 Not surprisingly, these descriptions share central elements with earthly royalty.33 The enthronement of the gods incorporates endowment with regalia.34 Like mundane kings, divine kings possess palaces (e.g., KTU 1.4 v:14,52,57; 1.5 iii:10; 1.114:2), thrones (e.g., KTU 1.2 iv:7,12; 1.3 iv:2-3; vi:15; 1.4 viii:12; 1.6 v:6,34), crowns and royal garments (e.g., KTU 1.5 v:2-4), and scepters (e.g., KTU 1.2 iii:18; 1.6 vi:29; 1.23:8). Gods are not celestial in a remote sense. The residences of the gods are the temples. These divine abodes, however, provide access to all the realms in which the gods function: heaven, earth, and underworld. The temples are conveniently located on cosmic mountains and oceans. The habitation of a deity in its temple is the equivalent of the habitation of an ancient Near Eastern king in his palace.35 Gods dwell in their temples physically as humans inhabit their houses. They sleep, eat, socialize, and entertain other gods in their temples. As Moshe Weinfeld notes so succinctly, “there is no distinction in the Bible and in the ancient Near East between ‘gods’ and their representatives, the ‘idols.’ Having gods means having idols.”36 Within this world, the most common (if not the only) means of divine presence in a temple is the iconic representation of the deity, anthropomorphic or not.37 An imageless temple would therefore

For this divine superiority, see especially Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 90-91. 33 Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 185-188. 34 For a succinct and very informative analysis of these accessories, see Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 282-283. 35 Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 186-188. 36 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11 (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 291. 37 See also the congruent observations in Angelika Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth: The Consecration of Divine Images in Mesopotamia,” in van der Toorn, The Image and the Book, 45-72, here 61; Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 77; van der Toorn, “The Iconic Book,” 235. 32

54

THE LORD GOD OF GODS be as meaningless as a house without habitants. The temple is not complete until the god or goddess has taken its place in it. After the construction of the building follows a ritual referred to as “causing the deity to dwell in it.”38 The construction of the temple and the making of its idols constitute complementary acts.39 As Victor A. Hurowitz notes, “if the dedication of a house is accomplished by its builder taking up residence in it, so a temple, which is primarily conceived of as a divine dwelling place, is dedicated by its divine resident taking up residence within it.”40 The deity occupies the temple in a physical manner, in a living statue. The statue containing the deity literally lives in the temple. Hence the primary aspect of the cult is to accommodate the present deity: it pleases the deity’s appropriate ego, and sacrifices provide for its physical needs.41 The statue is washed, cared for, clothed, crowned, and adorned with precious stones, to embody the deity’s majesty.42 Incense is burned to please the deity’s acute olfactive sensitivity and reflect the deity’s physical presence.43 Exilic and postexilic Judah shows

Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 78. E.g., Sennacherib is called “he who made the image of his god and built his (the god’s) favorite temple” (CAD E 200a, OIP 2.146:31). 40 I Have Built You an Exalted House, 267. 41 E.g., KTU 1.4 iii:14-22. See also the analyses in W. G. Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (ed. J. Quaegebeur; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 191-201; Angelika Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbilden in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik (OBO 162; Freiburg: Freiburg University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); idem, “Washing the Mouth,” 45-72; M. B. Dick, ed., Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999); Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 188-193. 42 Eiko Matsushima, “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: Their Fashioning and Clothing and Their Interaction with the Society,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East (ed. E. Matsushima; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1993), 209-219; Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” 172-193; idem, Ancient Mesopotamia, 184. 43 E.g., KTU 1.41:20-21 38 39

CHAPTER THREE

55

extensive knowledge and experience of these practices.44 The experience and recognition of the gods is embodied in iconography. One can reasonably expect the cultic statues of Marduk to concretely wear the garments attributed to him in words. YHWH has strikingly similar features to these deities. Like them, YHWH has a human form and psychological structure, is enthroned, enormous, and luminous. This, in a way, should not be surprising; both texts and archaeology suggest that foreign gods, and therefore any associations of YHWH with them, are systematically expunged from Judah only late in the monarchic period, especially with the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.45 Yet, as Jon Levenson pointed out in his seminal 1985 study Sinai and Zion, this cultural convergence does not detract from the authenticity of the YHWH worship. Also, this is not to say—Levenson justly insists—that ancient Israel builds its faith conceptually, systematically, and syncretically, as a construction with bricks from other buildings, as it were.46 Moreover, although it is not within the purview of this study, close analyses of ancient texts also point to many dissimilarities between YHWH and ancient Near Eastern deities. For example, in contrast to the ancient Near Eastern deities, biblical texts rarely depict YHWH’s royalty with detailed attention to his regalia.47 The only possessions extensively mentioned are the throne (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:19; Pss 11:4; 47:9; 93:2; Ezek 1:26; Isa 6:1; 66:1) and the garments (e.g., Isa 6:1; Dan 7:9; 1 En. 14:20). Of course, the fact that both Israelite other Near Eastern kings are commonly depicted with complete regalia, and that YHWH and any other Near Eastern gods would have been imagined as kings, suggest that in the Iron Age II YHWH was also understood as similarly adorned with all the appropriate regalia Cf. Isa 40:19-20; 41:7; 44:9-20; 46:6; Jer 10:1-9; Hos 2:10; Hab 2:18-19. For this departure from the association of YHWH with other deities, see Smith, The Early History of God, 7-10, 182-199. 46 Sinai and Zion. An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1985). 47 A point also made in Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 285-286, and M. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 78, 80-81. 44 45

56

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

(crown, scepter, etc.).48 In my opinion this only highlights, by contrast, the peculiar biblical paucity on the regal adornment of YHWH and this contrast makes a significant theological point: to biblical authors of primary importance is not how YHWH looks, but how he is, and his being is not so much a matter of observation, but one of presence, of pervasion. YHWH is king in this sense, that his presence permeates the gods, the world, and human experience. As a continuation of this fundamental point, both later Jewish and Christian exegetes of these ancient sacred texts would come to conclude that YHWH envelopes himself in human language, and language—inescapably human—is culturally engendered. The point of this overview of the divine features of other ancient Near Eastern gods is not to draw connections and parallels with the biblical portraits of YHWH, nor to obscure their distinctiveness. Rather, the point is that these widespread commonalities provided a fundamental recognition and “language” of divinity. In other words, since God is so universally described as enthroned, enormous, and luminous, to be described as enthroned, enormous, and luminous meant to be described as a god.

48

For this probability, see esp. Brettler, God is King, 77-81.

CHAPTER FOUR. THE OTHER GODS—INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION IN THE GODHEAD In the Bible, just like the supreme gods in the above ancient Near Eastern texts, YHWH is not alone in the heavens. As already mentioned, YHWH is not the only god venerated in ancient Israel and Judah. Many biblical texts over many centuries describe large segments of the population of Israel and Judah as polytheistic, particularly the generations before the exile; a growing body of archaeological and epigraphical data—and some more recent (re)interpretations of biblical texts in light of this evidence— strongly support this.1 In sharp contrast to what before the exile

Regarding the biblical data, see the studies of Bernhard Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology (SWBA 1; Sheffield: Almond, 1983), esp. 20-56; Smith, The Early History of God; idem, Origins of Biblical Monotheism; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses. On archaeological and epigraphical evidence see Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London, New York: Continuum, 2001); Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God. For the limited effectiveness of the monarchic reforms, see S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, esp. 658-662. It is peculiar that such reputable archaeologists as Dever (cf. Did God Have a Wife) and Zevit (cf. The Religions of Ancient Israel) still accuse the biblical texts of covering up this reality, although they do no such thing. On the contrary, at times biblical texts depict widespread and stark polytheitic practices for which archaeology still has to find material evidence. 1

57

58

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

must have been a sizeable part of the population, the biblical authors themselves condemn polytheism, or at least Israel’s worship of other gods.2 Yet, this theological scene is complicated by the fact that, despite this condemnation, many texts mention other gods beside YHWH. The most striking “gods” texts are the ones describing YHWH’s entourage, the so-called “divine council,” which has already been briefly mentioned above.3 In these texts Studies of theophoric toponysms and anthroponyms and archaeological evidence (especially inscriptions) suggest YHWH’s preeminence in Israelite religion(s) long before the end of the monarchic period. For Yahwistic names (personal and geographical), see especially J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); J. D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 586-609; PaulAlain Beaulieu, “Yahwistic Names in Light of Late Babylonian Onomastics,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context (ed. Oded Lipschits; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 245-266. 2 For the strenuous social balance between polytheism and non-polytheism (which I will qualify in the next few pages) in the popular religion of exilic and postexilic times, see especially Niehr, Der höchste Gott; idem, “The Rise of YHWH,” 45-72; Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOTSup 241; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority, esp. 20-56; P. D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000); Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel; H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt, eds., Aspects of Monotheism. How God is One (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1997); Smith, The Early History of God, esp. 182-199; idem, “YHWH and other Deities in Ancient Israel: Observations on Problems and Recent Trends,” in Dietrich and Klopfenstein, Ein Gott allein, 197-234; idem, Origins of Biblical Monotheism; van der Toorn, “YHWH,” 910-919. Polytheism survived into the Second Temple period. For popular polytheism in the Persian period, see especially Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree. For polytheism among the Elephantine Jews, see particularly K. van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine,” Numen 39 (1992): 80-101. 3 On the divine council in Iron Age II Syro-Palestinian religions see Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 41-53 (Smith discusses the biblical testimonies in parallel to the Ugaritic evidence); Miller, The Divine Warrior, 66-74; Mullen, The Divine Council, esp. 168-244; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 186-190.

CHAPTER FOUR

59

the communal life of YHWH’s abode has all the vitality of the court of an ancient Near Eastern king, enthroned amidst his ministers and attended to by servants.4 This is not an exclusively preexilic image. It occurs in texts of evident postexilic origin. Just like an earthly court, the divine court is depicted as structured socially5 with YHWH having supreme preeminence over it. The beings in YHWH’s entourage fall largely into two categories. The first is comprised of gods of old, so to say. Their beginnings or admissions into the council are lost in history. Nowhere in the Bible is any effort made to tell their story. In sharp contrast, the second category is comprised of certain humans whose admission into the council, mostly through their office, is described at times in detail. First, we will turn our attention to the former group. In both visions introduced above, Isa 6:1-13 and 1 Kgs 22:19b-22, YHWH is not alone, but is surrounded by a divine entourage. In Isaiah’s vision the attention given to YHWH’s entourage is impressive. They are of at least two tiers: beings attending to the enthroned YHWH (vv. 2-4) and members of YHWH’s council, whom YHWH addresses for counsel in verse 8. The military character of the divine counselors is suggested in both texts by the use of ‫ צבא‬and respectively ‫( צבאות‬this in YHWH’s title mentioned above).6 Psalm 82 reflects a similar theology that envisions the supreme god (here called ‫ אל‬and ‫ )אלהים‬in the middle of the Throughout the ancient Near East the divine court is depicted in terms reminiscent of the court of an ancient Near Eastern king. See thus Smith, The Early History of God, 37-38; C. A. Newson, “Angels, OT,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1:248-253, here 249. 5 For the hierarchical structure of the council, see Lowell K. Handy, “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels: Divine Hierarchies in Ugarit and the Bible,” BR 35 (1990): 18-35; idem, Among the Host of Heaven: The SyroPalestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993). 6 For the military character of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible, see especially Mullen, The Divine Council, 186-198. For the concept of divine warrior in ancient Israel and Ugaritic literature, see especially Cross, Canaanite Myth, 91-111, 155-177; Miller, The Divine Warrior; Lang, The Hebrew God, 47-62; Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 496-517; Mullen, The Divine Council, 186-198. 4

60

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

divine council. He “stands in the gathering of gods” (MT has a collective ‫אל‬, but LXX the plural θεῶν), and “judges in the midst of gods” and chides and threatens the gods themselves for not caring for the weak and needy: “You are gods, all of you sons of the most high! Yet, you will die like humans and fall like one of the princes” (v. 6-7). The psalm ends (v. 8) with the psalmist’s cry: “Arise, God, judge the earth, for you will take possession of all the nations.” The scene is striking in several regards. The gods members of the council, identified as the gods of the nations,7 with power and judgment over them, draw this power and their very divinity from God. The punishment for their lack of care for the weak and needy is death, or rather the demotion to the mortal status of humans. Many elements in the psalm—particularly the parallelisms between the description of the judgment of the gods in vv. 6-7 and the psalmist’s call for YHWH’s judgement in v. 8— suggest that, in relation to YHWH, the gods of the nations fall under the same existential category as the nations they govern— they too are “earth.” Psalm 58 writes about a similar humanization of gods in very similar language. Ps 89:5-8 also describes YHWH with absolute discretionary powers over his entourage of “holy ones” or “sons of gods” (“god” in LXX). Any point of comparison (so MT) or equality (LXX) between them and YHWH is denied vehemently.8 The supreme position of YHWH in heaven is expressed with the

For the function of certain members of the divine council as gods or governors of nations, see Mullen, The Divine Council, 202-205. At this point I disagree with Darrell D. Hannah, who identifies these beings as angels (Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity [WUNT 109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999], 17-18). Angels replace the gods as governors of nations only at much later times in the Second Temple period and not concomitantly or abruptly, but gradually. 8 Of similar rhetoric is Moses’ question in Exod 15:11, “Who is like you, YHWH, among the gods?” Although the question has been taken as a polemic against pantheons in which YHWH is not the supreme God, I suggest that it actually makes a deeper theological point: YHWH and the other gods do not even belong to the same divine status. YHWH and the gods are not divine in the same manner. 7

CHAPTER FOUR

61

title ‫( מלך‬as also in Psalms 93, 97, and 99).9 The same function appears to be carried by the titles “the god of gods” in Josh 22:22, and “Lord of the gods” in Deut 10:17 and in LXX Ps 49:1, Dan 2:47, and Bel 7. In Psalm 29 the “sons of gods” are called to “give” strength and to “bow down” to YHWH (vv. 1-2) who sits enthroned in their midst as eternal king (v. 10).10 The imagery (cf. also Isa 6:1-3; Ps 103:20; 148:1-4) not only precludes any equality between YHWH and the gods, but denies them any autonomous power and places them in complete dependence on YHWH. Texts which mention or describe human admissions into YHWH’s entourage are scattered throughout the Bible. The admission naturally amounts to becoming divine as the gods of old are. The admission is quite limited, mostly tied to particular institutions: the priesthood, the monarchy, and the prophecy.11 The kingship is particularly significant among these, since the king would come to function, in postexilic times, as a paradigm for the (high-)priesthood and for deified humanity in general.12 Several psalms seem to contain vestiges of the views in which the king is allowed (a god’s) participation in the divine council.13 Ps 2:7 suggests that the king receives this admission as a son of YHWH (cf. Johannes C. de Moor has also made a compelling argument that YHWH’s description in Exod 24:9-11 implies his position as Lord or King of the gods (The Rise of Yahwism, 226-227). 10 For the liturgical character of the divine council, see especially Mullen, The Divine Council, 199-201, which connects it to the concept of YHWH as warrior-king, ruler of the council. See also Niehr, Der höchste Gott, 89-94. 11 These admissions are handily reviewed in Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 109-139 and Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology. Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998), 161-176. However, both Fletcher-Louis and Gieschen label all of these deified institutions as “angelic in identity or status, that is angelomorphic” (Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 109; see also Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 175). 12 For the paradigmatic function of preexilic monarchic theology in postexilic Judaism, see James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), esp. 37-42. 13 See also the now classic S. Mowinckel, He that Cometh. The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (Nashville: Abingdon, 1955), esp. 21-95, and Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), esp. 254-293. 9

62

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

also 2 Sam 7:14; also Ps 89:26 and Ps 110:3 LXX).14 In Ps 110:1 the designation of the king by the title ‫אדני‬, commonly reserved for YHWH, suggests divinity. He is called “god” (‫ אלהים‬and ‫ )אל‬in Ps 45:6-715 and Isa 9:5.16 YHWH’s invitation to the king to sit at his right hand is an unambiguous indication of divinity (Ps 110:1).17 The access of the king to the divine council is also suggested in the association of the monarch with ‫מלאך האלהים‬, an The same tradition is behind the LXX version of Ps 110:3, in which YHWH says to the king ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε. This is most probably closer to the original reading than the Masoretic text. It diverges from MT’s misreading of “your youth will come to you,” but agrees with Origen’s Hebrew text. For the likely setting of Psalms 2 and 110 in enthronement ceremonies, see especially J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 39-51, here 42-43. For the probability that the LXX version of Ps 110:3 better reflects the original, see the considerations in Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms. A Commentary (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988, 1989), 2:344. In Egypt the king’s divine sonship is portrayed in quite literal terms: gods, particularly Amon, unite with the mother-queens. See thus Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 247-256. 15 The scholarship of Ps 45:7 still disputes whether or not the verse refers to the king. However, the conferring of the title to the king is also reflected in Zech 12:8; Ezek 28:2, 9; and 2 Sam 14:17, 20. For Ps 45:6-7 reflecting a theology of the king as divine, see also Kraus, Psalms, 1:451452, 455; Paul G. Mosca, “Once Again the Heavenly Witness of Psalm 89:38,” JBL 105 (1986): 27-37, here 34-35; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 160-161. 16 See also Kraus, Psalms, 1:451, 455; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 286; Roberts, “The Old Testament Contribution,” 43. 17 The scene specifically recalls the enthronement of kings beside gods in Egypt and the predominantly divine character of the monarch in most ancient Near Eastern views (Jarl Fossum, “Son of God,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 788-794, here 788-789; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 265-287; Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 263). Keel suggests that it could also allude to the location of the royal palace on the right side of the temple, so that the throne room of the palace corresponds to the divine throne in the holy of holies (Symbolism of the Biblical World, 263-264). Lang, however, postulates the existence of a ceremonial royal throne in the temple, beside YHWH’s (The Hebrew God, 20). In Ps 61:7; 89:36 the king sits before YHWH. 14

CHAPTER FOUR

63

attendant entrusted with the transmission and execution of the decisions of the divine council (2 Sam 14:17,20).18 Isa 11:2 similarly attributes to the monarch wisdom and understanding based on participation in the spirit of YHWH. It is also probable that in Isa 9:6 the king’s titles “counselor of wonder,” “everlasting father,” and “prince of peace” are as divine as the explicit “mighty god.”19 As already mentioned, prophets too receive admission to the divine council, where they are given wisdom inaccessible to humans, as we have already witnessed in relation to Isaiah (Isa 6:113; cf. also 40:1-8) and Micaiah (1 Kgs 22: 19b-22).20 This access means “standing in the council” of YHWH (cf. Jer 23:18) and functions as a mark of true prophecy (cf. Jer 23:22). Zechariah 3 also describes the admission ceremony of the High priest Joshua.21 It is essential for us to understand that these are descriptions of humans as divine. Setting aside modern theological and ontological presuppositions, in the language of the Bible and of the ancient Near East in general, these depictions can only mean that these humans are, in some sense, gods. In short, in these biblical texts God is surrounded by many gods. Nevertheless, many aspects of these “gods” texts set them in contrast to the ancient Near Eastern pantheons. In his 2009 study The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, Benjamin D. Sommer reviews many of

It is highly unlikely that this association could constitute a portrayal of the king as “angelic,” as Fletcher-Louis (Luke-Acts, 111) and Gieschen (Angelomorphic Christology, 175) contend. It is actually unlikely that the concept of “angel” was yet developed at the exilic and postexilic time of the composition of these passages. 19 Cf. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 159-160. See also FletcherLouis, Luke-Acts, 110-111; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 176. 20 See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 187; Mullen, The Divine Council, 205-226. For Second Isaiah, which is openly anti-visionary (see above), the contact with the council is not visual, but aural (Isa 40:1-8). 21 Even if the text belongs to the late sixth century (between 519-518 B.C.E.), as it seems to be the case, it has been convincingly argued that it reflects a preexilic view of the high priesthood, with a restorative agenda (VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 22-34). 18

64

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

these striking aspects and concludes that, in contrast to many ancient pantheons, the Hebrew Bible presumes an entirely different sort of relationship between divinity and powers present in the cosmos. Yhwh’s will is never frustrated by forces of nature, by matter, or by other gods... Although the Hebrew Bible mentions the existence of other gods, those other gods never appear in biblical narrative as independent actors. The gods of other nations may be real; their authority over those nations, according to texts like Deuteronomy 4.19-20 and 32.8-9, is genuine. But these gods are never sufficiently important to appear as characters with their own names. 22

Sommer’s conclusion can be slightly expanded based on my brief analysis. Not only YHWH is never opposed in the Hebrew Bible and the “gods” are never independent of him, but they are dependent of him in an absolute sense. This dependence is so radical that in front of YHWH they are, together with everything else in existence, “earth.” They draw their divinity itself from him. This brings into focus another biblical peculiarity. Along these “gods” texts, the Hebrew Bible also has many statements which have been for long deemed monotheistic, but would be better placed under the descriptive, although conflated term of “YHWH-only.” Since most of these statements are quite formulaic and/or rhetorical-interrogative, I propose we catalogue them as follows: 1. “no-one-beside-YHWH” statements (‫)אין עוד מלבד‬, such as in Exod 20:3, Deut 4:35, 39, 1 Sam 2:2, 2 Sam 7:22, 1 Kings 8:6, Isa 44:8, 45:5-6, 14, 18, 21, 46:9, Joel 2:27; 2. “who-is-like-YHWH” (‫ )מי כמו‬statements, such as in Exod 15:11; 1 Kings 8:23; Isaiah 40:18; Jer 10:6-7, 49:19, 50:4; Ps 35:10, 71:19, 89:6, 8, 113:5; 3. and the more rare “they-are-not-gods” statements ( ‫לא‬ ‫)אלהים‬, such as in Jer 2:11, 16:20, Isa 37:19.23 The Bodies of God, 171-172. Maybe other statements ought to be added to this list, but they are not as significant and would not alter the point I wish to make here. See the survey and discussion of these and other texts in Yehezkel Kaufmann, 22 23

CHAPTER FOUR

65

At first glance it is peculiar that the “gods” traditions mentioned above are never held in tension, let alone contrast, to these “YHWH-only” statements. On the contrary, “gods” texts occur in the same book and are even authored by the same hand as “YHWH-only” statements. For example Deut 4:19-20—which apportions the nations to the ranks of heaven—is followed only a few lines later (v. 35) by the emphatic “YHWH, he is god, there is no one else beside him (‫)אין עוד מלבדו‬.” When the Septuagint translates the Hebrew text in the second half of the Second Temple period, it not only maintains many of these “gods” texts, but it even seems to generate more (e.g., LXX for Deut 32:8; Ps 81:1, 6; 83:8; 85:8; 94:3; 95:4; 96:9; 134:5; 135:2). One of these expressions is the phrase in the title of this book (Ps 49:1, Bel 7). The explanation for all these apparent peculiarities emerges at closer investigation, once it is understood that the YHWH-only texts are not indubitably monotheistic; they do not negate the existence of other (small g) gods. Rather, they simply place YHWH in a divine class of his own. To say that YHWH has no equal or that no one compares to him is not to say that there are no other gods; rather, it implies that other gods exist. Also, the “who-is-like-YHWH” statements do not preclude the existence of other gods (just as they not necessarily preclude statues of YHWH), but rather only their envisioning as equal to YHWH, and possibly of their statues as statues of YHWH or as comparable to his statues. Only the third category of statements, “they are not gods,” appear monotheistic. Yet, even this luster of monotheism fades in the light of the humanization of the gods in Psalm 82 or of the aniconic denial of idols in postexilic times. The modern reader of the Bible may be tempted to assume a fragmentation of theology in the Bible, but this offers a solution to something which at closer inspection seems less and less The Religion of Israel: From its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). Regrettably, this is only an abridged version of the massive Hebrew original published in four tomes (eight actual volumes) between 1937 and 1956. The book shows its age, but Kaufmann’s extraordinary insightfulness and intuition compensate for it. A more recent survey, but of a different tone, can be found in Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 149-194.

66

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

problematic. Also, we have no reason to believe that the ancient authors would have been capable of such fragmentation, at least in theology, or that they would have let it pass the inspection of the editorial effort. For all practical purposes the editorial work which maintained both the “gods” and “YHWH-only” texts did not preserve them as mere memories of a distant past, but inscribed both the “gods” descriptions and the “YHWH-only” proscriptions as equally authoritative. It is also important to record the fact that this authorization happened in times when theology suffered ongoing challenges. Indeed, as Philo attests, polytheistic pressures on Jewish theology continued through the end of the Second Temple period.24 Therefore, what is needed is not a “solution” to the imagined monotheism-versus-polytheism tensions of the Bible (which simply do not exist), but an explanation of the Bible’s complex and yet surprisingly homogenous theology. In Judaism other beings (beside YHWH) are not excluded from divinity until medieval philosophical theology. As Peter Hayman remarks, “no progress beyond the simple formulas of the Book of Deuteronomy can be discerned in Judaism before the philosophers of the Middle Ages.”25 Between the formulas of Deuteronomy (and Isaiah, I would add) and late medieval philosophy lies a large body of literature and a growing archaeological record which describe a complex world which, on the one hand, is populated by many divine beings, but, on the other, is not truly

See particularly his exhortations to Jewish disavowal of πολύθεος δόξα in Decal. 64-65, Migr. 68-69, Opif. 171, Rer. 169, Virt. 214, Praem. 162, QE 2.2. The first will be discussed in chapter seven. 25 Peter Hayman, “Monotheism-A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” JJS 42 (1991): 1-15, here p.2. See also the pertinent questions in Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). The argument can be made that the first Jewish monotheist is Maimonides. For the first time he limits God to such simplicity and singularity that any complexity, multiplicity, or shareability are utterly impossible. On this see Warren Zev Harvey, “God’s Incorporeality in Maimonides, Abraham of Posquieres, Crescas, and Spinoza,” in Studies in Jewish Thought (eds. Sarah Heller-Wilensky and Moshe Idel; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989), 63-78 [in Hebrew]. 24

CHAPTER FOUR

67

polytheistic.26 The formulas of Deuteronomy and Isaiah receive ever newer expressions (esp. Deut 4:19-20, 17:2-3, and 32:17)27 and the sense remains the same: YHWH belongs to a divine class of his own, but other gods do exist.28 The question for this theology is how YHWH’s own class relates to the other classes of gods in such a way that these never frustrate him and never act independently of him. The answer is, to a certain extent, anticipated by what has been said above in relation to Marduk and lies in the understanding that before the Middle Ages Judaism held YHWH’s identity to be fluid. In his 2009 book Sommer has provided the best study to date of this central element of biblical and early Jewish theology, although the study is limited to the Bible. He aptly calls this element “fluidity of divine selfhood” and finds it both in ancient Israel and in neighboring civilizations.29 Throughout the ancient Near East, as he discovers, divine selfhood, which in a sense belongs to one discrete divine being, is fluid enough to be often shared among several beings (either fragmented, or multiplied, or emanated), as we have already witnessed in the case of Marduk.30 Sommer finds a prominent example of this fluidity in the biblical ‫ מלאך‬who is indistinguishable from YHWH and yet not YHWH in his entirety.31 With this understanding Sommer’s research points to the best lens for viewing biblical and early Jewish theology, but his investigation does not advance this far. On the one hand, he puzzlingly finds the “no-one-besides” formula mentioned above as standing At Qumran references to “gods” continue quite unreservedly and in other literature one can discern divine beings through the use of the long established divine features reviewed in chapter 2. 27 Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ (FAT 2/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 28 For example in 2 Enoch 2:2 and 33:4. 29 The Bodies of God, 12-57. 30 Not in these terms, but new research has found expressions of nonpolytheism in the Greco-Roman world: Stephen Mitchell and Peter Van Nuffelen, eds., One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede, eds., Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 31 The Bodies of God, 40-44. 26

68

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

counter to this fluidity.32 On the other, he limits the significance of this divine fluidity by using it only as a lens for understanding YHWH’s corporeality, but not as one which would provide clarity to his discussion of monotheism.33 In my view this is precisely the point in which the fluidity of YHWH is most relevant. The proposal which I submit in view of the above analyses is that throughout the Bible’s complex yet homogenous theological world, populated by many divine beings without being truly polytheistic, we have a radical YHWH-only divine fluidity. What I mean by this is first and foremost that in the biblical world and in early Judaism overall there is only one divine selfhood, YHWH’s. Second, this means that YHWH shares his divine selfhood with other beings who are thus deified in him. Third, this means that, even within this sharing, YHWH remains unshared in the absolute manner in which he possesses his divinity: YHWH uniquely possesses divinity in and of himself, while the deified possess his divinity at his discretion and to varying degrees, in an absolute dependence on him. Therefore, we can speak of YHWH as both shared and unshared at once. He is in a class of his own while sharing his divinity with other beings. Throughout the rest of this book many texts will intimate that YHWH makes and unmakes gods, and that their divinity is not their own, but it is only a participation—to varying degrees—in YHWH’s own divine selfhood. These intimations are the essence of this YHWH-only divine fluidity. On the one hand, this is substantially different from fragmentary fluidity, such as the “summodeism” found by Sommer and others in Mesopotamia.34 On the other hand, it is also different from multiplication fluidity.35 In YHWH-only fluidity the divine selfhood of YHWH is never split among the other made gods Ibid., 67. Ibid., 145-174. 34 Sommer never uses the term, but it is used by others, such as Mark S. Smith (God in Translation, 169-174). The notion of summodeism is that one deity is “the sum and summit of the reality of other deities” (ibid., 169) 35 Although the archaeological record and some biblical texts point to the existence of localized iconic cults of YHWH (Sommer, The Bodies of God, 44-54). 32 33

CHAPTER FOUR

69

or multiplied in them, it is rather actualized in them without multiplication or fragmentation.36 Pace Sommer, I would further argue that this fluidity can hold and does hold together both the “gods” descriptions and the “YHWH-only” proscriptions. This conception of divinity—as exclusively the selfhood of YHWH and yet shared with others at his discretion—explains the precarious divinity of the heavenly council, the making of humans into gods, and the placing of YHWH in a divine category of his own without the explicit denial of other gods. To revisit and conclude my criticism of “monotheism” from the first and introductory chapter of this book, while this fluidity is not polytheism (divinity, after all, is exclusively the selfhood of YHWH), neither it is monotheism in the broad, common-sense definition which I offered there: “worship of and faith in one single being as the possessor of divinity.” Rather, this theology which, it seems to me, undergirds the entire Bible makes and unmakes gods by participation in the one divine selfhood of YHWH. For all its striking similarities with the manner in which later Christian sources interpret this biblical theology, I would call this theology by a term borrowed from them—”deification.”37 Arguably the primary challenge this biblical theology poses to us—as twenty-first century readers who are, not unscathed, at the other end of the debates of naturalism, existentialism, and nihilism (among many others)—is to abandon an understanding of the “self” in general, and of the divine “self” in particular, as a discrete thing by necessity. When the point is made that “the devotion exclusively to YHWH is not itself monotheism if it does not deny that other gods exist,”38 the most fundamental presupposition at work is that “god” and divine selfhood I agree with Sommer that, despite the ambiguities of the text, YHWH being “one” in Deut 6:4 stands against the multiplication and fragmentation of divine selfhood (The Bodies of God, 220-222). Zech 14:9, although it has its own difficulties, envisions the triumph of this oneness. The single rock of divinity in Isa 44:8 also seems to refer to this. 37 For an overview of this early Christian concept, see Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (The Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 38 Lester Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (3 vols.; London/New York: T & T Clark International, 20042020), 1:240. 36

70

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

are one and the same thing, that “god” is a discrete being with its selfhood entirely within itself. This presupposition is not at work in early Jewish or Christian theologies. Rather, in them also God is at once both shared and unshared. A final observation is due. At first glance it may seem that categories synonymous to “deification” already exist (such as “inclusive monotheism”), which would make my new descriptor unnecessary. Yet, at closer inspection these categories will show their distinctiveness. In his 2013 article “On the Term ‘Monotheism’,” Jens-André P. Herbener offers a very useful review of the most important existing categories.39 To briefly compare my proposal to the most important ones, “monarchic monotheism” and “henotheism” offer no sense of participation in the one divinity of YHWH. The same can be said even of Theodore M. Ludwig’s category of “emanational mystical monotheism,” which, in his own words, either recognizes many gods “as emanations of the one divine source, which is conceived of in theistic terms,” or imagines “the one God as the world soul.”40 The “inclusive monotheism” submitted by Thomas L. Thompson accounts for the conflation of other gods into YHWH, but not for the deification of humans, common or not.41 I have already addressed the Mesopotamian “summodeism” and, in the first introductory chapter, the “exclusive inclusive monotheism” of Fletcher-Louis. My proposal of “deification” is distinct from these categories. Nevertheless, it is also widely integrative; it depicts most, if not all, of the microtheologies of the Hebrew Bible.42 Both later Jewish and Jens-André P. Herbener, “On the Term ‘Monotheism,’” Numen 60.5-6 (2013): 616-648. He also offers an insightful criticism of over-categorization. 40 “Monotheism,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd ed.; 15 vols.; ed. by Lindsey Jones; New York: Macmillan, 2005), 9:6155-6163, quoted in Herbener, “On the Term ‘Monotheism,’” 622. 41 Thomas L. Thompson, “The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine,” in Edelman, The Triumph of Elohim, 107-126. 42 In an influential 1984 article (“Biblical Alternatives to Monotheism,” Theology 87 [1984]: 172-180), John F. A. Sawyer proposed the categorization of theologies into three sets of texts: texts in which monotheism is explicit, texts which under different revisions have been made 39

CHAPTER FOUR

71

Christian approaches to the Bible perceive precisely this macrotheology in it, as I hope to show below.

CONCLUSIONS

The above close analysis of the theologies of the earliest biblical texts has led to two broad conclusions. On the one hand, preexilic Israel describes the divine in the same manner as its neighbors. The central features of these descriptions—such as enthronement, enormity, and luminosity—will serve as the primary markers of divinity throughout Jewish antiquity. On the other hand, I argue that in the Bible we have a radical, YHWH-only fluidity. What I mean by this is first and foremost that there is only one divine selfhood, YHWH’s, and all other divine beings share in this selfhood, to varying degrees, and always at his discretion. In this “deification” theology—as I propose we call it—YHWH surrounds himself with a divine council, to which have also access certain human institutions, particularly the monarchy.

monotheistic, and texts which “are explicitly and embarrassingly polytheistic” (p. 176). Sawyer discerned polytheism in “the plain meaning of the biblical text as a whole” (p. 179). But what he meant by this “meaning” is a layer of the text which only makes this sense by being extracted and thoroughly detached from its context. There are obvious ways in which such an intervention into the text is problematic, but most importantly one has to admit that this method reads the text in a way in which it was not meant to be read. By his own admission, “most if not all of such [polytheistic] passages, however, can be reinterpreted in such a way as to remove the threat of polytheism if so desired” (p. 176). The point which I am making here is that they are interpreted in this manner already in the Bible.

I NTRODUCTION

It has been suggested in the previous part that the Iron Age II Judahite religion allowed for several inclusions of humanity into the divine. The current part argues that the cataclysm of 597 and 586 B.C.E. engendered unprecedented concerns with the uniqueness of YHWH and provoked radical changes in theology and anthropology: one the one hand the access to divinity was democratized, but on the other hand this very access was redefined as theomorphism, and not deification. This change is not only theological, but also iconic. It amounts to a redefinition of the character of cultic statues. At the same time, a new insistence on celestial being as creations of YHWH removes them also from participation in divinity.

75

CHAPTER FIVE. EXILIC AND POSTEXILIC REASSESSMENTS OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE In 597 B.C.E. Jerusalem is besieged and conquered (2 Kgs 24:117). The royal temple in Jerusalem is robbed of some of its vessels. In 587/586 B.C.E. takes place the second siege and the ultimate defeat of Jerusalem. In 586 B.C.E. the temple is completely destroyed and all its sacred objects are carried to Babylon (2 Kgs 25:8-17; Jer 52:17-23). The throne of YHWH and its statue could not have survived the attack.1 These events mark the beginning of the exile. There is no indication, textual or archaeological, that Judah was depleted of its inhabitants during the exile. Yet, the extent to which the population has been affected by these events is still in dispute. Undoubtedly to a very large extent, life in many parts of the land continued unabated.2 Yet, it is intuitively obvious that Herbert Niehr (“YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 91) suggests that the destruction of the cultic image may be reflected in the report of 2 Kgs 24:13 about the stripping (‫ )קצץ‬of the cultic objects in the temple. This would imply, if one relies on the chronology of the account, that the destruction of the image occurred in 597 B.C.E., at the end of Jehoiachin’s reign. Mettinger also notes that the biblical account seems to suggest “the profanation of the cherubim throne,” namely that “the throne was stripped of its gold plate already in 597” (The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 61). Ps 74:6-7, which mentions the breaking of the “carved work” (‫ )פתוח‬and the burning of the sanctuary, might also allude to this disastrous event. 2 This view is expressed in the extreme in R. P. Carroll, “The Myth of the Empty Land,” in Ideological Criticism of Biblical Texts (ed. D. Jobling and T. Pippin; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 79-93; H. M. Barstad, The Myth of 1

77

78

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

the demolition of the Jerusalem temple, the destruction of the statue of YHWH, and the loss of the divine monarchy affected the Judahite life which centered in and depended on these edifices. For the upper strata of Judahite society these events constituted a major upheaval of life in general, but it was also a theological cataclysm for many others. The cataclysm did not mark the end of a “religious symbol” or “institution,” as we might put it today, but threatened the very presence of YHWH among his people (at least this is how it must have felt for a while). Bob Becking proposes four possible ways in which the Judahite mindset could have coped with the changes of the exile: 1. Abandoning of the traditional religion and embracing of the world view of the conquering Babylonian power; 2. Reinforcement of indigenous, Canaanite elements in the Yahwistic religion; 3. A concentration on Yahwism in an orthodox, exclusive monotheistic form and 4. An attempt to reformulate Yahwism in the [new] religious, political and social context. Texts in the Old Testament reflect the [sic!] variety of responses to the changes in ancient Israel. 3

the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996). This radical reading relies, unconvincingly, on two texts which refer to the sabbath of an empty land: 2 Chr 36:21 and Lev 26:34-35, 43. For less radical views and interpretations of archaeology, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or The Empty Land Revisited,” JSOT 27/2 (2002): 169-187; Ephraim Stern, “The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality,” JSOT 28/3 (2004): 273-277; Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005); Avraham Faust, “Deportation and Demography in Sixth-Century B.C.E. Judah,” in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts (ed. Brad E. Kelle and Jacob L. Wright, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2011), 91-101. The texts which refer specifically to the exile mention that the “poorest” of Jerusalem were left behind (2 Kgs 24:14; 25:12, Jer 39:10; 52:15-16). 3 Bob Becking, “Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Some Introductory Remarks,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion. Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1-8, here p. 4.

CHAPTER FIVE

79

What is very clear is that the destruction of the temple forced a theological reformulation, particularly a reassessment of perspective on YHWH’s presence.4 A widespread reassessment was the relocation of YHWH’s abode, “heaven,” out of the temple which ceased to exist to celestial realms.5 Of course, this relocation was For the issue of presence/absence of YHWH, central to exilic and postexilic theologies, see Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth; Gary A. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance (HSM 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 93; J. Blenkinsopp, History and Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 197. 5 The relocation of heaven is especially evident in the revisionist augmentation of 1 Kgs 8:27-30, which insists that the deity is unconstrained by the temple and ultimately resides in a far heaven. As part of Solomon’s prayer of the dedication of the temple, YHWH is summoned to open his eyes and ears. It is most probable that the summation was part of the ritual of vivification of YHWH’s statue. In order to purge the prayer from any implications of YHWH’s physical and iconic presence in the temple, an exilic or postexilic Deuteronomistic editor imbued it, often in an unsubtle manner (as is the case with 30b), with the emphasis that the temple is only the abode of YHWH’s name, while the god resides in heaven (cf. vv. 22, 27, 30b). The corrective intervention is even more evident in 2 Chr 6:40; 7:15. The invocation of YHWH to see and hear recalls a widespread concern for the liveliness or animation of the divine images, concerned expressed and addressed in the ‘mouth-washing’ rituals of vivification of divine statues (see especially Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder; idem, “Washing the Mouth,” 45-72; M. B. Dick, C. B. Walker, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth, 55-121). These rituals incorporated certain (so called ‘mouth-opening’) acts and invocations for the endowment of the statues with vital and sensorial functions, among which seeing and hearing (e.g., the incantation of ‘Ea, Shamash and Asalluhi in Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 61). In Babylon the ritual included an opening of the statue’s eyes, presumably with the same significance (Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 66-67). The ritual was most probably also known among Judahites, as Hab 2:18-19 suggests. The ability of a cultic image to specifically see and hear is also addressed in both iconic and anti-iconic theologies (Ps 115:2-8; cf. also Isa 6:9-10). Hezekiah’s invocation of the presence of YHWH in the temple (Isa 37:14-20= 2 Kgs 19:14-19) can hardly speak to anything else but to an evident concern with the treatment of the captured divine images at the hands of the Assyrians (see especially Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary,” 123-128; Becking, “Assyrian Evidence,” 157-171). The subsequent insertion of v. 19b, according 4

80

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

built on preexisting elements, such as the aforementioned solarization of YHWH witnessed from the 8th century BCE onwards. The destruction of the temple also forced Judahite theologies in general to soften descriptions of YHWH or avoid them altogether.6 to which divine images are simply human creations without any numinous value, is meant to address the iconic undertones of the prayer. The depiction of YHWH as sole creator (v. 16) is also most probably an exilic or postexilic addition of an aniconic character (cf. Jer 10:11-16; 32:17; Deut 4:1-39; Neh 9:6). For the possible use of idolatry imagery in Isa 6:910, see G. K. Beale, “Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolatry,” VT 41 (1991): 257-278. The mere use of idolatry vocabulary, however, does not warrant a conclusion that the passage is aniconic. On the contrary, the emphasis of the passage is that Israel, to whom the imagery is applied, does hear and does see physically, but lacks mental comprehension. The lack of comprehension in v. 9 is ultimately explained as deficiency of effective vision and hearing in v. 10. This meaning is also evidenced in the reoccurrence of the motif in Isa 42:17-20. It should be also noted that in several ancient Near Eastern texts the emphasis on the human incapacity to use the senses appropriately justifies the need for divine assistance in the image-making process; the impaired human senses are actually contrasted with the images’ perfect ability to see and hear (e.g., van der Toorn, “The Iconic Book,” 235). In conjunction with Isa 6:6-7, vv. 9-10 create a similar context (see V. A. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” HUCA 60 [1989]: 39-89). 6 For example, James Barr notes that Exod 24:9-11—which refers to a direct vision of YHWH by the elders of Israel on Sinai—gives a description “not of the deity, but of his surroundings” (“Theophany and Anthropomorphism,” 32). Several scholars have also noted several similarities between Exod 24:9-11 and the Late Bronze description of the palace of Baal in KTU 1.4.v:19,34-35 (Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus [3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster Press, 1976], 498, 507; U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies II. Bible and Ancient Oriental Texts [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975], 132; J. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 344; Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 425-426 n.10). The elders do have a vision of YHWH, a fact which is mentioned twice, but the lack of any mentions of YHWH’s body with the exception of his feet contrasts sharply with the attention given to his surroundings. It is possible that in a previous form the text contained a full description of the divine body and that only the mention of the feet passed the reviser’s concerns. As it has been proposed, the diversion of attention to surroundings could reflect an increased discomfort with blunt expressions of anthropomorphism (see also Smith, The Early History of God, 140-146). Certainly in

CHAPTER FIVE

81

After 586 B.C.E. YHWH’s presence in the First Temple was also retrospectively dematerialized. The two main theologies which reassessed the presence of YHWH in the temple (probably in his statue)—the Deuteronomist and the Priestly—have received extensive attention and need not be reviewed here.7 To exemplify the temple revisionism mentioned above, it suffices to point out that both theologies avoid consistently the two main titles of YHWH in the First Temple, ‫יייי‬ ‫ צבאות‬and ‫ישב הכרבים‬, titles which had been most probably associated with YHWH’s statue.8 The Deuteronomist’s response to presence theologies is the concept shem, “name.” With it the place of worship becomes only a dwelling for the ultimately unconfined and immaterial name of God,9 while YHWH’s physical presence is some theological circles an unabashed focus on the deity was considered irreverent and even dangerous (cf. Gen 32:31; Exod 3:6; 30:20; Judg 13:22; Isa 6:5; 1 En. 14:21-22; 2 En. 39:8 [both recensions]; Childs, The Book of Exodus, 507; Durham, Exodus, 344). Thus Exod 24:9-11 may also serve a pedagogical or paradigmatic function: a screened or partial vision of YHWH secures one’s safety. In Exod 33:20-23 Moses sees YHWH’s back and hands, but is warned against seeing the divine face (‫)פנים‬. Certainly the absoluteness of 33:20b (“the human being will not see me [that is, ‘the face’] and live”) cannot be taken as a denial of the possibility of a visionary experience, nor of YHWH’s corporeality (and indeed this is not how the verse was understood in early Judaism or Christianity). It rather implies that visions of the ‫ פנים‬are possible; it is only that they would amount to the death of the visionary (and we cannot assume that “death” here means physical death). 7 For the proposal that these theologies emerge at this time, see especially Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 59-66. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that their texts, in their extant forms, are mostly products of the exilic and postexilic periods. Yet, it is not reasonable to assume that these theologies did not develop on some preexisting elements. 8 On this avoidance see Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 11-37, 59-66, 111-114; idem, “Yahweh Zebaoth,” 921. On these titles, see also chapter two. 9 E.g., 1 Kgs 8:16-20, 29, 44, 48; 2 Sam 7:13. On this see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School; G. E. Wright, “The Temple in Palestine-Syria,” BAR 1 (1961): 169-184; Ronald E. Clements, God and Temple (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), 79-99; Metzger, “Himmlische und irdische,” 149-151; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 38-79; and S. Richter, The Deuteronomic History and the Name Theology: lesakken semo sam

82

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

relocated to the celestial realm (1 Kgs 8:27-49; Deut 26:15; 33:26). This theology is applied retrospectively to the Sinai event, which is revised and purged of any reference to the bodily appearance of YHWH (cf. Deut 4:12). YHWH speaks from heaven and not from the top of the mountain, and the contact with him is not visual but auditory (cf. Deut 4:12,32,36; 5:4,22-23). In contrast to this Deuteronomistic theology, the Priestly Source does not remove YHWH from the temple. Instead it proposes that the physical divine presence, which it calls the kabod, is mobile.10 The kabod has been with Israel since before the Temple. He11 attached himself to Israel on its inverted exile out of Egypt.12 Having the appearance of fire enveloped by cloud, he accompanied Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness (Exod 13:21-22; 14:24), then settled upon mount Sinai (cf. Exod 24:16-17), took residence in the tabernacle (cf. Exod 40:34-38; Num 9:15), and, in the end, he moved into the First Temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:10-11, which exhibits priestly theology). Of note is that

in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002). For diverging views see Mettinger’s survey in The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 42-45. 10 For the appearance and mobility of kabod, see especially Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 79-93; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, 200-206; idem, “‫כבוד‬,” 22-38. 11 I use this gendered pronoun for the kabod in order to convey that in ancient Jewish thought the kabod is not an impersonal object, but the presence of the divine self. That presence, although paradigmatic for all humanity (as I will show below), is masculine in ancient Hebrew language and thought. 12 In P the exodus is not conceived as a return (cf. Exod 3:17), but as a departure. (The only place to which Israel may “return” is Egypt, as in Exod 13:17.) Nevertheless, the departure is portrayed as the opposite of an exile: the captors want to hold the people in the land, the people desire to leave, they leave the only land they have ever known in order to arrive home, etc. This subtle use of the imagery of exile receives particular force from the fact that P writes at a time when Israel undergoes an exile experience. The imagery is subversive of this experience: in the midst of tragedy, Israel is reminded that the only true exile is the loss of the kabod. For other parallels between Ezekiel and Exodus, see Rebecca G. S. Idestrom, “Echoes of the Book of Exodus in Ezekiel,” JSOT 33/4 (2009): 489-510.

CHAPTER FIVE

83

this narrative uses kabod, YHWH (13:21, 14:24), and ‫( מלאך‬14:19) as names of the same reality, or overlapping divine presences. The term kabod has also a history in reference to the numinous character of cultic statues (cf. Ps 63:3, 106:20, Isa 42:8; 48:11; Jer 2:11) and, given the strongly iconic character of Priestly theology (as we will see), this use may have constituted its main appeal to the Priestly authors.13 Ezekiel, who has long been identified as a Priestly voice,14 retains the fire materiality of the kabod from the Priestly Source (cf. Ezek 1:4, 27-28), but unlike P the prophet gives him a complete and unmistakably human form (1:1-3:15; 8:1-11:25).15 Ezekiel also retains from P the cherubim throne upon which the divine presence is seated (Ezekiel 1 and 10),16 but unlike P he mounts the throne on wheels and turns it into a chariot (merkabah). The prophet places this kabod-and-throne complex (the expression ‫ כסא כבוד‬occurs in Jer 17:12) at the center of his solution to the exile: the Temple is saved in the mobility of the kabod himself. The striking portrait of both the kabod and chariot-throne in Ezekiel 1, written (at least partially) during the first decades of the Babylonian exile17 and the main focus of all subsequent Ps 63:3 refers to beholding YHWH’s kabod. In Ps 106:20 YHWH’s kabod stands in contrast to idols. See also Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 92. 14 For Ezekiel’s affinities with the Priestly materials see W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel (2 vols.; trans. R. E. Clemens; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1982), 1:46-52; Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982); Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 11-13. 15 Korpel argues that the approximations in these anthropomorphic depictions reflect an “awareness of the metaphorical nature of any description of the divine” (A Rift in the Clouds, 96). However, there is nothing in the book of Ezekiel to suggest that the godhead differs from humans in form. YHWH exceeds humans in splendor, but the godhead is nevertheless anthropomorphic, and its superior nature does not make its anthropomorphism less real. 16 The living creatures (‫ )חיות‬of the first chapter are identified in chapter 10 with the cherubim in the temple. 17 Scholars have long noted that the book of Ezekiel as a whole presents particularly puzzling interpretational difficulties. The manuscript witnesses differ at many points, and the meanings are often unclear. Ezekielian scholarship is moving toward a growing consensus that the sixth 13

84

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

merkabah traditions, is only meant to support a point which is ultimately theological: that the throne revealed to the prophet is none other than the throne of the Holy of holies. Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, the throne complex—the hayyot, wheels, faces, wings, cloud, burning coal, and fire—does not merely replicate or echo the temple worship, but it is the temple worship summed up in its focal point, the divine presence; the kabod himself, mounted upon his throne of cherubim, acts as the Holy of holies and the totality of the temple.18 Thus the prophetic book confirms not only the continued presence of YHWH among his people, but also the continuation of the temple and its cult.19 Moreover, Ezekiel’s Priestly theology takes the continuity further back, to the Egypt and Sinai narratives. It describes the materiality and presence of the kabod in the same manner as in Exodus. Ezek 10:4 (“the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Glory of YHWH”; see also Ezek 43:2century B.C.E. prophet stands, directly or indirectly, behind the vast majority of the oracles. For the coherence of the book, see especially Walter Zimmerli, “The Special Form- and Traditio-Historical Character of Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” VT 15 (1965): 515-527; Moshe Greenberg, “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?,” in Ezekiel and His Book (ed. J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 123135; idem, Ezekiel (2 vols.; AB 22,23; New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1997); Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, 1998), 1:17-23; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 5-9. 18 Silviu N. Bunta, “In Heaven or on Earth: A Misplaced Temple Question about Ezekiel’s Visions,” in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior (eds. D. Arbel and A. Orlov; Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 2010), 28-44. 19 The point that the purpose of the vision of the kabod is to assure Ezekiel of the continuity of the cult is also made in Jacob of Serug: see Alexander Golitzin, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Chariot that Prophet Ezekiel Saw (Piscataway, NJ : Gorgias Press, 2016), 76-77 (lines 640-652). I also suggested somewhere else that, read against this temple focus which undergirds the entire book, the liturgy of the cherubim is the very liturgy of the temple and that Ezekiel shares many features with the vision of Isaiah 6: “The Voices of the ‘Triumphant Hymn’: The Orthodox Sanctus as a Christian Merkabah Text,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 64/1-2 (2020): 93-127. See also Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 425; idem, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 83-86.

CHAPTER FIVE

85

6) closely parallels Exod 40:34 “the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the Glory of YHWH filled the tabernacle.” Furthermore, the portrayal of the kabod as a charioteer, although an Ezekielian innovation, carries overtones of much older ancient Near Eastern traditions20 and seems to appropriate charioteerYHWH traditions which, it is commonly agreed, are some of the oldest in the Bible (cf., Ps 18:10 [=2 Sam 22], 68:5, 104:3, Hab 3:8, Isa 19:1, 1 Chr 28:18).21 Despite these Priestly and Deuteronomistic reassessments of theology, we have no reason to think that in the larger Judahite culture iconism, that is, the imagining of the divine presence in a statue, and the expectation of a statue in the temple (long ingrained in Israel’s religious ethos) cease to exist entirely with the destruction of the temple. Several texts commonly dated to the exilic and postexilic periods continue to oppose iconic theologies which must have been contemporaneous (e.g., Isa 40:18-19=Isa 46:5-6; 42:8-9; cf. also Ps 115:2-8). In particular the book of Jeremiah, which is composed as a theological and ethical assessment of the exile (Jer 52:17-23), opposes a theology which imagines the deity as physically enthroned in the temple, most probably in his statue (Jer 2:26-27; 3:16-17; 10:14-16; 23:24). It is safe to conclude that at least some Judahites still expected the divine

E. g. KTU 1.2 iv:7; 1.3 ii:40;1.4 iii:11; 1.10 i:7; 1.19 i:43. The proposal that Psalm 18 is as early as the tenth century B.C.E. may be too optimistic. Thus F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “A Royal Psalm of Thanksgiving [2 Sam 22=Ps 18],” JBL 72 (1953): 15-34; J.-L. Vesco, “Le Psaume 18, lecture davidique,” RB 94 (1987): 5-62. Yet, the arguments for a pre-exilic date outweigh those for a post-exilic date. See Y. Bloch, “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry— A Re-Evaluation,” VT 59 (2009): 34-70; Alison R. Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 35-54. The imagery of Psalm 104 has been compared to the vocabulary of ancient Ugaritic and Egyptian sources. Cf. P. C. Craigie, “The Comparison of Hebrew Poetry: Psalm 104 in the Light of Egyptian and Ugaritic Poetry,” Sem 4 (1974): 10-21; P. E. Dion, “YHWH as Storm God and Sun God: The Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104,” ZAW 103 (1991): 143-171; Smith, “The Near Eastern Background of Solar Language for Yahweh,” 29-39. 20 21

86

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

presence in their midst—mobile or not—to be in a statue.22 In the next chapter I will venture to show that both D on the one side, and P and Ezekiel on the other, build a new theomorphic anthropology to react to this pressure and, more broadly, to safeguard their new theologies.

It is intriguing that cult objects are quite absent in Judah in the Persian period, but not entirely (Ephraim Stern, “Religion in Palestine in the Assyrian and Persian Periods,” in Becking and Korpel, The Crisis of Israelite Religion, 245-255, here 254; idem, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Volume 2 [New York: Doubleday, 2001], 478-479, 488). However, incense altars are common (Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 510513). 22

CHAPTER SIX. THE EMERGENCE OF THEOMORPHISM AND THE EXCLUSION OF HUMANITY FROM THE GODHEAD IN EZEKIEL 28 AND 31 The preexilic view of the monarch as a god, which I reviewed in chapter four, could not have survived the events of 597 and 586 unscathed.1 Clear indications of changes in the conceptualization of the monarchy surface in the Deuteronomist’s unfavorable remembrance of its beginning and overall performance. For D, rather than indicating divine adoption, the institution of the monarch becomes a project of human weakness and an usurpation of YHWH.2 In consequence D sets up a theology which has the power of the monarchy severely limited by the divine shem inscribed in the Torah, limited initially to judicial authority, and later on to For the continuity of the Davidic dynasty after the exile and its attempts to restoration, see especially S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 66-98; 95 (1983): 218-229; P. Sacchi, “L’esilio e la fine della monarchia davidica,” Hen 11 (1989): 131-148; N. Na’aman, “Royal Vassals or Governors? On the Status of Shashbazzar and Zerubbabel in the Persian Empire,” Hen 22 (2000): 35-44; H. Niehr, “Religio-Historical Aspects of the ‘Early Post-Exilic’ Period,” in Becking and Korpel, The Crisis of Israelite Religion, 228-244, here 229-231. 2 Ronald E. Clements, “The Deuteronomistic Interpretation of the Founding of the Monarchy in I Sam. VIII,” VT 24/4 (1974): 398-441; Paul S. Ash, “Jeroboam I and the Deuteronomistic Historian’s Ideology of the Founder,” CBQ 60 (1998): 16-24. 1

87

88

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

executive duties, development upon which judicial authority, of course, reverts back to the temple, the place where the divine shem dwells.3 Such demotions of the monarchy led naturally to a new anthropology, since the position of the monarch marked the pinnacle of humanity, even in D. This emerging anthropology is not entirely identical in D and P (although very similar), and D’s anthropology can be gleaned from his understanding of the monarchy, but P offers the clearest and most expansive anthropological views and I will dedicate my attention to him. In the theology of the Priestly Source the protoplast enjoys a special relationship with YHWH and the divine council, and this prerogative is especially defined by means of ‫ צלם‬and ‫( דמות‬Gen 1:26).4 These terms were not only used in reference to the cultic statues of gods—the former as the statue itself and the latter as the resemblance between a statue and its prototype,5 but also their equivalents had a long history in ancient Near Eastern monarchic ideologies, being applied to the king as a divine image.6 In other words, in P the first human functions as an alternative not only to a divine image,7 but also to a monarch. To this Bernard M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah,” VT 51 (2001): 511-534. 4 Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 426 n.13. 5 Num 33:52; 1 Sam 6:5; 2 Kgs 11:18; Ezek 7:20; 16:17; 23:24; Amos 5:26. In Mesopotamia ṣalmu designates a divine cultic statue. See H. Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes Gen 1:26-30,” TZ 21 (1965): 245-259, 481-501. 6 For these influences, see Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes,” 245-259, 481-501; Edward M. Curtis, Man as the Image of God in Genesis in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1984), 80-102, 113-119, 155-172; Phyllis Bird, “ ‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR 74 (1981): 129-159; J. M. Miller, “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God,” JBL 91 (1972): 289-304; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 60-63. A similar thought is present even more extensively in Egypt. See especially Curtis, Man as the Image of God, 86-102; H. Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes.” 7 E. Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983), 84-96; A. Angerstorfer, “Hebräisch dmwt und aramäisch dmw(t),” BN 24 (1984): 30-43; Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 426-427; 3

CHAPTER SIX

89

anthropology also corresponds a cosmology (cf. Gen 1:1-2:4a) according to which the process of creation, the structure of the cosmos, and its functions correspond to the process of the construction of the temple, its structure, and its services.8 The human being—who comes last in creation and is introduced into the earth’s innermost and most sacrosanct space, Eden—is a statue of YHWH which is placed at the completion of the temple in its innermost and most sacred chamber, the holy of holies. For Ezekiel also this initial humanity is correlative to the anthropomorphic kabod. The depiction of the protoplast as the ‫ צלם‬and ‫ דמות‬of YHWH in Gen 1:26 (LXX: εἴκων and ὁµοίωσις) closely corresponds to the description of the divine kabod as ‫ דמות כמראה אדם‬in Ezek 1:26 (LXX: ὁµοίωµα ὡς εἶδος ἀνθρώπου).9 Ezekiel may appeal here to the prehistory of the concept kabod as the numinous character of cultic Corrine L. Patton, “Adam as the Image of God: An Exploration of the Fall of Satan in the Life of Adam and Eve,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1994 (SBLSP 33; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1994), 294-300; Thomas Podella, Das Lichtkleid JHWHs (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1996), 252-259; Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 93-94; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 65-76. 8 For this parallelism, see Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exodus 25-40,” ZAW 89 (1977): 375-387; Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord, The Problem of the Sitz-im-Leben of Gen 1:1-2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor; AOAT 212; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 501-511; J. D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (San Francisco: Harper&Row, 1988), 78-99; Marc Vervenne, “Genesis 1,1-2,4. The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis (ed. A. Wénin; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 35-79; M. Bauks, “Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (Pg),” in Wénin, Studies, 333-345; G. K. Beale, “The Final Vision of the Apocalypse and its Implications for a Biblical Theology of the Temple,” in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology (ed. T. D. Alexander and S. Gathercole; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 197-199; T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 20-31; John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 178-192. 9 See also Miller, “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God,” 302-303; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 65-70; Block, Ezekiel, 1:107; Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 427; idem, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 90; idem, The Early History of God, 144.

90

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

statues, yet, paradoxically, this inherited iconic language is used toward a profound reformulation of older monarchic ideologies and of iconicity. Traditionally, as I have already evidenced, an idol shares fully in the identity of the god or goddess who inhabits it, and the king is a god, a member of the divine council. Ezekiel writes most vehemently against both of these traditions in chapters 28 and 31, to which I will now turn.

6.1 E ZEKIEL 28

Ezekiel 28 contains a diatribe against a theology that claims divine status for the king.10 The king of Tyre claims unequivocally It is possible that Ezekiel 28 contains two originally distinct units which were juxtaposed editorially, namely 1-10 and 11-19. It has been contended that form and topic differentiate between the two units (see discussion in Wilson, “Death of the King of Tyre,” 211-212). Nevertheless in their final form the two units coalesce in a unitary composition. The whole of vv. 1-19 has the same address, the king of Tyre, the same general theme, and the same vocabulary. For the coherence of the chapter, see especially Block, Ezekiel, 2:87-90; Greenberg, Ezekiel, 2:577, 589, 593; Robert R. Wilson, “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987), 211-218, here 217218. Ezekiel 28 as a whole has received an extensive attention in modern scholarship. To cite only a few studies: Hector M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2012), esp. pp. 133-178 (which contains a textual analysis of the Septuagint version), and pp. 179-210 (which contain a textual analysis of the Masoretic text); Dale Launderville, O.S.B., “Ezekiel’s Cherub: A Promising Symbol or a Dangerous Idol?,” CBQ 65 (2004): 165183; James E. Miller, “The Maelaek of Tyre (Ezekiel 28, 11-19),” ZAW 105 (1994): 497-501; Wilson, “The Death of the King of Tyre”; Norman C. Habel, “Ezekiel 28 and the Fall of the First Man,” Concordia Theological Monthly 38 (1967): 516-524; Kalmon Yaron, “The Dirge over the King of Tyre,” ASTI 3 (1964): 28-57; Herbert G. May, “The King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of Ezekiel 28:12-19,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. Bernhard Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 166-176; A. J. Williams, “The Mythological Background of Ezekiel 28:12-19?,” BTB 6 (1976): 49-61; K. Jeppesen, ““You are a Cherub, but no God!” SJOT 1 (1991): 83-94; O. Loretz, “Der Sturz des Fürsten von Tyrus (Ez 28,1-19),” UF 8 (1976): 455458; James Barr, “ ‘Thou art the Cherub’: Ezekiel 28.14 and the Postexilic 10

CHAPTER SIX

91

to be a ‘god’ (‫ אל‬in v. 2; ‫ אלהים‬in v. 9), reflecting common ancient Near Eastern and Judahite views of the monarchy, as I have shown above in chapter four.11 A swift divine correction reminds the Tyrian king that he is a human being (‫אדם‬/ἄνθρωπος: vv. 2 and 9). The distinction between divinity and humanity is clear, at least to Ezekiel: ‫( אתה אדם ולא אל‬v. 2). Verses 12-14 express, in a poetic style, precisely this nascent theomorphic anthropology as it describes the king of Tyre. The MT reads as follows in the new Jewish Publication Society translation: 12. You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and flawless in beauty. 13. You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your adornment: Carnelian, chrysolite, and amethyst; Beryl, lapis lazuli, and jasper; Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; And gold beautifully wrought for you, Mined for you, prepared the day you were created. 14. I created you as a cherub With outstretched shielding wings; And you resided on God’s holy mountain; You walked among stones of fire.12

The anthropology I wish to reconstitute depends not so much on individual words, as it does on a web of iconic imagery weaved together through several key phrases and words. I will now turn my close attention to these phrases. I devoted a study to the first phrase, ‫אתה חותם תכנית‬, which is particularly difficult to interpret.13 I will not revisit here the entire argument, but only summarize it. Unlike the MT which vocalizes Understanding of Genesis 2-3,” in Priests, Prophets and Scribes. Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 213-223. 11 The title ‫ אלהים‬claimed by the Tyrian king is used for the Judahite monarch in Ps 45:6-7. 12 Tanakh. A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Masoretic Text (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985), 939. 13 Bunta, “YHWH’s Cultic Statue.”

92

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

as “sealer of perfection” (supported by Aquila and Theodotion), the LXX has σὺ ἀποσφράγισµα ὁµοιώσεως, “you are the imprint of likeness.” Scholars have long taken the MT to be corrupted and, ever since a 1954 argument by G. R. Driver, the vast majority have followed his proposal to amend the Hebrew to ‫חוַֹתם ַתְּכִנית‬, “seal of careful preparation,” or “of perfection.”14 Pace Driver, I have proposed that we should not presuppose the LXX ἀποσφράγισµα to be a mistake, but rather to render correctly the passive participle ‫ ָחתוּם‬in the defective spelling ‫חתם‬.15 As for the Driver, “Ezekiel,” 158-159. Driver’s arguments have ever since been strictly followed by subsequent analyses and translations of Ezek 28:12. One notable exception is Dexter E. Callender, Jr. See his arguments in “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God,” in The Book of Ezekiel. Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong; SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 175-193; idem, Adam in Myth and History (HSS 48; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 91-93. For several interpretations before Driver’s influential study, see Callender’s short survey in Adam in Myth and History, 91 n.187, and idem, “Primal Human,” 176-177. 15 First, the defective spelling is generally regarded as earlier and thus more likely for an autograph of the early sixth century B.C.E. For the historical primacy of the defective spelling, see F. I. Andersen and A. D. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986); J. Barr, The Variable Spelling of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); W. Weinberg, “The History of Hebrew Plene Spelling,” HUCA 46 (1975): 457-487; Paul Joüon, S.J. and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996), 4650. For the relevance of the Qumran testimonies to this trend, see E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 17-18. MT still retains 271 instances of defective spellings of passive qal participles (Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 202; Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, 148). Second, in particular the plene spelling of ū in interior positions would still be uncommon in the exilic period. The plene writing of word-medial ū is apparently the extension of an original plene spelling of a word-final ū (Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 57-58). Influential in this transfer seems to have been the pronunciation of proper names (Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 58). Proper names are spelled with an interior plene ū by the seventh century B.C.E. (Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 60). The first attestation of plene ū in interior position in a common word is ‫ ארור‬in the Silwan Epitaph of late eighth or early seventh century (Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 60). However, the plene spelling of interior ū has normalized at a slow pace (Andersen and Forbes, 14

CHAPTER SIX

93

second word of the phrase, Driver again presupposes a corruption in the LXX, but its ὁµοίωσις is supported by a marginal MT textual tradition, the Vulgate (similitudo), the Peshitta (dmwtʾ), and Targum Jonathan (‫)צורתא‬. In the Bible it often renders the Hebrew ‫תבנית‬, which mostly means “pattern” or “architectural plan” (cf. Exod 25:9,40; Josh 22:28; 2 Kgs 16:10), but also denotes the likeness of a divine image (cf. Hos 13:2, Deut 4:16-18, Isa 44:13, Ps 106:20), just like Targum Jonathan reads it in Ezek 28:12 (‫)צורתא‬.16 This latter meaning of ‫ תבנית‬is also attested in Ezek 8:3, 10, and 10:8. It is this iconic connotation which makes ‫ תבנית‬a more likely genitival noun of a ‫ חתם‬participle than ‫תכנית‬. Indeed, the MT ‫ תכנית‬would be a simple graphic misreading of ‫תבנית‬, given the fact that other misreadings of ‫ ב‬as ‫ כ‬are attested in MT.17 Yet, if this is the case, the participle which better fits the theological framework of chapter 28 and of P’s anthropology overall (cf. the iconic dimensions of Gen 1:26), and which is also supported by the reception of Ezek 28:12 in Christian and Jewish antiquity,18 Spelling, 66). By the beginning of the exile the plene spelling of medial ū was “in train, but not on a large scale” (Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 67). Third, statistics suggest that in qal passive participles the ū in unstressed positions and in proclitics and constructs, as it would be the case with the phrase in Ezek 28:12, manifested the greatest resistance to plene spelling (212 defective versus 340 plene spellings in such cases and respectively 32 defective versus 85 plene in all other cases; 38 percent versus 27 percent defective spellings; see Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 202). Fourth, MT still retains defective spellings of passive participles in the text of Ezekiel, although haphazardly (e.g., Ezek 9:2,3; see Barr, Variable Spelling, 113). For a thorough discussion on the retroversion value of the Septuagint, see Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (3rd ed.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015). 16 The manuscript versions of Targum Jonathan to Ezekiel 28:11-19 are conveniently listed and discussed in Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre, 80-132. 17 See P. Kyle McCarter Jr., Textual Criticism. Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 44. 18 To date, Patmore’s Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre is the most thorough study on this reception. Regrettably, it is limited mostly to passages which quote Ezek 28:11-19. Yet, the use of the imagery of Ezekiel 28:12 far exceeds such direct discussions. For example, in Clementine Homilies 16.19, a Jewish Christian written sometime in the third or fourth century C.E., the human body is defined as “imprinted with the greatest seal,”

94

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

is the passive. The point here is that the protoplast was imprinted with the likeness of God. The second phrase of v. 12, ‫כליל יפי‬, is commonly understood as “flawless in beauty,” but the LXX has στέφανος κάλλους, “crown of beauty,” and the Peshitta, “crown of splendor” (klylʾ šwbḥʾ). ‫ כליל‬generally denotes perfection in the Hebrew Bible, but it also parallels the Akkadian kilīlu, which indicates a gold crown often adorned with precious stones.19 Given this and also the parallelism with “imprinted by the pattern,” it is most probable that ‫כליל‬ ‫ יפי‬should be understood as “crown of beauty,” as the ancient translations suggest.20 The comparison of the king of Tyre to a “crown of beauty” has evident iconic connotations. Crowns are commonly associated in the ancient Near East with the majesty of divine statues. Moshe Weinfeld notes that “in the ancient Near East the divine glory was embodied in the crown of the deity or hero; this holds true of Heb. kabod as well.”21 Weinfeld’s references for the association between crowns and kabod are Job 19:9 (“he has stripped me of my ‫ כבוד‬which was upon me and has taken impression by which it acquires “the form of god.” God’s body functions like a seal impressed on the human body. Thus humanity is a divine imprint. It is further emphasized, in vocabulary and theology reminiscent of Ezekiel 28, that there is a fundamental quality-of-life distinction between “the seal” (σφραγίς) or “he who seals” (σφραγίσας), who is God, and “the sealed body” (τὸ σφραγισθὲν σῶµα) or “that which is sealed” (τὸ σφραγισθέν), which is the human corporeality. David H. Aaron (“Shedding Light on God’s Body in Rabbinic Midrashim: Reflections on the Theory of a Luminous Adam,” HTR 90 [1997]: 299-314, here 309-310) notes the connection of this text with the rabbinic tradition attested in Ecclesiastes Rabbah 8:2, which develops a speculation about the luminosity of Adam based on Ezek 28:12. (Patmore discusses Ecclesiastes Rabbah, but does not note the connection to the Clementine Homilies: Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre, 18-22.) Moshe Greenberg (Ezekiel, 2:581) further notes that a Tannaitic wedding blessing mentions the fashioning of Adam “in the image of the likeness of his pattern” (‫)בצלם דמות תבניתו‬. He also remarks that an iconic reading of Ezek 28:12 is witnessed in the sixteenth century interpretation of Abarbanel (ibid., 581). 19 G. R. Driver, “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems,” Bib 35 (1954): 145-159, 299-312, here 159; Block, Ezekiel, 2:105. 20 Cf. also Driver, “Ezekiel,” 159. 21 Weinfeld, “‫ כבוד‬,” 27, 29.

CHAPTER SIX

95

the crown from my head”) and Ps 8:6 (“You have made him a little less than the gods, and crowned him with ‫ כבוד‬and honor”). Ps 8:6 is particularly relevant as it refers to primeval humanity, as does this verse in Ezekiel. It must also be recalled that kabod refers to the divine majesty of cultic statues. Crowns are central paraphernalia of the cultic statues of the ancient Near East. The use of ‫ יפי‬further supports the association of the phrase with a cultic statue, since divine beauty is specifically embodied in images. Oswald Loretz argues that the expression “to behold the fairness of YHWH and enquire in his palace” in Ps 27:4 most probably refers to the vision and the worship of YHWH’s cultic statue.22 The noun ‫ יפי‬refers to physical appearance, as the common association of the root with ‫ תאר‬and ‫ מראה‬evidences.23 In Ps 50:2 the depiction of Zion as ‫( כלל יפי‬LXX εὐπρέπεια τῆς ὡραιότητος), from which YHWH shines forth (‫)יפע‬, could refer to a cultic statue.24 Lam 2:15 also employs ‫ כלילת יפי‬as a title of Zion, for which LXX has στέφανος δόξης, a closer association with the divine presence in the sanctuary. Ezek 16:14 explains Jerusalem’s ‫כליל‬ ‫ יפי‬as the presence of YHWH’s “splendor.” Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the phrase ‫ כליל יפי‬circulated with a strong iconic connotation and may have even been associated with a divine statue. The transfer of the title to Zion and Jerusalem in many of the texts mentioned above, including Ezek 16:14, could very well be an exilic and postexilic manner of coping with the destruction of the temple, while avoiding any iconic references. A precedent for this is the Mesopotamian transfer of the splendor of divine images to the entire cities in which they reside.25

Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. Leberschau und Jahwestatue in Psalm 27, Leberschau in Psalm 74 (UBL 3; Altenberge, 1985). 23 See H. Ringgren, “‫יפה‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 6:218-220, here 218-219. Very rarely does ‫יפי‬ denote a moral purity (e.g., Eccl 3:11). For Ugaritic precedence to this rare meaning, see Johannes C. de Moor, “Ugaritic Lexigraphical Notes,” UF 18 (1986): 260. 24 In Leviticus Rabbah 20:4 and Numbers Rabbah 4:13, Ps 50:2 is associated with YHWH’s enthroned presence in the holy. 25 van der Toorn, “The Iconic Book,” 234. 22

96

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

In Ezek 28:17 the second term of the phrase, ‫יפי‬, is placed in parallelism with the radiance (‫ )יפעה‬on account of which the king of Tyre or Adam claims divinity. Ezekiel seems to be coining this new term, ‫יפעה‬, from the root ‫יפע‬. The two concepts are also linked in Ps 50:2 and it is probable that in Ezekiel a word play ‫יפי‬-‫ יפעה‬is intended. LXX does not even distinguish between them in Ezek 28:7 and 17, and translates both with τὸ κάλλος. Both are within the semantic proximity of the Mesopotamian terms puluẖtu, rašubbatu, namurratu, and melammu. As mentioned in chapter two, the terms indicate the numinous majesty and luminosity of cultic statues. Melammu in particular resides in the gods’ crowns, and can be transferred to the crown of the earthly king. The specific association of divine radiance with crowns seems to have prompted Ezekiel’s coining of ‫יפעה‬.26 Most scholars consider the list of precious stones in Ezek 28:13 a later addition. However, few would dispute that ‫כל אבן‬ ‫( יקרה מסכתך‬translated above as “every precious stone was your adornment”) and ‫“( וזהב מלאכת תפיך‬and gold beautifully wrought for you”) belong to the original stratum of chapter 28. ‫מסכה‬, a hapax legomenon, should most probably be associated with ‫סכך‬, which carries the primary sense of to block, to screen out. With this sense the root also produced the name of the screen of the door of the tabernacle—‫( מסך‬cf. Exod 26:36; 27:16; 35:15,17;

For the proximity between melammu and ‫יפעה‬, see also Greenberg, Ezekiel, 2:575; Block, Ezekiel, 2:98 n.41. My iconic reading, however, diverges from theirs. For the radiant crowns of deities, see for example Erra I 127-128. The connection between the book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra has been evidenced extensively in modern scholarship (see especially the thorough analysis of Daniel Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra [OBO 104; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991]). In Erra I 127-128 Erra persuades Marduk to leave his temple in Babylon. The text mentions in this context that Marduk’s statue is in disrepair, and that his “crown, which used to light up Ehalanki like Etemenanki, is dimmed” (trans. from Bodi, Ezekiel, 192). In Enuma Elish IV:58 Marduk’s melammu “crowns” his head. For the association of crowns with melammu (e.g., Enuma Elish I:67-68), see also Cassin, La Splendeur Divine, 70-72; Aster, The Unbeatable Light, esp. 35. 26

CHAPTER SIX

97

36:37; 39:38; 40:5,8,28; cf. also Isa 22:8).27 However, the term also had the sense of to cover. As such, it produced the by-form ‫ נסך‬which refers to the metal plating of statues.28 This is precisely how LXX interprets it when it translates with ἐνδέω, to bind.29 This meaning also places ‫ כל אבן יקרה מסכתך‬in stronger connection to ‫וזהב מלאכת תפיך‬.30 ‫ מלאכה‬describes, as Daniel I. Block puts it, “the special craftsmanship of a goldsmith.”31 ‫ תפיך‬most probably derives from ‫ יפי‬and it means “your beauty.”32 Therefore, under this caleidoscopic effect the phrases ‫ כל אבן יקרה מסכתך‬and ‫וזהב מלאכת‬ ‫ תפיך‬should most probably be read as “every precious stone was your binding” and “gold was the craftsmanship of your beauty,” a depiction of the human king (and humanity) as a statue of Moreover, ‫ מסכה‬is often directly associated with ‫( זהב‬Christoph Dohmen, “‫מסכה‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 8:431-437, here pp. 434, 436). 28 Christoph Dohmen, “‫נסך‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 9:455-460; idem, “‫מסכה‬,” 431-437; Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder, 306-307. 29 Daniel I. Block notes that the verb refers to cloths or garments in Isa 23:18, 2 Sam 17:19, and possibly Ezek 27:7 (Ezekiel, 2:106 n.96). For other interpretative issues concerning ‫מסכה‬, see Block, Ezekiel, 2:106 n.96; H. J. van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1-28,19): A New Approach (BibOr; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1968), 116-118. It is possible that the list of precious stones attests to further associations between primordial humanity and divine statues. The list of precious stones adorning Adam’s garment is admittedly reminiscent of the stones on the high priest’s breastpiece (Exod 28:17-20; Exod 39:10-13), but the high priest’s vestments could also be expected to reflect some of the majesty of the garments of YHWH, garments adorning YHWH’s cultic statue. The patterning of the high priest’s garments after YHWH’s appears in rabbinic traditions (e.g., Exodus Rabbah 38:8). 30 The phrase ‫ וזהב מלאכת תפיך‬is of a special difficulty. According to the Masoretic punctuation, ‫ זהב‬concludes the list of gemstones. The Septuagint and the Peshitta connect the term to the subsequent phrase. This is most probably accurate, given the fact that gold is not a gemstone. 31 Ezekiel, 2:109. ‫ מלאכה‬is extensively used in tabernacle and temple narratives in reference to their crafting (Exod 31:3,5; 35:29-35; 38:24; 39:43; 1 Kgs 7:14; 1 Chr 22:15; 28:21; 29:5). 32 See Block, Ezekiel, 2:100, 109-110, also 100 n.52. This is also the reading of several ancient versions: the Vulgate has aurum opus decoris tui; Aquila and Theodotion have ἔργον τοῦ κάλλους σου. 27

98

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

presumably wooden core overlaid with gold sheets mounted with precious stones.33 This meaning coincides with the subsequent phrase—‫ונקביך בך‬. ‫ נקבים‬most probably derives from ‫ נקב‬and refers to perforations (as the Vulgate’s foramina interprets), which in this case could denote perforations made in the core of divine statues for the attachment of the gold sheets.34 The king/humanity is associated with a cherub in verse 14. MT vocalizes ‫ את כרוב‬as “you are a cherub,” variant that is considered in the prevailing consensus to better reflect the original reading.35 Indeed, ‫ את‬could be a defective form of the masculine pronoun ‫( אתה‬cf. Num 11:15 and Deut 5:24), which is what the Targum Jonathan has here.36 The Vulgate adheres to this reading and translates tu cherub. The attributes of the cherub, ‫ממשח הסוכך‬, which do not appear in LXX, are difficult to interpret. The consonantal ‫ משח‬can represent the homophonic “to anoint” and “to measure.”37 The Peshitta and Targum Jonathan read “anoint,”38 while the Vulgate and Symmachus have “to measure” (extentus and καταµετρηµένος). If the second attribute, ‫הסוכך‬, which reoccurs in v. 16, means “covering,” it For the garments of divine statues in Mesopotamia, see Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” 172-193, and Matsushima, “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 209-219. For wood as a material for ancient Near Eastern divine statues, see Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder, 120-124. For wood as a material of divine statues in the Hebrew Bible, see also ibid., 365-367 34 See Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:85; Block, Ezekiel, 2:110. 35 See Barr, “‘Thou art the Cherub’,” 213-217; Greenberg, Ezekiel, 2:579, 583; Block, Ezekiel, 2:112-113. 36 Hector M. Patmore notes that “the ambiguous ‫ את‬of the Targumist’s Vorlage (i.e. is it ‘you (fem.)’, the preposition ‘with’, or the definite object marker?) is resolved in the Targum because the feminine and masculine second singular personal pronouns are identical in Aramaic (i.e. ‫)אַתּ‬. This eliminates the possibility of determining whether the form ‫ את‬or ‫אתה‬ stood in the targumist’s Vorlage, or whether the targumist was following an established tradition of vocalizing the Hebrew Text, as proposed by Barr.” (Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre, 116) 37 Furthermore, it has been noted that it also implies stretching: van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy, 119; Yaron, “Dirge over the King of Tyre,” 32. 38 Ziegler, Ezekiel, 223. See also Widengren, Ascension, 94-97; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 271 n.14; Block, Ezekiel, 2:113. 33

CHAPTER SIX

99

suggests a reference to the throne cherubim who “cover” (‫ )סכך‬the ark (1 Kgs 8:6-7). If it means “to screen” (the Vulgate has protegens), it is a possible allusion to the cherubim who guard the garden of Eden (Gen 3:24), or to the cherubim embroidered on the veil of the sanctuary (Exod 36:35). Yet, if ‫ הסוכך‬is read in conjunction with ‫ממשח‬, they can only refer to the cherubim of the holy of holies. In Ezek 28:16 the king/Adam resides among ‘stones of fire’ (‫)אבני אש‬, a phrase that recalls the ‘stones’ of fire, that is, the blazing coals of the altar from among the cherubim (cf. ‫גחלי אש‬: Ezek 1:13; 10:2,67; also Ps 18:13,16/2 Sam 22:13; Lev 16:12).39 The two words should therefore be translated as “the measuring cherub who covers.” Nevertheless, it is unclear what he is to measure. The only possible answer, it seems to me, is the width of the holy of holies. It is known from 1 Kgs 6:20-28, 8:6-7, and 2 Chr 3:8-13 that the two cherubim of the holy of holies had their wings stretched from wall to wall of the holy of holies, and that there existed an interest in the size of these two cherubim. I have also emphasized above that Ezekiel associates these two cherubim with the unique cherub of Ps 18:10/2 Sam 22:11 (cf. Ezek 9:3, 10:2 and 4).40 Also, several studies have noted that in Ezek 28:11-19 the Edenic location of the king/humanity reflects the sanctuary of Jerusalem.41 The possibility that the text identifies the king/humanity with the cherubim of the garden should also be discarded for other reasons. First, in the only tradition of the Edenic cherubim For this interpretation of the “stones of fire,” see also Launderville, “Ezekiel’s Cherub,” 173, 179; Yaron, “Dirge over the King of Tyre,” 3840; Wilson, “The Death of the King of Tyre,” 216. 40 The proximity of Ezekiel with the tradition of Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22 is further attested by the similar description of YHWH’s theophany, including the mention of ‫ גחלי אש‬in Ezek 1:13 and 10:2 and in Ps 18: 13, 18 and 2 Samuel 22:13. Burning coals or stone of fire are in all these texts elements of YHWH’s ambience. The context (the comparison with the high priest, the association with the cherubim of the holy of holies and the high priest, etc.) suggests that, at least in Ezekiel 28, the imagery is liturgical, originating in the coals burning on the altar (cf. Lev 16:12: ‫)גחלי אש‬. 41 Callender, Jr., Adam in Myth and History, 41; Yaron, “Dirge over the King of Tyre,” 40-41; Launderville, “Ezekiel’s Cherub,” 175; Wilson, “The Death of the King of Tyre,” 215. 39

100

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

(Gen 3:22-24), they guard Eden from Adam. Second, the cherubim guardians of Eden are many, not one, and there is no early tradition which singularizes them. Third, the guarding cherubim are stationed at the east entrance of Eden and do not walk in the garden, where Adam is placed in the Ezekielian passage. Therefore, most likely the text refers to a throne cherub rather than an Edenic cherub. Yet, it is still difficult to comprehend how Adam is to be identified with a throne cherub. The solution seems to be in the LXX and Peshitta readings, which do not identify the king/humanity with the cherub, but read ‫ את‬as a preposition and translate as µετὰ τοῦ χερουβ ἔθηκά σε, “I established you with the cherub.”42 As I said at the beginning of the investigation into these verses of Ezekiel 28, I am convinced that the collective effect of individual connotations is the depiction of the protoplast and the king of Tyre as a divine image. My investigation produces a text which reads as follows: You were imprinted by the pattern, full of wisdom and a crown of beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your binding—carnelian, chrysolite, and amethyst, beryl, lapis lazuli, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald—and gold was the craftmanship of your beauty, and your perforations were prepared for you from the day that you were created. I established you in the holy mountain of God with a [measuring] cherub [who covers]; you were made43 in the midst of fiery stones.

On the one hand, this anthropology presents the king of Tyre as a divine statue, yet transferring the iconic presence of YHWH to humanity on the whole. On the other, it redefines iconicity as theomorphism and not as deification. YHWH is no longer in his statue, but simply imprints it with his likeness. The theomorphic king of Tyre claims deification, but it is refused. His dramatic punishment for the claim (described throughout chapter 28) 42 This difference in readings resurfaces in v. 16, where MT reads ‫ואבדך‬ ‫ כרוב הסכך‬as “I destroyed you shielding cherub,” while LXX has ἤγαγέν σε τὸ χερουβ “the cherub drove you.” 43 The LXX has here ἐγενήθης, which seems to read ‫ היית‬causatively.

CHAPTER SIX

101

resonates clearly with the destruction of cultic statues.44 In v. 7 the monarch’s violent death is depicted as the “slaying”45 of his “radiance.” In v. 16 the king is removed from his abode “from among the stones of fire,” i.e., from the holy of holies. In v. 17 he is cast to the ground (‫ )שלך‬and exposed (‫ )נתן‬before scorning eyes. In v. 18 he is consumed (‫ )כלה‬by fire and turned into ashes (‫)לאפר‬. Although extant accounts of destructions of cultic statues in the ancient Near East are scarce,46 the process, more or less ritualized and often depicted as the “killing” of the divine resemblance (cf. Isa 37:19 = 2 Kgs 19:18), commonly entailed casting the idol to the ground (cf. 1 Sam 5:3), smashing it (cf. Exod 23:24; Lev 26:30; Deut 7:5; 12:3; 1 Sam 5:4; 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 23:12; Isa 21:9; Mic 1:7), burning it, and scattering its ashes (cf. 2 Kgs 23:6,11; Exod 32:20; Deut 7:5; 12:3; 1 Kgs 15:13; Mic 1:7; Isa 37:19 = 2 Kgs 19:18).47 It is important to understand that in the ancient Near East the presence of a god/dess in a statue was only warranted by his/her likeness.48 Therefore, the termination of the See also the observations in Block, Ezekiel, 2:98, 117; Launderville, “Ezekiel’s Cherub,” 173-174. 45 MT vocalizes in v. 7 as ‫חלל‬, ‘to desecrate,’ but should probably vocalize as ‫חלל‬, ‘to slay.’ LXX (‘wound’), Targum Jonathan (‘injure’) and Peshitta (‘kill’) suggest that the original contained ‫“( ותחלל‬you were slain”), which coincides with the reference in vv. 9-10 to the death (‫ )מות‬of the king of Tyre. However, in v. 16 the original seems to have been ‫חלל‬, ‘to desecrate.’ 46 See especially Th. Baran, “Leben und Tod der Bilder,” in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum. Festschrift K. Deller (ed. G. Mauer and U. Magen; AOAT 220; Kevelaer/Neukirchen Vluyn, 1988), 55-60; M. A. Brandes, “Destruction et mutilation de statues en Mésopotamie,” Akk 16 (1980): 28-41. 47 E.g., Rassam Cylinder v.119-120; vi.62-64. Translation in ARAB 2:308, 310. For the probable allusion to this practice in 1 Sam 5:3-4, see W. Zwickel, “Dagons abgeschlagener Koft (1 Sam V 3-4),” VT 44 (1994): 239-249. 48 Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 77; Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 183-184; E. M. Curtis, “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study,” in Scripture in Context III: The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature (ed. W. W. Hallo et al.; ANETS 8; Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1990), 31-56, here 39-42; W. W. Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed. W. W. Hallo et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 44

102

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

numinous character of a statue, or its “killing,” was accomplished through mutilation.49 Ezekiel is familiar with the mutilation, as 6:3-6 describes it being done to the idolatrous Israel who also functions in Ezekiel as a divine image, but with the same anthropological limitation that theomorphism does not make Israel divine.50 Israel is “slain” with a sword (vv. 3-4), his bones exposed and scattered on the ground (v. 4), his idols broken and smashed (v. 6). Ezekiel redefines iconicity here in a radical manner: there is no indication anywhere in his book that the human statue of YHWH is indwelled by YHWH. Rather, what we do have, expressed time and time again, is a oneness of likeness between humanity and the kabod, which is God given and not a human accomplishment, but which also—we are told repeatedly—does not confer divinity upon humanity. What YHWH takes away from humanity is not the divinity which it never had, but this resemblance, exposing thus its inner humanness, the wood underneath the sheets of gold covered in precious stones. In the divine council narratives analyzed in chapter four members of the council are at times punished with humanization. The assumption is that the members were initially divine. This is not the case with this new anthropology in Ezekiel 28. Similarly to P, Ezekiel constructs an anthropology which does not negate the theomorphic character and the iconic function of humanity but dislocates these values from any participation in divinity: ‫( אתה אדם ולא אל‬28:2).

6.2 E ZEKIEL 31

Many other texts in Ezekiel use similarly iconic language in order to express the same theomorphic anthropology and could thus be used to support my argument about chapter 28. Yet, I will focus on chapter 31 not only because of the obvious similarities between the two chapters, but also because the imagery in chapter 31 will resurface in another text which will be a focus of this 1983), 11-14. In the ancient Near East the presence of the god in the statue is an indwelling. 49 Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 78. 50 Cf. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 124-149.

CHAPTER SIX

103

book—Daniel 4. Unlike chapter 28, the chapter presents fewer language problems and I give it in my translation of MT.51 The verses of disputed authenticity are between brackets: 2. Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his crowds: Whom do you resemble (‫ )דמית‬in your magnitude? 3. Behold, Assyria!52 A cedar in Lebanon, beautiful in branch, a high wood giving shade and of great stature and his53 the top was among the clouds. 4. Waters nourished him, the abyss gave him magnitude, with its rivers flowing around his plantation, sending forth its water-courses to all the trees of the plain. [5. On this account his stature was raised up above all the trees of the plain and his branches were multiplied and grew long from the abundant waters in its shoots.] . . 8. The cedars in the garden of God could not overshadow him, the pine trees did not compare to his branches, the plain trees were not like its boughs. No tree in the garden of God resembled him in his beauty. [9. I made him beautiful with a multitude of branches, and all the trees of Eden which were in the garden of God envied him.] 10. Therefore thus says the Lord YHWH: Because you increased in stature, he set his top among the clouds, and his heart was proud of its height, 11. therefore I will give him into the hand of a mighty-one of the nations; he will surely do to him according to his wickedness. I have driven him out. 12. Foreigners, the most terrible of the nations, cut him down It has been repeatedly argued that vv. 5, 9-18 are later additions to an original poem that comprised vv. 2-4, 6-8. See thus Hölscher, Hesekiel, 152-155; Block, Ezekiel, 2:178-179. The inauthenticity of vv. 5 and 9 is widely accepted (Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:142-146; Wevers, Ezekiel, 234). However, the authenticity of vv. 10-18 is less disputed. Nevertheless, the parallelism of the passage with Ezekiel 28 transpires even through verses that are commonly undisputed, especially vv. 3 and 8. For the coherence of the chapter, see also John Geyer, Mythology and Lament: Studies in the Oracles about the Nations (Aldershot, Burlington: Ashgate, 2004), 57-75. 52 The reference to Assyria is often disputed in scholarship (Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel [2 vols.; WBC 29; Dallas: Word Books, 1990], 2:122-123; Block, Ezekiel, 2:184). It is often proposed to emend ‫ אשור‬to ‫תאשור‬, ‘cypress.’ 53 I will give Assyria a masculine pronoun not only because it is here personified and nations are always masculine in Hebrew, but also in order to distinguish him later on from other non-personified subjects (such as the abyss), which I will keep as neutral. 51

104

THE LORD GOD OF GODS and left him on the mountains. His branches fell in all the valleys, its boughs in all the watercourses of the land, and all the peoples of the earth came down from his shade and left him. 13. All the birds of the sky will settle on its ruin, and all the beasts of the plain will come upon his branches, 14. so that all the trees by waters might not exult in their stature nor give their tops among the clouds, nor the mighty-ones of those who drink water stand to their height. For all of them have been handed over to death, to the depths of the earth, in the midst of the sons of men, with the ones going down to the Pit.

The connection of the Book of Ezekiel to the eighth-century Mesopotamian Poem of Erra has been well documented.54 It is the Poem which most probably provided the tree imagery for Ezekiel. In tablet I of the poem, the god Erra sets out for Babylon, one of the cities he wants to destroy, to enquire of Marduk about the tarnished state of the latter’s statue and thus to incite the god of Babylon to either abandon his city or, ideally, to join Erra in destroying it: He [Erra] entered Esagila, palace of heaven and earth, and stood in front of him [Marduk]. He made his voice heard and spoke to the king of gods, “Why does the finery, your lordship’s adornment which is full of splendour like the stars of heaven, grow dirty?

For this connection, see Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra; idem, “Le Livre d’Ézéchiel et le Poeme d’Erra,” ETR 68 (1993): 1-23; B. Maarsingh, “Das Schwertlied in Ez 21,13-22 und das Erra-Gedicht,” in Ezekiel and His Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (ed. J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 350-358; M. Anbar, “Une nouvelle allusion à une tradition babylonienne dans Ézéchiel (XXII 24),” VT 29 (1979): 352-353; R. Frankena, Kanttekeningen van een Assyrioloog bij Ezechiël (Leiden: Brill, 1965). For the Poem of Erra, see also Luigi Cagni, The Poem of Erra (Malibu: Undena, 1977); idem, “L’Epopea di Erra,” StSem 34 (1969): 192-195; idem, L’Epopea di Erra (Roma: Instituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma, 1969); Helge Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2011), 159-176; J. Bottéro, “Antiquités assyro-babyloniennes (l’Épopée d’Erra),” Annuaire EPHE 4 (1977-1978): 107-164. For dating, see Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra, 54-56; Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra, 37-45. 54

CHAPTER SIX

105

Your crown of your lordship which made E-halanki shine like E-temen-anki – its surface is tarnished!” (Erra I 125-128)55

Marduk reminds Erra that his previous abandonment of his statue and, implicitly, of the city caused a catastrophic flood. He had to summon the fire god, Gerra, to refurbish the statue before he could resume his residence in it. This time Marduk decides to refurbish his statue in advance of any catastrophes: As for the finery which had been pushed aside by the Flood, its surface dulled: I directed Gerra to make my features radiant, and to cleanse my robes. When he had made the finery bright, and finished the work, I put on my crown of lordship and went back to my place. My features were splendid, and my gaze was awesome! (As for) the people who were left from the Flood and saw the result of my action, Should I raise my weapons and destroy the remnant? I made those (original) Craftsmen go down to the Apsu, and I said they were not to come back up. I changed the location of the mēsu-tree (and of) the elmešustone, and did not reveal it to anyone. Now, concerning that deed which you have said you will do, Warrior Erra, Where is the mēsu-wood, the flesh of the gods, the proper insignia of the King of the World, The pure timber, tall youth, who is made into a lord, Whose roots reach down into the vast ocean through a hundred miles of water, to the base of Arallu, Whose topknot above rests on the heaven of Anu? . . . (Erra I 140-153)

In Mesopotamian literature of the Iron Age II the mēsu-tree56 from which Marduk wishes to refashion his statue is defined as the This and the following translations of the poem are taken from Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (rev. ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 290-291. 56 On the mēsu-tree, see Amy L. Balogh, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” in The Tree of Life (ed. Douglas Estes; Leiden: Brill, 2020), 32-73; Victor A. Hurowitz, “What Goes In Is What Comes Out— 55

106

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

‘flesh of the gods,’ concept which—Angelika Berlejung notes— “im Kontext der Herstellung von Kultbirdern ist . . . haüfig belegt. Er bezeichnet dann jeweils das Material, aus dem die Bilder hergestellt warden.”57 In this context the central feature of the mēsutree is its enormity, which is meant to accommodate the immense size of the god: Die Materialien der Mardukstatue verbinden in sich kosmische Dimensionen (Himmel, Erde, Unterwelt) und bringen bestimmte Eigenschaften mit, die sie mit dem Gott des Kultbildes verbinden und mit ihm gemeinsam haben.58

A depiction of the mēsu-tree which is particularly remarkable is extant in STT 199, a tablet dated to the seventh century B.C.E.,59 even closer to the time of Ezekiel: 13. [Incantation:] as you come out, as you come out in greatness from the forest: 14. as you come out from the pure forest, wood of the pure forest. . . . 29. as you come from the pure forest of mēsu60-trees, wood of the pure forest of mēsu61-trees, 30. bright wood, (like) the spring of a stream, which is born in the pure Heavens, spreads out on the clean earth, 31. your branches grow up to Heaven, Enki makes your root drink up pure water from the Underworld.62 Materials for Creating Cult Statues,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. Gary M. Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis; Brown Judaic Studies 346; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 323; W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965-1981), 647a; A. L. Oppenheim et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956-2010), M II 33-34. 57 Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder, 150 n. 821. 58 Ibid., 152. 59 M. B. Dick and C. B. Walker, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth, 55-121, here p. 28. 60 Here I used a transliteration in accordance to CAD M II 34. 61 Here also I used a transliteration in accordance to CAD M II 34. 62 Translation from Christopher Walker and Michael Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual

CHAPTER SIX

107

The pharaonic tree of Ezekiel 31 shares several features with the Mesopotamian mēsu-tree: 1. They are both enormous. 2. Both feed on abundant deep waters. 3. They are both the most luxuriant of trees. 4. Their tops reach the clouds of heaven. 5. They both have conspicuous and prominent locations among the other trees (in Erra I 148-153 Marduk is able to hide the mēsu-tree only by changing its location). 6. They both supply the material of the iconic presence of the divine. On the other hand, the parallelism between the two kings in Ezekiel 31 and 28 is equally obvious: 1. Both are kings of foreign nations. 2. Both the tree and the king of Tyre are placed in Eden, “the garden of God” (31:8-9; 28:12). 3. Both are beautiful (31:3, 8-10; 28:12). 4. Neither one has “comparisons” (31:8; 28:3). 5. Both have prominent positions in the garden of God. 6. Both commit the mistake of hubris63 and “elevate” themselves (31:10; 28:2) in their “hearts” (31:10; 28:2, 6). 7. The divine reprimands in both cases start with the same formula.64 8. The punishment of both is carried out by “foreigners, the most ruthless of nations” (31:12; 28:7). 9. They are both “slain” by the sword (31:18; 28:8,9) “among the uncircumcised” (31:18; 28:8,9) and are taken down to the pit (31:14; 28:8). 10. Both are reminded of being mere humans (31:14; 28:2,9). In both cases, the royal figures are judged for their claims to be divine and are found to have been mere creatures all along. Particularly relevant to my investigation is the fact that both Ezekiel 28 and 31 employ iconic imagery and language in order to (The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project; Finland: University of Helsinki, 2001), 119-120. 63 Block, Ezekiel, 2:119-125. 64 Ibid., 2:180, n.7.

108

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

construct a theomorphic anthropology. Daniel I. Block notes that the “critical question” of Ezekiel 31 is “whom do you resemble in your magnitude” (v. 2, 18).65 The question closely resembles the rhetorical question of theologies contemporary to Ezekiel which I have already introduced in chapter four: “To whom can you liken God?” (Isa 40:18, 25; 46:5). Ezekiel uses the question in a similar way. In its original context the question highlights the fact that the statues of the gods are not true, in Ezekiel the question highlights the fact that YHWH’s statue—the human being—is only a resemblance of God, but not divine. This amounts to a redefinition of iconicity itself: a statue no longer is the god or goddess, but only represents them. The worship of a statue is no longer numinous, but relational. I would also submit that this redefinition of iconicity extends to, and is primarily about the cultic statue of YHWH in the temple. The destruction of YHWH’s cultic statue must have occasioned one of the greatest theological adjustments of the exile. Ezekiel’s answer is to redefine the divine presence in the temple (the kabod) as mobile and to re-imagine the statue which represents him as not an inhabitation of the kabod himself, but as a likeness which is ultimately human. With their iconic language, chapters 28 and 31 ultimately contemplate and make sense of the destruction of YHWH’s own cultic statue. In retrospect the statue is found to have been nothing more than the human being who represents the kabod in the absence of the statue. Ezekiel could thus include the cultic statue of the kabod among the destroyed idols of Israel (6:3-6), as its identity and function were corrupted through an improper iconicity of real presence, in one word, through hubris. Moreover, the destroyed idols would represent the entire Israel, itself a statue and also polluted. This redefinition of iconicity could have been shared by more than Ezekiel and P. I would suggest that it likely informed the turn against images one finds in Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah, already discussed in chapter two.

65

Ibid., 2:179.

CHAPTER SEVEN. (NON-)DIVINE “MEDIATORS” AND THE ANGELIFICATION OF YHWH’S COUNCIL The evidence suggests that, just as humanity (represented by the king) was removed from divinity in exilic and post-exilic theologies, so YHWH’s entourage is defined in increasingly non-divine terms, although the new creatures, called ever more consistently “messengers” (‫מלאכים‬, ἄγγελοι), are not as immediately and as strictly excluded from divinity as humanity is.1 It has been noted in the introduction to this study that Scholem, in his general tendency to overlook theological differences and discontinuities in Judaism, both diachronic and synchronic, imposed on early Jewish texts a strictly monotheistic agenda. Unaware of what I call the “deification” theology of the Bible and of early Judaism overall,2 he opted for the concept of “divine mediation” as a bridge between the absolutely transcendent divine and its creation.3 By and large the ensuing scholarship on Jewish mysticism has followed the same course, still making unwarranted assumptions about “biblical monotheism,” divine transcendence, See some congruent observations in Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority, 13-56. 2 E.g., Major Trends, 5, 55-56, 122-123; Kabbalah, 176. As noted above, Scholem’s position has been criticized in Idel, Kabbalah, 59-73; Wolfson, “Mysticism and the Poetic-liturgical Compositions from Qumran,” 185202. 3 E.g., Jewish Gnosticism, 43-55. 1

109

110

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

and, consequently, divine mediation. At the center of this mediation paradigm—which has been applied without differentiation to most (if not even all) theologies of early mainstream Judaism— stands the view that the mediator is a not a god, but an angel (or an “angelomorphic” human). This assumption and these distinctions are highly problematic, to say the least. The extant texts and archaeological evidence paint a picture of Second Temple Judaism which is much more complex. I cannot survey here the vast early Jewish literature on angels, but suffice it to say on this point that these texts place angels in different locations on the spectrum of exclusion and inclusion in the divinity of YHWH.4 The development of divine mediators has been generally attributed to the proliferation of angelologies in the Second Temple period.5 Indeed, as Annette Yoshiko Reed has recently noted, the flourishing of traditions about angels and demons is among the most dramatic developments in Jewish literature in the centuries between Babylonian Exile (586-538 BCE) and

On these developments see especially Andrei Orlov, The Greatest Mirror: Heavenly Counterparts in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Albany: The State University of New York Press, 2017); Aleksander R. Michalak, Angels as Warriors in Late Second Temple Jewish Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012); Kevin Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels. A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Literature and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology; Nathaniel Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate. Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Hannah, Michael and Christ; Saul Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him (TSAJ 36; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1993); John J. Collins, “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (ed. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 41-58. 5 I use the plural ‘angelologies’ in order to avoid any implication that early Judaim held a homogeneous conception of angels. For the inhomogeneity of early Judaism, see especially Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1994), esp. 202-220, 269-312; Philip R. Davies, “Scenes from the Early History of Judaism,” in Edelman, Triumph of Elohim, 145-182. 4

CHAPTER SEVEN

111

the compilation of the Mishnah (ca. 200 CE). In the Hebrew Bible, speculation of this sort is conspicuously absent.6

Some scholars are simply satisfied to characterize the proliferation as a mystery,7 while other give this development different explanations, among which are the influence of Babylonian and Persian cultures, the impact of magical practices, and the avoidance of anthropomorphism.8 As we found in chapter four, by the time of the exile the dethronement of the gods or their exclusion from divinity is already a part of deification theology, even though only as a possibility. In this deification theology gods are entirely dependent on YHWH, who could depose them at his discretion (such as in Psalms 82 and 97). If in post-exilic texts the gods of old are excluded from the godhead as a matter of theology, this is only the formalization of what was already a possibility. At the end of this formalization process—which nevertheless was not the same everywhere—the council presided over by YHWH morphs into a new element of the divine world—angels who are distinctly non-divine.9 This trenchant distinction may be called into question: Celestial beings are not in a sense divine, even if only by location? Or even more fundamentally: How does one determine whether celestial beings are divine? Can a celestial being be divine while not being called as such? The task of parsing such issues comes Annette Yoshiko Reed, Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 5. 7 Most notably G. von Rad, “Malʾak in the OT,” in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols.; ed. Gerhard Kittel et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976), 1:78-90. 8 The explanations from before 1990 are reviewed in Olyan, A Thousand Thousands, 3-9. Nathaniel Deutsch offers a review of later scholarly opinions on divine intermediation in late antiquity in his Guardians of the Gate, 5-12. Special note should be made of the enduring influence of modern Christian lenses (some radically supersessionist), particularly the insistence on biblical monotheism and on its incompatibility with angelology. 9 For the relation between “monotheism” and angelological developments, see also K. Koch, “Monotheismus und Angelologie,” in Dietrich and Klopfenstein, Ein Gott allein, 565-581. 6

112

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

into clearer focus once it is accepted that one cannot assume reality to lie, in abstract or ideatic forms, behind the symbolic language of our sources. What we are left with is the unpacking of this language as is. And this unpacking, as much as it can be accomplished in this chapter, will evince both angelologies which have no sense of participation in divinity and descriptions of angels in divine terms. Angels seem to have morphed initially out of the attendants of the divine council and the gods with menial tasks, particularly those entrusted with the assistance of divine-human and divinedivine communication.10 The attendants of the divine council are randomly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible; their identity and function are not always clear and their presence disappears in the backstage of council scenes. It can be ascertained, however, that their primary function was not “angelic,” namely to serve as messengers to humans, but rather to serve the gods. They are depicted as theriomorphic and anthropomorphic beings with priestly and servient tasks. The theriomorphic and anthropomorphic features are often combined. Only two classes of such servants are named in the entire Bible: the cherubim and the seraphim.11 The cherubim have two main roles: they carry or constitute the throne of YHWH (1 Sam 4:4; Isa 37:16; Ezek 10:20; Pss 18:11; 104:3), and they guard the sacred tree of life and the garden of Eden (Gen 3:24; 1 Kgs 6:29-35; Ezek 28:14,16; 41:18-25). The seraphim have Handy, “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels,” 18-35. Scholars, starting with W. F. Albright, have connected the cherubim with the sphinx: W. F. Albright, “What Were the Cherubim?,” BA 1 (1938): 1-3; R. de Vaux, “Les chérubins et l’arche d’alliance, les sphinx, gardiens et les trônes divins dans l’ancien Orient,” in Bible et Orient, 231-259; M. Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 259-283. The seraphim have been associated with the uraeus serpents of Egypt, which are attested in different winged variants in SyroPalestine as early as Iron Age I (however, most evidence comes from midIron Age II): Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 111-113, 251-277; J. de Savignac, “Les ‘Seraphim’,” VT 22 (1972): 320-325; K. Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” JBL 86 (1967): 410-415; idem, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament (Haddonfield, 1974); Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Seraphim,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 742-744. 10 11

CHAPTER SEVEN

113

the liturgical role of praising YHWH (Isa 6:2-3). The hybrid appearances make both groups unlikely messengers and they are never found outside of these roles which confine them to YHWH’s abode, certainly not as mediating between divinity and humanity. Messenger gods are attested throughout Iron Age Syro-Palestine.12 Several biblical texts, the dating of which is still in dispute (although an early postexilic option is more probable), mention divine beings with similar menial tasks outside of the divine council itself. One apparent undertaking is to protect the travelers who place their trust in YHWH (Gen 24:7, 40; Exod 14:19; 23:2023; 32:34; 33:2; Ps 91:11-12). They protect YHWH’s elect (Gen 19:1-22) and destroy YHWH’s enemies at his command (Gen 32:25-29; Ps 78:49). In the rare instances in which they do not make meteoric appearances, they are even indistinguishable from humans in form (Gen 18:1-19:22; 32:25-31). They nevertheless bear the name and authority of YHWH and YHWH, as already noted, may be present in them (Exod 23:20-22). The most remarkable step in the angelification of the gods is the Septuagint’s use of ἄγγελος instead of θεός for beings who have no discernable communicative functions.13 (This is not to say, however, that references to θεοῖ are completely avoided in the Septuagint, some of which are noted in chapter four). One widely discussed case (which I also noted there) is the Septuagint’s rendition of Deut 32:8-9. It refers to “sons of Israel” (‫ )בני ישראל‬in the Masoretic text, while 4Q37, 4Q44, and several LXX variants mention “sons of God,” but the dominant LXX version is ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.14 Although angelologies come to full expression from the third century B.C.E. onward, a shift in language can be observed

On messenger gods see especially Handy, “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels,” 24-26; idem, Among the Host of Heaven, 149-167; S. A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). 13 See M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinicher Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 65-113. 14 See the observations in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 269; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 48-49; Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1996). 12

114

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

already in the Persian period. Scholarship has not reached a consensus on the date of Neh 9:6, but very few would propose a Hellenistic date.15 The MT reads: You yourself alone are YHWH. You made heaven, the heaven of heavens, and all their rank (‫)וכל צבאם‬, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them, and you make all of them live, and the rank of heaven bows down to you.

For one of the earliest times we are told that everything in the heavens—save for YHWH himself—is his creation, just like everything on earth.16 And this “all” emphatically includes the rank which bows down to him. Thus Neh 9:6 speaks of a fundamental distinction between YHWH and the rank of heaven (but not For a review of proposed dates see the articles in Mark J. Boda and P. Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), esp. 25-54. Also Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and the Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 189-195, which argues convincingly for the early Persian period. 16 The conception of YHWH as the sole creator of both heaven and earth emerges in exilic and Persian times on the trail of the deification of earlier theologies, as also shown by Isa 37:16/2 Kgs 19:15, Jer 10:10-16, 32:17-23. For this “Creator of all” cosmology, see Niehr, Der höchste Gott, 125-126; M. C. A. Korpel, “Creator of all,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 208-211. For the Deuteronomistic features of Jer 10:11-16, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, 226-227. For possible Deuteronomistic influences in Jer 32:17-23, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, 39-40. For the Deuteronomistic features of Neh 9:6, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, 225-226. The scholarship on creation still has to attend well to the fact that, at least to a certain extent, the creation of all (whether ex nihilo or not) is both a cosmological and a theological statement. Neh 9:6 (among other texts) suggests as much. Brief observations on the significance of this verse are made in Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994), 152. His more recent article “Creation ex nihilo in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible” (in Gary A. Anderson, Markus Bockmuehl, eds., Creation “ex nihilo”: Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2018], 55-76) rightly notes the “differences between ancient and modern Western conceptions of creation,” but does not take note of how (some) cosmological statements are also theological. 15

CHAPTER SEVEN

115

necessarily one which deification cannot accommodate): the ranks of heaven are emphatically created and thus radically distinct from YHWH. The distinction thickens in two particular aspects: the rank is created by YHWH and it bows down to him. The latter imagery is found throughout ancient Near Eastern texts and is not new to the Bible: as we have witnessed in chapters three and four, dependent gods regularly worship the king-god and gods bow down to YHWH in Psalm 29. By contrast, the insistence on all the ranks of heaven being creations of YHWH is one of the greatest theological shifts in the Bible and in early Judaism overall. As I pointed out in chapter four, the earliest biblical accounts of the gods of old ignore their origin. In their focus on YHWH, in these accounts the gods are just part of the divine landscape. The most important aspect of the shift is not its provision for a glaring gap in cosmology and theology, but rather the departure from this disinterest. In other words, in this shift we do not simply witness a new theological point, but a radically new way of being theological: disinterest in heavenly matters, particularly in the fluidity of YHWH’s selfhood, is no longer an acceptable attitude.17 It does not seem to me that we have enough evidence to uncover all the reasons for which this shift happens. At the beginning of chapter five, I offered the cataclysms of the destruction of the temple and the exile as one reason. We can also surmise that, at least in part, the creatureliness of the heavenly ranks serves as a distinction from the ancient Near East pantheons in which one is customarily part of the divine society through birth.18 The pantheon is generally “a large multi-family or joint household headed by a patriarch,” in the words of Mark S. Smith.19 Gods are not created, but born.20 When humans (such as kings) are admitted I owe this insight to Kaufmann’s related point in The Religion of Israel, 20. 18 For the familial and domestic character of the Ugaritic pantheon, see Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 54-61; Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 213-254; Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority, 35. 19 Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 54. 20 See especially the essays in Dick, Born in Heaven. This is not to say that only normal births can occur. For myths of unusual nativity, see Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority, 35. 17

116

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

into the divine family, they gain access either due to a mixed divine-human conception or through adoption. What these processes suggest is that, counter to the assumption still prevailing in current scholarship,21 creatureliness can shed its distinctiveness from and incongruity with divinity through familiarity. The royal induction seems to enact precisely this familiarity. The incongruity between divinity and creatureliness emerges mostly in regard to divine images. The rituals of mouth-opening and mouth-washing were conceived as enacting the “birth” of the god or goddess out of a numinous substance (such as the mēsu-tree), as a way of circumventing any creatureliness.22 This is also the vocabulary of the Bible. Of note is the expression “sons of God” which is also being used throughout early Judaism.23 Whether or not it is an expression of divine birth (in one way or another), it certainly speaks of deification as familiarity.24 In contrast, when Isa 43:10-

This may be due to modern misunderstandings of early Christian sources. Instead of the later singular focus on the categories of creator and creature, early Christian texts think of God and others first and foremost in terms of familiarity. One can think here of the prominence of the language of adoption and sonship in the New Testament. The same is true of Philo, as I will point out below. 22 On this ritual and its meaning see Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder; idem, “Washing the Mouth,” 45-72; Dick and Walker, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 55-121; Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image; Hurowitz, “What Goes In”; idem, “The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb,” JAOS 123/1 (2003): 147157. For a thorough reevaluation of these rituals and the proposal that Gen 2:7 reflects them, see Catherine L. McDowell, The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5-3:24 in Light of mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015). 23 See S. B. Parker, “Sons of (the) god(s),” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 794-800. 24 In MT the expression occurs (with variants) in Gen 6:1-4; Deut 32:8-9; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. For the (originally) literal meaning of the phrase, see O. Loretz, Schöpfung und Mythos: Mensch und Welt nach der Anfangskapiteln der Genesis (Sttutgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), 38; D. J. A. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’,” JSOT 13 (1979): 3346; D. L. Petersen, “Genesis 6:1-4, Yahweh and the Organization of the 21

CHAPTER SEVEN

117

13 and 44:6-8 insist that YHWH is “the first and last” and that no other god was “formed” (‫ )יצר‬before or after him, the key to this vocabulary is in the contextual opposition to idols (cf. Isa 41:6-7; 44:12-17): that which is “formed” (or created) and unfamiliarized is not divine. To return to Neh 9:6, there is no sense in the verse (or the entire book) that the created servants of YHWH are familiarized with him. Other early Jewish literature presents angels as created (alongside humans) and without intimating familiarity with God. What is of particular interest to my investigation is that often in later texts this language is used toward different arguments. The most intriguing case is arguably Philo. There is no passage in the Alexandrian’s work to speak to the veneration of angels, positively or negatively—and indeed such passages are very rare in early Jewish texts25—but in Decal. 64-65 he, using Nehemiah’s language, formulates a prohibition of worship so large as to include the angels.26 Here is the complete text in my translation: We, rejecting all such subtlety [of argumentation] (τερθρεία), should not bow down to our brothers by nature, even though they have been given a substance purer and more immortal than ours—for those brought into existence (τὰ γενόµενα) are brothers of one another in virtue of having been brought into existence, since the Father of all is also the one maker of all— but we should very vigorously and steadfastly train ourselves in thought and speech and in all power for the service of the Unoriginated and Eternal and Cause of all (τῇ τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ ἀιδίου καὶ τῶν ὅλων αἰτίου θεραπείᾳ), neither submitting, nor conceding to the opinions of the many, by whom are destroyed Cosmos,” JSOT 13 (1979): 47-64. Marjo C. A. Korpel finds Gen 6:1-4 “closest to the naturalism of the Ugaritic texts” (A Rift in the Clouds, 254). 25 The evidence is reviewed in Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology. A study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT 2/70, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), which remains the most thorough book on the topic. 26 F. H. Colson’s footnote remark that the “creatures” in this paragraph are not angels but “heavenly bodies” has regrettably been taken at face value by many of those using his translation. In the next paragraph Philo mentions that he is speaking of “the sun and the moon and the entire heaven and world, and their most general parts.”

118

THE LORD GOD OF GODS even the ones who can be saved. Therefore, let us on the one hand engrave in ourselves as a first pronouncement and the most sacred of pronouncements, to both supremely hold and honor God as one (ἕνα τὸν ἀνωτάτω νοµίζειν τε καὶ τιµᾶν θεόν). On the other hand, let a polytheist opinion (δόξα ἡ πολύθεος) never touch the ears of the man accustomed to seek truth in purity and without deceit.27

As I already mentioned, the conclusion that the creatureliness of the angels prevents their veneration exceeds earlier biblical thought. But the most remarkable feature of this paragraph is not this conclusion, nor the commonalities it shares with Neh 9:6 (such as that God is the creator of all), but rather what it opposes, what it does not oppose, and how it opposes it. What Philo opposes here—”the polytheistic opinion”—is a confusion: the treatment or “service” of creatures as if they were the creator, or, in other words, the denial of God’s oneness. What this text does not oppose is the participation of creatures into the selfhood of God. Philo calls angels “sacerdotal and divine natures” (ἱεραὶ καὶ θεῖαι φύσεις) in Abr. 115. Yet, in the context it seems that he understands the two terms as synonymous and makes a statement about the hierarchy of being: angels are superior to humans, or closer to God, in virtue of their liturgical service to God. To this divine qualification should be added their incorporeality and faultless behavior. Philo also makes similar statements about the “sun, moon, and stars” singled out for distinction from God in our passage (cf. Opif. 27, 84, 143-144; Spec. Leg. 1.19; Aet. 46, 112; QG 1.42, 4.157, 4.188, Gig. 8, Prov. 2.50). For Philo, of course, these are not lifeless matter, but are beings of a more refined, fiery substance, fleshless but not bodiless (cf. Opif. 73, 143-144).28 Nevertheless, these seem to be statements about the hierarchy of being, about the fact that, compared to people, these creatures My translation of the Greek text in Philo (10 vols.; ed. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 7.38. 28 For an overview of Philo’s understanding of the stars and of how they compare and relate to angels, see Alan Scott, Origen and the Life of the Stars: A History of an Idea (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 63-75. 27

CHAPTER SEVEN

119

are closer to God in the quality of being, so to speak. Tellingly, Philo does not say the same things about the angels or heavenly bodies which he says about people. Philo expresses human deification29 in unambiguous and striking terms: people are “transformed into divinity” (QE 2.29, Mos. 2.288), become “gods” (Det. 162), “partakers” in God’s power and governance of all things (Mos. 1.155), and of God’s “own being” (Post. 28). He also uses the language of familiarity (συγγένεια) and “making a household” (οἰκείοµαι) with God (Somn. 2.228, Virt. 79, Virt. 218). Philo does not hesitate to refer to God with the biblical phrases θεὸς θεῶν (Decal. 41, Spec. Leg. 1.20, 1.307) and βασιλεύς τῶν θεῶν (Prob. 43).30 Philo does not hold these two things in tension, let alone contradiction: that God is unique and that there are many gods. Although he wavers in language, Philo holds these two things as equally true because he has a view of God as being at once both unshareable and shareable.31 In his unshareable aspect God maintains his uniqueness, while in his shareable aspect he incorporates his creatures into his own divinity (the only divinity, Philo insists), makes them gods through partaking. This leads to the exact opposite position of Loren Stuckenbruck’s conclusion that Philo writes here and in other texts against “reverence to God through subordinates.”32 There is nothing in this passage (and the others he mentions) to justify his point. On the contrary, as I concluded in the analysis of Leg. ad Gaium 114-118 in the introduction, Philo opposes self-deification, a deification independent of God. Yet, as he disavows the worship of the gods as God, he is conspicuously saying nothing of the worship of God through beings which participate in his own divinity. We are only left to conclude that, on his own theological terms, he could not oppose it. Particularly insightful is M. David Litwa, “The Deification of Moses in Philo of Alexandria,” Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014): 1-27. 30 Det. 160-162 seems to speak against deification, but the passage has been grossly misunderstood. M. David Litwa sets the passage properly in the Platonic categories of existence, εἰµί and γίγνοµαι (“The Deification of Moses”). See also Somn. 1.75. 31 See Litwa, “The Deification of Moses,” esp. 5-9, 25-27. 32 Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, 65-66. 29

120

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

In view of this, to go back to Decal. 64-65, the manner in which Philo opposes the worship of creatures becomes at once significant and clear: he frames proper theology or “service” to God as a matter of asceticism and identity. Into this service goes training and a major function of this training is to resist the “polytheistic opinion.” This wrong service is not a proposition, but an ascetical collapse. The reverse, of course, is true of what is proper: it is a pure life. This is an essential point: theology is not a metaphysical matter, but physical. This is an integral aspect of Philo’s classification of deification (QE 2.29) and of the ascent to God (QG 4.100) as “most natural” (φυσικώτατα). To hold Neh 9:6 in contrast to Philo’s theology, it may seem that, in this trajectory from one end to the other of the Second Temple period, the language of creatureliness, angelic or human, is frustrated by deification. Angels and people are only deified in the collapse of, or at least as a threat to their creatureliness. My short historical analysis suggests that the connection between deification and creatureliness developed in the other direction, with reverse emphases: to be created means to be deified. In other words, this apparent “frustration” is another stage in the history of deification theology, one which further clarifies God’s uniqueness: creatureliness is the relative possession of divinity, but a possession of divinity it is.

CONCLUSIONS

What these chapters have found is that in early Jewish texts “creatures”—including angels and humans—are held at once under two different lights: the light of creatureliness (the light of what they are) and the light of divinity (of what they can become). At any one time one light can be brighter than the other. What we are hard pressed to find will be theological locations in which any one of these lights is turned off completely. Even Ezekiel’s striking and violent denial of divinity to humans still allowed for divine resemblance; even though emphatically non-deified, humanity is a walking statue of YHWH. This leads me to a central question which prepares the way for the next chapter: If divinity is open to created beings—and I suggest we expect this deification theology of most if not all forms

CHAPTER SEVEN

121

of early Judaism—how will we then recognize deification in our texts? Rather, to put it in the historical perspective which this study adopts, the question is: How do we know when our authors recognize and express deification? Modern categories—blatantly absent in early Jewish sources—are not necessarily useful to this investigation, at a fundamental level. First, they tend to be fixed and are not wont to accommodate the complex dynamism of divinity in early Judaism, the lighting I just mentioned above. As a particularly relevant example of this fixity, categories allow us to conceive ontologies as radically discrete. In contrast, in early Jewish texts ontologies are particularly fluid. Second, categories allow a theological procedure which advances in the precisely opposite direction from early Judaism: we recognize that someone is God based on whether they conform to our definition of divinity. In contrast early Judaism recognizes divinity through God (and this phrasing is meant to highlight the circularity of this recognition) and expresses this recognition in the inherited symbolic language of divinity, descriptors or features of God. Barring the use of this language without substance (as in the theomorphic anthropology analyzed above), beings described in divine terms were recognized as divine (in one way or another) at the basic level of language, through these received descriptors. This clarity can be further helped with an observation: to my knowledge, in early Judaism the disembodied language of theomorphism was never used for non-humans, such as celestial beings or “angels.” Angels described in divine terms would have been recognized as somehow divine. Nevertheless, when they are addressed as such outside of any participatory or transformative language, we ought to suspect intimations to their superiority to humans in the hierarchy of being. It may be possible to parse the evidence in more minute ways than this (such as to talk about different kinds of divinity and their particulars), but this clarity is itself sufficient for the limited purpose of this study.

I NTRODUCTION

Lester Grabbe notes that, “when we compare the religion of Iron Age Palestine (as far as we can determine it) with that of Judaism toward the end of the Second Temple period, we see a remarkable amount of continuity but also a considerable amount of development.”1 This is also true of the focus of this monograph. The danger is to assume that the demarcation between continuity and development runs along the border between inheritance and outside influence. (More will be said about this in the first chapter of this part.) At least in terms of theology, this is not true; both continuity and development are part of the same inherited universe, in the sense that late Second Temple sources inherit a theology which, although in some way rigid, allowed for development. In terms of the particular argument made here, the postexilic theomorphic anthropology noted in chapter six is incorporated into the forgiving fluidity of deification monotheism. I adduce three texts in support of this argument: Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus. They mark an important evolutionary stage in the development of deification theology. On the one hand, there is nothing in these texts to prevent the conclusion that their holy persons are deified (in the sense they become gods, not simply godlike), and in this aspect they fully integrate the preexilic traditions which allow some humans unhindered access to divinity. On the other hand, these deifications are placed within a context which appeals to the theomorphic anthropology prominent in Ezekiel. There is nothing in these texts to indicate that these two aspects are held in tension. Rather, at the same time as the human protagonist is deified, he is found a creature, distinct from God. The theological anthropology present in these texts will be even clearer when it will be placed in contrast with a peculiar fragmentary scroll from Qumran: 4Q491c. “Israel’s Historical Reality after the Exile,” in Becking and Korpel, The Crisis of Israelite Religion, 9-32, here 23. Doubtlessly the continuity is, at least in part, due to the fact that the Judaism of the late Second Temple period has inherited “the religion of Iron Age Palestine” as its “tradition,” which means to say, as part of its genetic code. 1

125

CHAPTER EIGHT. HELLENIZATION AND THE (RE)DEFINITION OF JEWISHNESS Seth Schwartz notes that “scholars have too often tended to think that all Jewish cultural production of the Hellenistic period is best viewed as a set of artifacts either of hellenization or of opposition to it.”1 Most, if not the entire scholarship on the three sources analyzed here has indeed worked within this paradigm, looking alternatively for “Jewish” versus “Hellenistic” elements. The fundamental problem is the assumption of a pure Judaism which either gives in to the external pressure to adopt Hellenistic language and concepts, or stands in direct opposition to and refusal of “acting” Greek. As archaeological evidence suggests, the influence of Greek civilizations upon Judaism did not arrive with Alexander’s conquest of Persia and it was certainly not a novelty by the third century B.C.E.2 As Schwartz points out, the evidence leads to the conclusion that When Alexander the Great conquered the east coast of the Mediterranean in 332 B.C.E., he found a world that was not completely foreign to him, in which certain aspects, at least, of Greek culture already enjoyed widespread acceptance.3

Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 23. 2 Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 24-25; J. Elayi, Pénétration grecque en Phénicie sous l’empire perse (Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1988). 3 Imperialism and Jewish Society, 25. 1

127

128

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

We can no longer define hellenization as a conscious act of engagement with an “outside” Hellenistic world. Hellenization was rather the forging of a new, mixed identity, mixed to varying degrees. As much as it was imagined and desired by many, a pure non-Hellenized Judaism was not an option in this complex phenomenon.4 Indeed, Hellenization did not constitute a uniform phenomenon. In broad terms, it was accomplished at two noticeably distinct levels; it involved either coalescing Greekness and Jewishness to varying degrees and thus constructing a new composite cultural identity—and this is what being Jewish in the Hellenistic world meant—or the abandonment of the previous Jewish ethos for a Greek identity.5 This is not to say, however, that opposition to Greekness was not voiced in Jewish literature (as, vehemently, in 2 Maccabees). As Albert I. Baumgarten explains, Jews . . . felt the need to mark the boundary between themselves and Greeks. . . Jews who were stringent about such matters also took care to oppose fellow Jews whom they perceived as having been seduced by Greek culture.6

For the essential Hellenistic character of Judaism after the third century B.C.E., see Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 12, 22-31; Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), esp. 3-32; Anthony Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 19-21. 5 This is a rewording of Schwartz’ assertion that one should distinguish “hellenization in the sense of ‘acting Greek’ while maintaining one’s own cultural identity from hellenization in the sense of ‘becoming Greek’ and so necessarily abandoning one’s previous cultural identity” (Imperialism and Jewish Society, 23). I wish to avoid any implication that “acting Greek” did not ultimately constitute a defining ethos inasmuch as “being” Jewish. One’s “acting” Greekness was as constitutive as one’s ontological Jewishness. Schwartz himself does not assume the existence of a pure Judaism under a mask of Greekness (Imperialism and Jewish Society, 22-31). 6 “Were the Greeks Different? If so, How and Why?,” in Shem in the Tents of Japhet. Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (ed. James L. Kugel; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1-10, here p. 8. 4

CHAPTER EIGHT

129

However exaggerated the view of pure Judaism in some of these texts,7 their testimonies to Jewishness are not misguided and disingenuous. The inherited texts of Israel presented a Jewishness markedly different from Greekness and, even if no one embodied this difference fully, many Jews—certainly the ones who tried the most—experienced it as if fully embodied. Ezekiel the Tragedian—the first author introduced here—can be safely identified as a ‘Jew’ in these terms: he represents an environment in which the two essential elements, Hellenism and Judaism, coalesced into one mixed ethos, entirely his own. It should not even be assumed that traditions belonging to the two originally distinct matrices of his own identity were available to him as choices, and that his “use” of what represents—from our perspective—a particularly Jewish idea was a conscious choice for his Jewishness against his Greekness. Both of his matrices, Jewish and Greek, were available to him as constitutive parts of his mixed identity and as equally self-defining. Yet, this is also not to say that Ezekiel would not have perceived his Jewishness as what ultimately distinguished him (at least to a certain degree) from the other “Greeks” of the Hellenistic world. Ezekiel’s Jewishness emerges primarily in his choices of themes, locations, and personae. His work, Exagoge, is ultimately a play about an undeniably Jewish story—the story of Moses—and of evident familiarity with earlier Jewish literature. The throne scene on which I will focus here is part of this Jewish story. It revisits the divine revelation on Sinai. Therefore the question with which the researcher is to approach the text is not what word or expression one can link to Ezekiel’s Jewishness versus his Greekness or vice-versa (indeed, many can be linked to both matrices, although with evident distinctions),8 but rather what he is doing in the throne vision of Exagoge as a matter of tradition. Chapter nine will explore the throne scene in these terms.

In Schwartz’ words, “although the author of 2 Maccabees believed Judah Maccabee was engaged in a battle against Hellenism, he was surely wrong” (Imperialism and Jewish Society, 35). 8 For Greek consonances to Jewish thought in the Second Temple period, see especially Carl R. Holladay, “Hellenism in the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors: Resonances and Resistance,” in Kugel, Shem in the Tents of Japhet, 65-91. 7

CHAPTER NINE. THE DEIFIED MOSES IN EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN’S EXAGOGE In Praeparatio evangelica 9.28.29, 4-16 Eusebius of Caesarea quotes extensively from a drama that he, relying on Alexander Polyhistor,1 attributes under the title Exagoge to a Jewish author named Ezekiel the Tragedian. Clement of Alexandria also mentions a dramatist named Ezekiel, whom he describes as ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν τραγῳδιῶν ποιητής.2 The seventeen fragments that Eusebius preserves contain 269 iambic trimeter verses. Aside from these fragments, we do not possess any other remnants of Ezekiel’s composition. The text mentioned by Eusebius has been commonly dated in the second century B.C.E. There is a strong consensus among scholars that Ezekiel uses the Septuagint, which places the terminus post quem of the play in the third century B.C.E. Its terminus ante quem is established by Eusebius’ claim that he owes his quotations to Alexander Polyhistor’s Concerning the Jews. Alexander Polyhistor most probably flourished around the middle of the first century B.C.E.3 This would suggest that Exagoge was written sometime in

Praep. ev. 9.28.1. Stromata 1.23.155. 3 J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien: Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau: Skutsch, 1875); A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (Bern, 1971), 873. 1 2

131

132

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

the second century B.C.E. Scholarly proposals range from the late third century to the early first century B.C.E.4 The place in which the play originates is disputed. Most scholars have proposed Alexandria.5 Jewish presence in Egypt is well documented from the mid-third century B.C.E.6 Wayne A. Meeks notes that the intended audience must be a Jewish group of a Greek-speaking diaspora.7 Several scholars have argued that Ezekiel is Samaritan, probably even writing in Samaria.8 Others, even if not entirely convinced of this proposal, acknowledge Ezekiel’s Samaritan affinities.9 There is evidence of an affinity for

For a thorough review of the disputes on dating, see Howard Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 5-8; Pierluigi Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 10-11. See also R. G. Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 2:803-819, here 803-804; C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume II: Poets (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 308-312; John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 224-225. The proposal by Rick van de Water (“Moses’ Exaltation: Pre-Christian?,” JSP 21 [2000]: 59-99) that the motif of Moses’ exaltation dates to the Christian era has been refuted by Howard Jacobson, in his article “Eusebius, Polyhistor and Ezekiel” JSP 25 (2005): 75-77. 5 Holladay, Fragments II, 312-313; Jacobson, Exagoge, 180 n.1. 6 The documents are available in the first volume of V. A. Tcherikover et al., eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, Jerusalem: Harvard University Press, Magnes Press, 1957-1963). 7 The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 149. 8 K. Kuiper, “Le poète juif Ezékiel,” REJ 46 (1903): 48-73, 161-177, here 174; idem, “De Ezekiele Poeta Iudaeo,” Mnemosyne 28 (1900): 237-280, here 278-280; M. Gaster, The Samaritans. Their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1925), 143; Yehoshua Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958-1963) [in Hebrew]; A. M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 276; Jarl Fossum, Name of God, 190-191 n.348; H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed.; 2 vols.; New York, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995), 1:234. 9 Thus P. W. van der Horst (“Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel,” Mnemosyne 37 [1984]: 354-375, here 357) accepts the possibility of a 4

CHAPTER NINE

133

Greek among Samaritans. According to Josephus, after Alexander conquered Samaria in 331-330 B.C.E., the natives were particularly welcoming to the conquerors (Jewish Antiquities 11.297347). Josephus’ avowed dislike for the Samaritans (cf. Jewish Antiquities 13.275-276) and desire to establish a Jewish identity distinct from them may have exaggerated their compliance, but it does not invalidate his remarks entirely.10 The Samaritan papyri from Wadi ed-Daliyeh attest that, after a Samaritan revolt against Alexander’s choice for prefect, Samaria was partially destroyed and rebuilt in a Hellenistic manner.11 Also, the region was apparently populated with a considerable Greek-speaking Macedonian diaspora. Even more Hellenistic influence would be expected in the Samaritan diaspora, especially in places such as Alexandria. Verses 68-89 of the Ezekielian drama preserve a tradition regarding Moses’ enthronement in heaven.12 The passage describes a vision that Moses has before the exodus, in which he sees an anonymous enthroned male figure of enormous proportions. This figure beckons Moses to approach his throne. When Moses does so, the figure disappears and Moses finds himself enthroned on the enormous throne, the object of angelic worship, endowed with unlimited knowledge and royal powers over both heaven and earth. Critical texts of the passage can be found in several editions.13 The passage (with some small reconstructions) reads as follows: Samaritan origin of Ezekiel and notes that a Samaritan diaspora existed in Alexandria. 10 On these issues see Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis (JSOTSup 303; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 183-238; Sung Uk Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans: A Strategic Construction of Judean/Jewish Identity through the Rhetoric of Inclusion and Exclusion,” JTS 64/2 (2013): 404-431. 11 On these papyri see Jan Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.-C. (Leiden: Brill, 2007); D. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh (DJD XXVIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001). 12 Praep. ev. 9.28.5-6. 13 Albert-Marie Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 210; B. Snell, Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta I (Göttingen, 1971), 288-301; Holladay, Fragments II, 362-366.

134

THE LORD GOD OF GODS 68. ΜΩΣΗΣ· ἔξ’ὄρους κατ’ἄκρα Σινου14 θρόνον 69. µέγαν τιν’εἶναι µέχρις οὐρανοῦ πτυχός, 70. ἐν τῷ καθῆσθαι φῶτα γενναῖόν τινα 71. διάδηµ’ἔχοντα καὶ µέγα σκῆπτρον χερί 72. εὐωνύµῳ µάλιστα. δεξιᾷ δέ µοι 73. ἔνευσε, κἀγὼ πρόσθεν ἐστάθην θρόνου. 74. σκῆπτρον δέ µοι παρέδωκε καὶ εἰς θρόνον µέγαν 75. εἶπεν καθῆσθαι· βασιλικὸν δ’ἔδωκέ µοι 76. διάδηµα καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκ θρόνων χωρίζεται. 77. ἐγὼ δ’ἐσεῖδον γῆν ἅπασαν ἔγκυκλον 78. καὶ ἔνερθε γαίας καὶ ἐξύπερθεν οὐρανοῦ, 79. καί µοί τι πλῆθος ἀστέρων πρὸς γούνατα 80. ἔπιπτ’, ἐγὼ δὲ πάντας ἠριθµησάµην, 81. κἀµοῦ παρῆγεν ὡς παρεµβολὴ βροτῶν. 82. εἶτ’ἐµφοβηθεὶς ἐξανίσταµ’ἐξ ὕπνου. 83. ΡΑΓΟΥΗΛ· ὦ ξένε, καλόν σοι τοῦτ’ἐσήµηνεν θεός· 84. ζῷην δ᾽, ὅταν σοι ταῦτα συµβαίῃ ποτέ. 85. ἆρά γε µέγαν τιν’ἐξαναστήσεις θρόνον 86. καὶ αὐτὸς βραβεύσεις καὶ καθηγήσῃ βροτῶν; 87. τὸ δ’εἰσθεᾶσθαι γῆν ὅλην τ’οἰκουµένην 88. καὶ τὰ ὑπένερθε καὶ ὑπὲρ οὐρανὸν θεοῦ· 89. ὄψει τά τ’ὄντα τά τε προτοῦ τά θ’ὕστερον.15

The fragment has several translations into English.16 The following is my own translation, more literal than the previous:

This is a reconstruction proposed by several editors: F. Dübner, “Christus Patiens, Ezekieli et christianorum poetarum reliquiae dramaticae,” appendix in Fragmenta Euripidis, perditorum tragicorum omnium (ed. G. Wagner; Paris: Ambrosio Firmin Didot, 1846); Kuiper, “Le poète juif Ezékiel,” 56; idem, “De Ezekiele Poeta Iudaeo,” 247-248; E. H. Gifford, ed., Eusebii Pamphili, Evangelicae Praeparationis (4 vols.; Oxfod: The University Press, 1903), 3:469-470; van der Horst, “Some Notes,” 367-368; Holladay, Fragments II, 439. The manuscripts read: κατακρας ινου and κατακρας που. 15 Holladay, Fragments II, 362-366. 16 Holladay, Fragments II, 363-367; Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” 811-812; Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 55; Gifford, Eusebii Pamphili, 3:469-470. For a list of translations into other modern languages see Holladay, Fragments II, 340-341. A. Jellinek published a Hebrew medieval translation of the text in Bet haMidrash (6 vols.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1967), 5:159. 14

CHAPTER NINE MOSES:

RAGUEL:

135

It seemed that on the top of mount Sinai was a certain vast throne reaching the fold of heaven. 70 On it was sitting a certain noble man, 71 with a crown and with a large scepter in his 72 left hand, while with the right 73 he beckoned me, and I stood before the throne. 74 He handed me the scepter and told me 75 to sit on the great throne, and gave me the royal 76 crown, and he departed from the throne. 77 I beheld the whole earth around 78 and the things underneath the earth and those above the heaven. 79 Then a multitude of stars fell on their knees before me, 80 and I counted them all, 81 and they paraded by me like a camp of mortals. 82 Then in fear I awakened from the dream. 83 Stranger, God gave you this good sign. 84 That I live when all these things will happen to you! 85 Then you will raise yet a vast throne, 86 and you yourself will judge and rule the mortals. 87 As for beholding the entire inhabited earth, 88 and those below and those above God’s heaven, 89 you will see those that are, those that have been and those that will be. 68 69

To my knowledge, Carl R. Holladay was the first scholar to state openly that “a crucial interpretative question” of the scene is the identity of the figure that Ezekiel the Tragedian leaves unnamed.17 This seems to be the case because the ontology assigned to this unnamed figure would determine, one way or another, the meaning of Moses’ enthronement, since Moses assumes the status of the enthroned figure. Indeed, there have been several proposals for the unnamed enthroned figure,18 but the most common has Fragments II, 442. There have been six commentaries on the drama as a whole. The first commentary on the drama appeared in 1931 through the effort of M. Wiencke: Ezechielis Judaei poetae Alexandrini fabulae quae inscribitur EXAGOGE fragmenta (Münster: Monasterii Westfalorum, 1931). In 1983 H. Jacobson published the second commentary of the entire drama, entitled The Exagoge of Ezekiel. In the same year E. Vogt published the third 17 18

136

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

still been God.19 Several voices have noted the indebtedness of the scene to Ezekiel 1, if not also Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch 37-71, and its similarities to Testament of Levi 8 and 2 Enoch 24-36.20 On the other hand, there has been a wide disagreement on the meaning of the enthronement of Moses on God’s own throne. The most prominent proposal is that Moses becomes God’s vice-regent or a principal angel.21 Deification has been used (as a concept!) to explain what this vice-regency means, but this itself has been often understood as an angelification or transformation into an angel.22 I submit that the conclusions which I have reached thus far in my study highlight a fundamental problem with these proposals and with this very line of questioning. To make a central commentary on the whole book: Tragiker Ezechiel (JSHRZ 4.3; Gütensloh: Mohr, 1983). In 1985 R. G. Robertson published the fourth commentary and a translation: “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” 803-819. In 1989 Holladay dedicated more than two hundred pages of his monumental collection of Hellenistic Jewish literature to a commentary on the whole book, the fifth of this kind: Fragments II, 301-529. Finally, in 2009 a sixth commentary was published in French by Pierluigi Lanfranchi (L’Exagoge). However, it is not necessarily these commentaries that have provided the most advances in the exploration of the throne vision, but scattered analyses of the vision in articles or in books often dedicated to larger concepts or bodies of literature. 19 One of the earliest proposals, and probably the most intriguing, departs from most approaches of the text: Yehoshua Gutman argued that the enthroned being is Enoch (Beginnings [in Hebrew]). For the identification of the figure with God, see Meeks, Prophet-King, 148; Holladay, Fragments II, 301-529. 20 Meeks, Prophet-King, 148; idem, “Moses as God and King,” in Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 354-371; Holladay, Fragments II, 301-529; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 129-130; Gilles Quispel, “Gnosis,” in Die orientalischen Religionen im Römerreich (EPRO 93; ed. M.J. Vermaseren; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 413-435, here p. 417; Pieter W. van der Hort, “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist.” JJS 34 (1983): 21-29, here pp. 24-25; idem, “Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel,” 354-375. 21 Meeks, Prophet-King, 148; van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” 22; Jarl Fosum, The Image of the Invisible God (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 20-22. 22 E.g., Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 163-165; Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 178-180.

CHAPTER NINE

137

point of a study the identification of an anonymous dramatis persona means to stand counter to the text. It is possible, and indeed probable, that the anonymity of the figure on the throne is significant. At least the author builds a narrative to which this anonymity is an integral, meaningful part. Therefore, rather than asking questions about the identity of this figure, it makes more sense to ponder on why the figure needs not be clearly identified. Such a strategy of composition is not new. In prior literature, such as in Genesis 18-19, divine beings—including YHWH—are introduced in terms as vague as Ezekiel the Tragedian’s “certain noble man” and are even unqualifiedly called “humans” (Gen 18:2, 16, etc.). Sommer makes a significant observation about the biblical text: It is clear that Yhwh appears in bodily form to Abraham in this passage; what is less clear is whether all three bodies were Yhwh’s throughout, or whether all three were Yhwh’s at the outset of the chapter but only one of them by its end, or whether the other two were merely servants (perhaps human, perhaps divine) who, for no clear reason, were accompanying Yhwh.23

This careful unclarity is obviously a composition strategy, and I would also submit that it is one not without theological underpinnings. Genesis 18-19 works as a narrative which blends human and divine life, in all its details, only if the reader (just like the writer) is not concerned with ontological distinctions. In other words, the narrative makes sense if what one sees in it is what Sommer points out, neither more, nor less. The theological point or presupposition is precisely that humanity and divinity are not discrete realities. I would contend that this is the presupposition or point of the anonymous identity in Exagoge. The features more particular to one location than the other are to be recognized experientially, but the point is that they never exist separately, but always blend. In this sense it suffices for Ezekiel’s audience to recognize (based on inherited instincts and language) that the anonymous enthroned figure is divine.24 It is moot to ask whether it is God, or “God himself,” as we may feel the need to clarify. The Bodies of God, 40. It is even possible that one could consider him Moses’ heavenly twin or identity, yet the point of this anonymity is that it could be, not what it 23 24

138

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

In light of this, before I can proceed to a more detailed analysis of these divine and human features, I must circle back to the pressures under which the aforementioned studies on the Exagoge have reached their conclusions: these can be safely located in the monotheism and ontologism criticized in previous chapters. This is most prominent in one of the most thorough readings of the text, by Pierluigi Lanfranchi. As far as I can tell, many of his interpretations of the text (if not all) are based on one fundamental presupposition, that the throne vision is not a mystical text.25 He could be. According to the concept, a holy person can possess a heavenly identity parallel to his/her earthly identity. On this see, among others, Andrei Orlov, The Greatest Mirror: Heavenly Counterparts in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Albany: The State University of New York Press, 2017); J. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71,” in Charlesworth, The Messiah, 169-191, here 182-183; April D. DeConick, Seek to See Him. Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1996), 163-172; Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God, 135-151; Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 151; Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism,” 10-11. The most important accounts of this tradition seem to be Ladder of Jacob 1, Joseph and Aseneth 18.9, Odes of Solomon 13; Hymn of the Pearl, Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth 59.27-61.1, Corpus Hermeticum 13, Gospel of Philip 61.20-35; Gospel of Thomas 84, Clementine Homilies 13.16; Genesis Rabbah 68:12. Yet arguably the most well-known tradition built on the heavenly counterpart of a human is the Enochic lore, in which Enoch is probably identified with Son of Man and later the supra-angelic figure Metatron (some of these traditions will be further explored in the last part of this monograph). It is also possible that in the New Testament Acts 7:55-56, 2 Cor 3:18, Eph 4:24, and Col 3:10 also express visions of heavenly counterparts. 25 This presupposition also makes him stand counter to the prevailing reading of the scene in connection to Ezekiel 1. Lanfranchi is convinced that merkabah traditions did not fully develop until the end of late antiquity (“Il sogno di Mosè,” 106; idem, L’Exagoge, 185). Contrary to this, the growing evidence for merkabah traditions places them ever further back in time and in ever greater measure. See Halperin, “The Exegetical Character of Ezek 10:9-17,” VT 26 (1976): 129-141; idem, Faces; George Brooke, “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 1821 March, 1991 (2 vols.; ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:317-337. See similar conclusions in Rowland, Open Heaven, 219, 222; idem, “Visions of God,” 142, 152-153; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 84-85; Quispel, “Ezekiel 1:26,” 1-13.

CHAPTER NINE

139

works out this assertion based on the genre difference between Exagoge and apocalypticism, which he seems to take as the exemplar of early Jewish mysticism: Si l’on compare les passages qu’on vient de citer [that is, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and 2 Baruch] aves les vv. 68-82 de l’Exagoge on ne peut pas ne pas constater la nature profondément différente de 2 Baruch et LAB d’une part, et de notre texte d’autre part. A la différence des traditions relatives aux révélations célestes de Moïse, les vers de l’Exagoge ne présentent aucun des contenus traditionnels du genre apocalyptique et sont tout à fait réticents quant aux prétendues connaissances acquises lors de l’ascension. . . La vision n’a aucun autre contenu sinon l’annonce que Moïse sera prophête, législateur et chef de son peuple.26

Lanfranchi grants that, Il est vrai que le voyage céleste comme moyen de révélation est l’un des motifs typiques [is it?] de la littérature juive d’époques grecque et romaine, notamment de celle qui a comme protagoniste le patriarche Hénoch. Mais les témoignages à ce sujet, si l’on excepte 1 Hénoche et le fragment araméen de Lévi trouvé à Qumran, se réfèrent pour la plupart aux premiers siècles de notre ère. Il paraît que le judaïsme d’époque hellénistique connaissait une tradition relative aux visions célestes de Moïse, bien qu’il ne reste pas d’apocalypses entièrement consacrées au voyage céleste de Moïse.27

It seems that Lanfranchi limits ‘mysticism’ and ‘apocalypticism’ (used interchangeably) to other-worldly ambiance. It does not transpire through his arguments to what extent (if any) he owes his overemphasis on ascent and other-worldliness directly to Scholem or to the scholarship conducted on Scholem’s principles (which I addressed briefly in the introduction). Scholem identifies the mystical and, for him, central character of merkabah literature in the “ascent of the soul to the celestial throne where it obtains an ecstatic view of the majesty of God and the secrets of his

26 27

L’Exagoge, 190-191. L’Exagoge, 190.

140

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

realm.”28 For Lanfranchi, Exagoge, by not taking Moses on such an other-worldly tour, cannot qualify as apocalyptic and mystical. Clearly, Lanfranchi not only overstresses ascent, but he also has a problematic definition of what is other-worldly: unless an ascent happens which leads to higher places, the experience is not otherworldly and the text is not mystical or apocalyptic. Lanfranchi overlooks the fact that the boundaries between ascent and dream in early texts are much more flexible than he posits. It suffices to note that the celestial voyage depicted in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 14-36), a voyage that he chooses as a counterpoint to the non-mystical dream account in Exagoge, also occurs in a dream, according to 14:2. The divine world depicted in Gen 28:12-13 is not less real only because Jacob is allowed access to it in a dream. On the contrary, when he awakes, Jacob concludes: “Surely YHWH is in this place; and I did not know it. . . How fearful is this place! This is no other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” (Gen 28:16-17). In Num 12:6 a dream is also analogous to vision. In Daniel 7, which contains another vision of God reminiscent of Ezekiel 1, heavenly realities are also accessed in a dream. Also, in his understanding of apocalypticism Lanfranchi does not take into account the advances made by “the new religionsgeschichtliche Schule.”29 Before and outside these advances, apocalypse is a genre and apocalypticism is a socio-religious movement.30 Although dedicated primarily to the study of the Major Trends, 5. In this school are, among others, Gilles Quispel, Jarl Fossum, Christopher Rowland, April DeConick, Charles Gieschen, Alexander Golitzin, Andrei Orlov, Bogdan Bucur, and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. I count himself as a student of these scholars. 30 For such approaches, see John J. Collins, “The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism. Upsala, August 12-17, 1979 (ed. David Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 531-548; idem, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroads, 1984); idem, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 1-20; Lars Hartman, “Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre,” in Hellholm, Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, 329-344. See also Paul D. Hanson’s entries 28 29

CHAPTER NINE

141

foundations of Christian mysticism in Jewish traditions about a ‘second power’ in heaven alongside God (which I will address in the fourth part of my study), one conclusion to which the research of this school points is my argument in the introduction of this book that mysticism is an ethos which principally sees everything—including the human being, the holy text, the heavens, and the divine—as a deep reality with hidden layers to be uncovered through the ascetical-hermeneutical removal of veils. And this ethos—it is right to point out—is fundamental to the ancient Jewish and Christian life experience. “Apocalypse” is then only one genre among the many which give expression to this ethos.

9.1 DEIFICATION AND DIVINITY

There is nothing in the throne scene to suggest that the enthroned anonymous figure is anything else than a divine being constructed on language from Ezekiel 1 and Sinai narratives,31 and nothing in “Apocalypse, Genre” and “Apocalypticism” in Keith R. Crim, ed., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 27–34, and “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism (The Genre),” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:279-280. 31 Lanfranchi clearly must dissociate (for the sake of consistency) the divine throne from Sinai: “le trône de Dieu apparaît une vingtaine de fois dans la Bible et il est situé le plus souvent dans les cieux comme symbole de sa royauté universelle” (L’Exagoge, 196). Yet, as pointed out in chapter two, the celestial throne is actually a late innovation unattested prior to late Second Temple Judaism. Before the postexilic introduction of a celestial heaven, heaven is identical with the temple. Moreover, against Lanfranchi’s presupposition, the temple is not identified as the place of the throne of God in a metaphorical manner. The presence of the divine throne in the temple is as literal as the common Syro-Palestinian religiosity of the Iron Age conceived the presence of gods in their temples. Furthermore, as I mentioned in chapter two, there is a clear reference to the (physical) presence of God on Sinai in Exodus 24. It is irrelevant if a throne is not specifically mentioned, since the scene is clearly presented in a temple setting. The sapphire pavement of YHWH’s habitation in Exod 24:10 recalls the sapphire throne of the kabod in Ezek 1:26 and 10:1. Lanfranchi considers the connections between Ezekiel 1 and Sinai as tannaitic (Ibid., 187), because he is only able to produce a late targumic text. The allusion of MT Exod 24:10 to Ezek 1:26 and 10:1 escapes his attention. Moreover, the body of literature attesting to the connection

142

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

the enthronement of Moses to preclude the conclusion that Moses, in appropriating the identity of the anonymous occupant of the throne, is deified. The enthronement scene allocates Moses the status and features commonly reserved for the divine. The most prominent of these features—enthronement, enormity, and luminosity—have been introduced in chapter three. These and others are ubiquitous in later accounts of human deification (or, in common vocabulary, “transformational mysticism”)32 and a few of between Ezekiel 1 and Sinai is only growing. See, for example, Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, esp. 14-19; idem, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature, 132-133. Halperin, for one, points to the festival of the Shabuot, which commemorates the Sinai revelation, as the most probable matrix for the intriguing connection between early rabbinic merkabah speculations and the Sinai event. He observes in Acts 2:3-4 an early testimony for the rapprochement between Ezekiel 1 and Sinai within a Shabuot context. Moreover, as he further notes, according to b. Megillah 31a Ezekiel 1 was purportedly read in certain Tannaitic circles in conjunction to Exodus 19. He also reaches the compelling conclusion that by the time of the translation of Ezekiel into Greek (i.e. the second century B.C.E.), Ezekiel 1 had been associated with the Sinai event of Ps 68:16–18, especially in the Jewish communities of Alexandria, which coincidentally is also the most probable matrix of Exagoge. The connection between the descent on Sinai and the merkabah of Ezekiel is not lost on the early Christian writers. For Origen see David Halperin, “Origen, Ezekiel’s Merkabah and the Ascension of Moses,” Church History 50 (1981), 261-75. Jerome links Ps 68:17, another descent verse, with Ezek 43:2 and Isa 6:3 (In Ezechielem 13; PL 25, 416B-D). Novatian says that in these verses David describes “the chariot of God” of Ezekiel 1 (De Trinitate VIII; Novatiani Romanae Urbis Presbyteri De Trinitate Liber [ed. W. Fausset; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909], 26-7). The Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions also juxtaposes Ps 68:18 with the blessings of Ezek 3:12 and Isa 6:3. 32 The one who promoted the term “transformational mysticism” in recent scholarship is Morray-Jones (“Transformational Mysticism”). He applies it to the speculations concerning human attainment of angelic or almost-divine status or transformation into an angelic or supra-angelic being, in his view. My argument is that these transformations are deification. For explicit accounts of “transformational mysticism,” see LXX Job 4:18; Wis 5:5; 1QM I.8-12; 4Q511 35:3-4; 2 Baruch 51:1-10, 54:21; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 Cor 5: 1-10; 1 Enoch 39:7, 50:1, 104:2-4, 108:11-13; 3 Enoch 15; Apocalypse of Zephaniah 8.3; Apocalypse of Adam 7:52-54. The

CHAPTER NINE

143

them are of import here: enthronement, knowledge, worship, and enlargement. It must be pointed out that the deification of the prophet is a widespread early Jewish tradition.33 The roots of it go back to Exod 4:16, where Moses is promised to be “as god” (‫ )לאלהים‬to Aaron, and Exod 7:1, where his deification is presented as completed, to the extent that Moses has his own prophet: “And YHWH said to Moses: See, I have given you (‫נתתיך‬, δέδωκά σε) as god (‫ )אלהים‬to Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your prophet.” These texts have arrested the attention of later Jewish and Christian interests in the deified Moses.34 M. David Litwa has transformation is also expressed in terms of participation in the angelic liturgy (cf. 1 Enoch 71:10-11; Testament of Job 47:11; Ascension of Isaiah 9:27-29; Apocalypse of Zephaniah 8:4; Odes of Solomon 36:3-5) and of the speaking of the angelic language (Apocalypse of Zephaniah 8:4). For transformations into “angels” in apocalyptic and merkabah literatures, see Segal, Paul the Convert, 42-52, Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 152175; Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism,” 1-31; idem, “The Temple Within,” 400-431; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven; idem, “Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple,” SBLSP 26, 210-217; FletcherLouis, Luke-Acts, 134-184; James H. Charlesworth, “The Portrayal of the Righteous as an Angel,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and G. Nickelsburg; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 135-151. 33 See Meeks, “Moses as God and King”; idem, The Prophet-King; George W. Coats, Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God (JSOTSup 57; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), esp. 155–78; James Tabor, “Returning to the Divinity: Josephus’ Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah and Moses,” JBL 108 (1989): 225-238; Scott J. Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Survey,” JSP 7 (1990) 79-104; James E. Bowley, “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Living in the Shadow of God’s Anointed,” in The Bible at Qumran (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 159-181; Jan Willem van Henten, “Moses as Heavenly Messenger in Assumptio Mosis 10:2 and Qumran passages,” JJS 54 (2003): 216-227; A. Graupner and M. Wolter, eds., Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions (BZAW 372; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007); Danny Matthews, “Moses as a Royal Figure in the Pentateuch with the Edict of Cyrus as a Test Case,” Restoration Quarterly 59 (2017): 65-78. 34 See, among others, James VanderKam and D. Boesenberg, “Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (ed. D. Bock and J. Charlesworth; London: T&T Clark, 2013), 124158; M. David Litwa, “Transformation through a Mirror: Moses in 2 Cor. 3.18,” JSNT 34 (2012): 286-297; Andrei A. Orlov, “Moses’ Heavenly

144

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

documented splendidly such an interest in the deified Moses in an(other) Alexandrian source, although slightly later than Exagoge—Philo.35 It should suffice to quote just one text which speaks a language similar to the one of Exagoge (and Pseudo-Orpheus), Mos. 1.155-159: [God], deeming it proper for a partaker of his own allotment to be shown, made the entire world as a well-fitted possession for an heir. Therefore each of the elements obeyed [Moses] like a master, changing whatever property it had and listening to the commands. And perhaps this is no wonder. For if, according to the proverb, “the things of friends are common” and the prophet is reckoned a “friend” of God (Exod 33:11), it follows that he would also share in his possession, as it is needful. For on the one hand God who possesses all needs nothing, but on the other the good man who possesses nothing truly, not even himself, partakes of the treasures of God, as much as it could be. . . Does not also the one made worthy of its designation delight in an even greater communion with the Father and Creator of all? For he was named “god” and “king” of the entire race. And he is also said to have entered into the darkness where God was, that is, into the eternal and unseen and bodiless essence which is the paradigm of all things which exist, gazing at those unseen to mortal nature. And also coming into the middle, as a paradigm to those willing to imitate it, he made himself and his own life stand as an all-beautiful and deiform work, like a well-wrought painting. Blessed are as many as who imprint or strive to imprint the type into their own souls.36

Clearly, it would be an error to understand the inheritance which God gives Moses only in terms of physical possession. To Philo, Moses’ possession of the world means, at least, unhindered governance over all things. To return to Exagoge, verses 68-76 similarly describe Moses’ enthronement, but three other implications can easily escape Counterpart in the Book of Jubilees and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” Biblica 88 (2007): 153-173. 35 Litwa, “The Deification of Moses.” 36 My translation of the Greek from Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 6:356, 358.

CHAPTER NINE

145

notice. The first is the fact that, in virtue of this enthronement, Moses receives governance of the entire world, just like in Philo; the beholding of the entire world in vv. 77-78 very much describes a surveying of one’s newly received domain. The second implication is that Moses is enlarged. The text states twice (vv. 68 and 74) that the throne occupied by the anonymous figure and Moses is vast.37 It suffices to recall, from the evidence presented in chapter two, the “high and lifted up” throne of YHWH in Isa 6:1. Such a throne is the prerogative of divinity, the accommodation of an enormous divine body. Moses’ enthronement on such a throne entails enlargement to a divine size.38 There is also a third and related implication, that it is this enormity which affords omniscience and the governance of the entire creation. As already seen in chapter three, in the ancient Near East special knowledge is the privilege of gods and goddesses and comes from their extraordinary abilities to scan the entire world due to their size and lofty vantage point. To recall, in Enuma Elish an enormous Marduk possesses four eyes with which he sees everything: Four were his eyes, and four were his ears. . . And the eyes, in like number, scanned all things. 99 He was the loftiest of the gods, surpassing was his stature; 95 98

The throne reaching the folded part of heaven, most probably an expression designating here the zenith of heaven, reinforces the enormity of the throne. The mention of the fold of the sky (cf. οὐρανοῦ πτυχός) puzzled the scholarship of the scene; Holladay (Fragments II, 441) and Wieneke (Ezechielis, 64-65) note that similar expressions occur in Euripides (Phoenician Women 84; Helen 44, 605; Orestes 1631, 1636). However, in both pre-exilic and Persian Judaism the sky often has the materiality of a tent roof (Ps 104:2/2 Sam 22:10) or a scroll (Isa 34:4), a fabric that can be bent (Ps 18:10, 144:5), unfolded or stretched (cf. Ps 104:2/2 Sam 22:10; Job 9:8; Isa 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 51:13; Jer 10:12; Zech 12:1), and even torn apart (Isa 63:18). This imagery might also correlate to the fashioning of the curtain of the door of the tabernacle and the curtain of the holy of holies in the temple. 38 While the enormity of the enthroned Moses is only implicit in the imagery of the throne scene, the motif of enlargement reoccurs explicitly in transformation traditions by the end of late antiquity. 37

146

THE LORD GOD OF GODS His members were enormous, he was exceeding tall. (Enuma Elish I:95,98-100)39 100

YHWH also has similar scanning eyes.40 In Ps 11:4 YHWH sees from his throne in the temple the entire humankind: “YHWH is in his holy temple. YHWH, his throne is in heaven. His eyes behold, his eyelids examine the sons of men.” YHWH’s eyes are able to scan all the world (Zech 4:10; 2 Chr 16:9; Prov 5:21). He sees everything under the sky, to the ends of the earth (Job 28:24). Nothing can be concealed from the enormous deity’s all-encompassing vision (Jer 23:24; Ps 69:6; Job 11:11; 31:4; 34:21). The act of creation and the constant government of the world allow for an intimate knowledge of reality. In several texts, the two acts are correlatively defined as measurements (Isa 40:12; Wis 11:20; Job 28:23-27; 38:4-6). Ps 147:4, a postexilic41 creation account, describes YHWH as counting and naming all the heavenly bodies.42 A similar measuring action is attributed to Moses in line 80 of Exagoge—the counting of the stars. Also, significantly, line 77 describes the prophet as scanning the entire world from his vantage point: he “beholds the whole earth around.”43 Humans can fully share in this divine knowledge through deification, as gods; once admitted into the divine council, they participate in its decisions and are privy to its knowledge. In chapter four I looked at several texts which suggest that the Judahite monarch, as a member of the divine council, was conceived as possessing the superior knowledge of the gods. Among the divine titles of the king in Isa 9:6 is “counselor of wonder.” He possesses wisdom and understanding, counsel and knowledge (Isa 11:2). The king of Tyre boasts in Ezekiel 28 of residing in the council of the gods and possessing an appropriately extraordinary knowledge. Next in the Exagoge vision stars fall on their knees before the enthroned Moses and parade in front of him “like a camp of The translation is from Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 62. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 103-105. 41 See Samuel Terrien, The Psalms. Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 917. 42 Thus van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” 24; Holladay, Fragments II, 437. 43 The adverb ἔγκυκλον carries this particular connotation. 39 40

CHAPTER NINE

147

mortals” (ὡς παρεµβολὴ βροτῶν). The animation and militarization of the stars are not peculiar. Several scholars have noted that the imagery recalls Genesis 37, in which animated astral bodies fall on their knees in front of Joseph.44 Stars are portrayed as animate heavenly beings in several instances in the Bible (e.g., Ps 148:23).45 Saul Olyan notes that the stars fighting for Israel against Sisera in Judg 5:20 “are conceived as divine beings, the heavenly host at war with the enemies of God.”46 Archaeological evidence suggests that the astralization of the divine world (generating the solarization of YHWH), probably due to Assyrian, Aramean, and Mesopotamian influences, emerges in Judah in late Iron Age II.47 No attestations of astralization can be confidently dated prior to the late eighth century B.C.E.48 The Bible provides ample indication that late Iron Age Judah practiced astral cults, cults of gods and goddesses envisioned as astral bodies.49 Archaeological evidence concurs with the biblical story.50 In several biblical texts the ‘host of heaven’ is converted into a divine astral gathering (cf. Thus Kuiper, “Poète,” 267; Wieneke, Ezekielis, 66-67; van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” 24; Holladay, Fragments II, 437, 445. 45 See also Smith, Early History of God, 49 n.5. 46 A Thousand Thousands, 15. Olyan considers this and other biblical occurrences of animate stars as references to angels. Judg 5:20 has been dated to the pre-monarchic period: Cross and Freedman, Studies, 5; D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 77-129. However, given the slow development of literacy in Iron Age II Judah and Israel and the late astralization of the divine world, it could be at best dated to the late eighth or early seventh century B.C.E. 47 H. Niehr, “Host of Heaven,” in van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 428-430; idem, Der höchste Gott (BZAW 190; Berlin, 1990), 71-94. 48 See the analysis of the archaeological evidence in Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 283-372. 49 Cf. Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2. The cult was purportedly banned under the reform of Josiah (cf. 2 Kgs 23:4-5). 50 See the evidence provided in Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 302, 317-323, 369. I do not agree with Keel and Uehlinger’s conclusion that the evidence suggests that in the astral cults “earthly reality and heavenly metaphorical reality . . . begin to diverge” (ibid., 319) and that “there was tension between the believed real presence of the heavenly powers in the cultic symbol and their actual astral presence in the heavens” (ibid., 319). 44

148

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2), with a conspicuous military character (cf. Isa 40:26).51 Moreover, the astral conception of the divine world extends well into the Second Temple period, as its presence in biblical texts suggests. Thus, in Dan 8:10 the ‘host of heaven’ is identified with stars.52 The mention of a “prison for the stars of heaven and the host of heaven” in 1 Enoch 18:14 recalls the prophecy of Isa 24:21 that the host of heaven will be gathered in a prison pit. In 1 Enoch 104:2, 4, 6, part of the Epistle of Enoch, a document dating from at least as early as the second century B.C.E., the righteous are promised to shine like the lights of heaven, to rejoice like the angels of heaven, and to become partners with the people of heaven. There is an evident parallelism here between the lights of heaven, the angels of heaven, and the people of heaven. In the Second Temple period, with the angelification of the divine council (see chapter seven), angels retain both the astral and military features of the gods of old (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 6:17; 7:6; Isa 13:4-5; Joel 4:11; Hab 3:8; Ps 68:18). The imagery generates the title of ‫ שר הצבא‬or ἀρχιστράτηγος for the principal angel, the leader of the military host of angels (probably based on texts such as Josh 5:13-15 and Dan 8:11).53 The reference of Exagoge to marching stars recalls both main characteristics, astral and military, of this ancient conception of the divine world. The use of παρεµβολή—a peculiar term which means “warring camp”—in the context of God’s descent on Sinai is also significant. The angelic ranks at Sinai are described with this term in 1 En. 1:4.54 In LXX it translates the Hebrew ‫ מחנה‬in 193 of the

Niehr, “The Rise of YHWH,” 61-62; idem, “Host of Heaven,” 428-430. Collins, Daniel, 331-333. 53 It has been noted above that the title is used of Michael in Testament of Abraham 1:4, 2:1-10 etc. (rec. A); 2 Enoch 22:6 (longer recension), 33:10, 72:5 (both recensions); Testament of Isaac 14:7; 3 Baruch 11:4, 68; 13:3; Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 4:24. Once it is used for Raphael in the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:4. An unnamed angel is called ἀρχιστράτηγος in Joseph and Aseneth 14:8 (7). 54 καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ὁ ἅγιός µου ὁ µέγας ἐκ τῆς κατοικήσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐπὶ γῆν πατῆσει ἐπὶ τὸ Σεινὰ ὄρος καὶ φανήσεται ἐκ τῆς παρεµβολῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ φανήσεται ἐν τῇ δυνάµει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῶν οὐρανῶν. 51 52

CHAPTER NINE

149

latter’s 214 occurrences and a “camp of gods” (‫ )מחנה אלהים‬is attested not only in postexilic biblical texts (1 Chr 12:23), but also in the fragments of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400 2 2 and 4Q405 20 ii-22 13). Both these Qumran occurrences and, as David Halperin remarks, the LXX version of Ezek 43:2 specifically associate the camp (παρεµβολή) of heavenly beings with both Ezekiel 1 and Sinai. The fact that in Exagoge the scene of a divine throne on Sinai refers to a camp (παρεµβολή) of heavenly beings can hardly be coincidental. There are two peculiar aspects of the astral veneration. The first lies in the stars’ prostration before Moses. Indeed, astral veneration is given to Joseph in Genesis 37 (as it has been noted), but this parallelism can obscure the contextualization of Exagoge in different theological pressures. I introduced one of these important pressures in chapter seven, in relation to Neh 9:6 and Philo’s Decal. 64-65: the creatureliness which heavenly bodies and angels share with people prevents their veneration. Therefore it is puzzling (at least) that the same principle seems not to apply reversely and prohibit angels and heavenly bodies from venerating people. This asymmetry between angels and humans is only exacerbated by the second peculiarity, which is related to the first: the procession of heavenly beings before Moses is described as “a camp of mortals” (ὡς παρεµβολὴ βροτῶν). The last word carries an evident irony. Celestial beings not only honor a (former) human in a very ceremonial fashion, but are also called “mortals.” The use of βροτῶν instead of ἀνθρώπων only exacerbates the irony. A reversal of status is obvious: as a human being is raised to a divine status, celestial beings are symbolically or representationally lowered to a human one. A reversal between humans and angels often takes place is the tradition about the animosity between angels and humans, but those situations involve the fall of angels and their judgment by humans, not the veneration of humans by unfallen angels.55 The closest parallel to the situation in (Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece in Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti [Leiden: Brill, 1970], 19) 55 On this see especially Peter Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen. Untersuchungen zur Rabbinichen Engelvorstellung (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975); Joseph P. Schultz, “Angelic Opposition to the Ascension

150

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Exagoge comes from Adamic traditions: Adam is worshipped by angels as a statue of God. Chapter eighteen is dedicated to these traditions. It seems that Moses’ oniric vision anticipates his Sinai transformation into a divine being—sitting on the throne of a god, enlargement to divine enormity, donning of the appropriate regalia, veneration by heavenly beings, and endowment with unlimited knowledge and governance of the world. Yet, this depiction of Moses contrasts sharply with the ensuing interpretation of Raguel.

9.2 A RESETTING OF DIVINE BOUNDARIES?

The difference between Moses’ vision and Raguel’s interpretation is sharpest in several elements. First, while the throne in the vision initially belongs to a divine figure and is passed on to Moses, Raguel interprets it as Moses’ own creation (v. 85). Second, in the vision the domain attached to the throne is the entire creation, earth and angels, while in Raguel’s explanation it only applies to humanity (cf. βροτῶν in v. 86). Third, the overall settings of the vision and respectively of its interpretation are different; the reader is relocated from a celestial realm to an earthly geography. Finally, verses 87-90 report Moses’ knowledge of the entire creation in prophetic terms of past, present, and future. In view of this difference a distinction between “reality” and “dream” can be drawn too sharply, as I already noted. Nevertheless, the valid concern remains that Moses’ dream is about a future enthronement and deification, as Raguel points out. In other words, the dream itself—as much as what it reveals is real—does not yet transform Moses, but only anticipates his future transformation. Of course, the time of his transformation is of no consequence to my study, which is only interested in the reality and quality of it. But this is not to say that the dream left Moses unchanged. Carl Holladay notes that Raguel’s greeting of Moses as ξένος represents “an odd way for Moses to be addressed by his own of Moses and the Revelation of the Law,” JQR 61 (1970-71): 282-307; Kevin Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels. A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Literature and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2004); James VanderKam, Enoch a Man, 45-46.

CHAPTER NINE

151

father-in-law.”56 Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis suggests that the word most probably indicates that Moses’ anticipated transformation makes him unrecognizable.57 Also, since Raguel acknowledges that the dream itself is a contact with God (“God gave you this good sign”), we cannot dismiss the possibility that this contact alone could have estranged Moses from him. The word could indeed be used in a more general, ethnic sense, but its use after a revelatory dream which anticipates the Sinai experience echoes the estrangement which Israel feels toward Moses at his descent from Sinai (e.g., Exod 34:30).58 This strangeness of Moses has become paradigmatic in later Jewish mysticism, in which the hero undergoing transformation is often not recognized by his/her own peer (e.g., 2 Enoch 39). It is still tempting to conclude with Lanfranchi that Raguel’s interpretation gives the dream its proper, mundane meaning: “La vision n’a aucun autre contenu sinon l’annonce que Moïse sera prophête, législateur et chef de son peuple.”59 But setting up the social-political as a discrete reality against the mystical as another discrete (and opposite) reality is problematic,60 and Lanfranchi Fragments II, 446. Luke-Acts, 178 n.420. 58 This estrangement tradition has a long and widespread rewritten life. For example, in 4Q374 2.II, 6-7, 9, which is paleographically dated to the beginning of the first century B.C.E., the tradition is expanded with the fear of the “powerful ones,” presumably angels. The tradition is also attested in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 12:1, a text tentatively dated to the first century C.E.: “And Moses came down. And when he had been bathed with invisible light, he went down to the place where the light of the sun and the moon are; and the light of his face surpassed the splendor of the sun and the moon; and he did not even know this. And when he came down to the sons of Israel, they saw him but did not recognize him.” (D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:297-377, here 319) 59 L’Exagoge, 190-191. 60 We can observe that regrettably the study of early Judaism is proceeding toward “microhistorical approaches” which emphasize what is distinctive about particular texts or sets of texts and particular views. Although very useful, especially as they tend to discard categories, such approaches have often illumined important distinctions only to imagine more fundamental rifts and even dichotomies in the early Jewish ethos. 56 57

152

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

can produce no evidence that the stature of Moses is ever limited to such functions in Judaism or Christianity before the early stages of historical-criticism.61 It is more aligned with ancient mindset and vocabulary to see the social-political as an aspect of more profound realities. In other words, Raguel does not re-interpret or re-envision the vision and certainly does not question its realism, rather he expresses its simplest and most superficial dimension, which does not necessarily preclude other dimensions. Lanfranchi’s de-mystification of the social-political does not allow him to consider the possibility that the vision and Raguel’s interpretation need not be held in contradiction or tension. The fact that the vision and the interpretation are simply juxtaposed without explanation leads precisely to this conclusion. I also suspect there is a reason for the difference between the two. The key to the reason is in vv. 100-105, which relate the vision of the burning bush and contain words similar to Raguel’s interpretation of the enthronement. In Eusebius’ testimony this vision immediately

Thus, individual texts and views have been distributed between the discrete spheres of the mystical or the political, the individual or the communal, the visionary or the literary (e.g., R. A. Horsley and P.A. Tiller, After Apocalyptic and Wisdom: Rethinking Texts in Context [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012]; Ra’anan Boustan et al., eds., Hekhalot Literature in Context [TSAJ 153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013]). It is encouraging to see that classical studies have still not entirely succumbed to this temptation which imagines the ancient ethos in the fragmented structures of modernity. Thus, Daryn Lehoux’ splendid study on Roman “science” concludes as follows: “It is nigh impossible to untangle the different threads that weave the narrative together: astronomy bleeds into ethics, ethics into politics, politics into theology, theology into mathematics, mathematics into harmonics, harmonics into astronomy again. Psychology plays in a minor key throughout” (What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry Into Science and Worldmaking [Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2014], 9). 61 On the radically new interpretation of Moses in social-political terms (as distinct and divorced from mystical) in the nascent historical-critical movement, see particularly Michael Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 129153.

CHAPTER NINE

153

follows the throne vision.62 In the relevant verses God encourages and limits Moses’ approach at the same time: 100. θάρσησον, ὦ παῖ, καὶ λόγων ἄκου’ ἐµῶν· 101. ἰδεῖν γὰρ ὄψιν τὴν ἐµὴν ἀµήχανον 102. θνητὸν γεγῶτα, τῶν λόγων δ’ἔξεστί σοι 103. ἐµῶν ἀκούειν, τῶν ἕκατ’ ἐλήλυθα. 104. ἐγὼ θεὸς σῶν, ὧν λέγεις, γεννητόρων, 105. Ἀβραάµ τε καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβου τρίτου.63 Take courage, child, and hear my words. It is not possible that one sees my face who has come into being a mortal, but it is given you to hear My words, for which I have come here. I am the god of your ancestors, of whom you speak, Of both Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob the third.

God’s words reflect an intriguing combination of Exod 3:1-6 and Exod 33:17-23. The two scenes are connected in MT through the reversed focus on the vision of YHWH (LXX does not retain the parallelism as clearly). In Exod 3:6 Moses is afraid to look at YHWH, while in Exod 33:18 he asks to see YHWH’s glory/face. The scene in Exagoge also recalls D’s emphasis on the auditory character of the Sinai theophany and the throne scene in 1 Enoch 14, in which auditory terms abound and the possibility of beholding the divine face is utterly denied. The scene in Exagoge is nonetheless intriguing, considering its proximity to the throne vision. In the throne vision Moses not only sees the enthroned figure without any restrictions, but he is also beckoned to approach him and then fully appropriates that being’s divine identity. The contrast to this new vision, in which Moses is not even allowed to approach the divine being and to behold him, could not be more conspicuous. In my opinion, the meaning of the contrast lies in careful and peculiar word choices.

Even if there had been a scene between the two visions, it could not have interrupted the narrative flow between them (Holladay, Fragments II, 451). 63 Praep. ev. 9.28.7-8. Text from Holladay, Fragments II, 370. 62

154

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Carl Holladay notes that Moses’ designation as θνητός in verse 102 provides a counterbalance to the enthronement scene.64 Jacobson also thinks that the term is used in order to avoid elevating Moses to divine status.65 Indeed, the term has a long history of usage in contrast to θεῖος or θεός, and the latter is used of God himself in line 103.66 Furthermore, mortality, as we have already seen in Ezekiel 28 and 31, functions as a demarcation between humanity and the divine. The emphasis on Moses’ mortality is even stronger. Neither Holladay nor Jacobson notice that the phrase θνητὸς γίγνοµαι, although not uncommon, is nevertheless a peculiar and pleonastic way of pointing to Moses’ mortality. Under Plato’s influence, by the time of Exagoge the verb γίγνοµαι came to define creatureliness in contrast to the divine εἰμί—creatures do not have being within themselves but rather “come into being,” while God has being within himself and “is.”67 Against this background, the use of γίγνοµαι in Exagoge is unlikely coincidental but it serves as another means of emphasizing Moses’ creatureliness. As contrasting as mortality and divinity are, there is nothing in Exagoge to indicate that they are held in tension. On the contrary, the qualification of Moses as θνητός in the burning bush vision and his veneration by the angels who are παρεµβολὴ βροτῶν in the throne vision stand in parallelism: in front of the deified human the immortal angels parade like mortals, in front of God any human remains a mortal. This parallel emphasis on mortality echoes the theomorphic anthropology emerging in the exilic period, which denied humanity divinity while ascribing it divine resemblance. In contrast, in Exagoge deiform humanity is deified. The angels’ veneration of Moses points precisely to this full reintegration of theomorphic anthropology into deification theology. Holladay, Fragments II, 438. Exagoge, 144. 66 See thus Homer, Iliad 22.9; Aeschylus, Persians 749; Plato, Cratylus 398d, Symposium 202e. 67 For Plato, see Gabriela Roxana Carone, Plato’s Cosmology and Its Ethical Dimensions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 93-96. The earliest such use in Judaism is the Septuagint’s translation of ‫ ויהי‬with καὶ ἐγένετο throughout Genesis 1. Special mention also deserve Philo, Det. 160-162, and John 1:1-18. 64 65

CHAPTER NINE

155

Reintegrated into the large framework of deification, the iconic exclusion of humanity from divinity ends up serving the function of boundary, thickening the distinction between gods and God which deification theology does not claim to erase. Statements such as Ezekiel’s (that humans are not gods) and the theological insistence on creatureliness no longer prevent deification, but rather clarify God’s uniqueness, as I already submitted in chapter seven. With this added clarification, the deification of the human being is no longer expressed as a shedding of one’s humanity. Moses is deified while his distinctness from God is emphasized. A phrase coined by a fourth century Christian theologian encapsulates this new deification paradigm very aptly—ζῶον θεούµενον.68 The benefit of this new paradigm is immediately obvious: it can hold together that which in the inherited tradition existed in tension and even opposition. In this framework the theomorphic anthropology of postexilic times becomes an emphasis on one of the two aspects of deification, namely that even in deification the human being still possesses divinity in a different manner than God. Therefore, the two inherited languages, of deification and of theomorphism, permit Moses to be worshipped as a god, because there is no danger to be worshipped as God. This further congealing of divine inclusion and exclusion seems to be a primary reason for which we witness a proliferation of narratives of human veneration starting with the second century B.C.E. As far as I can tell, Exagoge is one of the earliest expressions of this new deification paradigm. The integration appears even more clearly in later traditions about Adam (I will turn to them in the fourth part of this study) and the elements which Exagoge uses for this new paradigm will also appear in subsequent Adamic traditions: enthronement, enormity, veneration, and knowledge. Yet, before I turn to these later traditions, attention must be paid to two texts which are slightly contemporary to Exagoge and which contain the same merging of traditions, providing further support to my interpretation of the Alexandrian play.

68

Gregory of Nazianz, Oration 38.11; Greek in PG 36:324A.

CHAPTER TEN. THE DEIFIED DANIEL IN DANIEL 2-4 The scholarship on the Book of Daniel is very much in agreement that chapters 2-6 constitute an Aramaic unit originally independent from the Hebrew section of the book and that this unit is most probably a collection and synchronization of originally independent stories.1 In its extant forms, it is commonly dated to the Hellenistic period, but prior to the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (i.e., between 330 and 175 B.C.E).2 Yet, John Collins On this history and unity of chapters 2-6 see especially Jan-Wim Wesselius, “Discontinuity, Congruence, and the Making of the Hebrew Bible,” SJOT 13 (1999): 24-77; idem, “The Writing of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:291-310; John J. Collins, Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), esp. 24-38; P. S. David, “The Composition and Structure of the Book of Daniel: A Synchronic and Diachronic Reading.” (PhD diss., Katholicke Universiteit, 1991); Johan Lust, “The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4-5,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (Louvain: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1993), 39-53; Olivier Munnich, “Texte Massorétique et Septante dans le Livre de Daniel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship Between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker; SCS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 93-120; R. Timothy McLay, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel Chapters 4-6 and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005): 304-323. 2 For dating, see Matthias Henze, Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4 (JSJSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 10-11; Collins, Daniel, 24-38; Rainer Albertz, “The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel,” 1

157

158

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

notes that “the only datum in the tales that requires so late a date,” namely in the Hellenistic period, is the reference to the four kingdoms in Daniel 2.3 Although the Aramaic unit only names the Babylonian (chs. 2-5), Median (6:1), and Persian kingdoms (6:28), the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 most probably also include the Hellenistic regime.4 Nevertheless, theologically the tales are not far removed from exilic and early postexilic texts, such as the Book of Ezekiel. Therefore, the argument of Reinhard G. Kratz that the reference to the four kingdoms could be secondary and that the rest of the Aramaic stories could well be dated to the Persian period, deserves attention.5 Others have opined that it is probable that the stories of chapters 2-6 emerged and underwent independent circulations in the Persian period before being finalized and collected in the first half of the Hellenistic period.6 At least “the complex tradition history of chap. 4 demands a considerable lapse of time after the sixth century.”7 Within the Aramaic Daniel, chapters 2-4 are themselves a subunit built, as I hope to show here, around a unifying theme—iconicity, or, more specifically, divine images and YHWH.8 They contain in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 1:171–204; Ernst Haag, Die Errettung Daniels aus der Löwengrube: Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der biblischen Daniel-tradition (SBS 10; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983). A. Lenglet (“La Structure littéraire de Daniel 2-7” Bib 53 [1972]: 169-190) is exceptional in arguing that chapters 4 and 5 address the kingdom of Antiochus Epiphanes. Henze (Madness, 10-11) opts for “a preMaccabean context, possibly the third century, with even older material incorporated into them [the Aramaic tales].” 3 Daniel, 36. 4 Collins, Daniel, 166-170. 5 Translatio Imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danieler-zählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (WMANT 63; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 134-148. Martin Noth, while accepting the reference to the Hellenistic kingdoms as central to chapter 2, contended that early nuclei of the Aramaic unit could date from the last decades of the fourth century B.C.E. (“Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel,” ThStK 98/99 [1926]: 143-163). 6 See thus Henze, Madness, 11; Collins, Daniel, 38. 7 Collins, Daniel, 36. 8 This is rarely noticed in Daniel scholarship, which seems to favor the social-historical aspects of the Aramaic Daniel.

CHAPTER TEN

159

the story of an idol worship (chapter 3) sandwiched by two visions with many parallels, of a great but weak idol (chapter 2) and of a great but weak tree (chapter 4).9 Chapter 4 serves as a good entry point into the theology of all three chapters and for the purpose of this study it presents the added advantage of being the closest literary parallel to Ezekiel 31, in all of early Jewish literature.10 Therefore, a close analysis of Daniel 4 will lead to a broader look at chapters 2-4 for their theology. The tree story of the fourth chapter has also received, deservedly, extensive scholarly attention.11 I Both visions occur in a dream (2:1, 4:5), both dreams are troubling to him (2:1, 4:5), both times he solicits advisers to interpret his dreams (2:2, 4:6), both texts mention specifically “the magicians, the enchanters, and the Chaldeans” (2:2, 4:7), both times these fail to interpret the dream (2:10-11, 4:7), both times Daniel is able to interpret the dream (2:16, 24, 4:19), both idol and tree are enormous (2:31, 4:10), both idol (at least the head) and tree symbolize Nebuchadnezzar (2:38, 4:22), both times the birds and creatures of the field dwell under him (2:38, 4:9), both idol and tree are destroyed (2:44, 4:23), both times by an unearthly presence (2:44-45, 4:23), both times Nebuchadnezzar ends up praising the God of Daniel (2:47, 4:34-35), and both times as the God of Daniel is named a god without equals (2:47, 4:35). 10 For the direct dependence of Daniel 4 on Ezekiel 31, see especially Collins, Daniel, 223; Hartman, “Great Tree,” 78-79; Coxon, “Great Tree,” 94-96; Henze, Madness, 77-79. For a thorough comparison between Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 31, see Helge Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic. The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (WMANT 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 476-480. 11 E.g., J. Beverly, “Nebuchadnezzar and the animal mind (Daniel 4),” JSOT 45/2 (2020): 145-157; Matthias Henze, “Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness (Daniel 4) in Syriac Literature,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2:550-571; idem, Madness; Shalom M. Paul, “The Mesopotamian Babylonian background of Daniel 1-6,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 1:55-68; Tim Meadowcroft, “Point of View in Storytelling: An Experiment in Narrative Criticism in Daniel 4,” Didaskalia 8 (1997): 30-42; Pierre Grelot, “Nabuchodonosor changé en bête,” VT 44 (1994): 10-17; Hans F. Richter, “Daniel 4, 7-14: Beobachtungen und Erwagungen,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, 244-248; Koch, “Gottes Herrschaft,” 77-119; idem, Daniel 1-4 (BKATF 22/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 380-450; Coxon, “Another Look at Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness,” 211-222; idem, “The Great Tree of Daniel,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (ed. James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies; JSOTSup 42; 9

160

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

too have dedicated to it a close study and I will not repeat it here, but I will rather take the argument further.12 The chapter is preserved in one Aramaic and two Greek versions.13 The Aramaic text (henceforth MT), which seems to be the language of the autograph, is attested at Qumran fragmentarily (verses 5-16, and 29-30).14 The Old Greek version (henceforth OG) is quite different,15 and is extant in two manuscripts16 and Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1986), 91111; Byron Burkholder, “Literary Patterns and God’s Sovereignty in Daniel 4,” Direction 16 (1987): 45-54; William H. Shea, “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 23 (1985): 193-202; A. A. Di Lella, “Daniel 4:7-14: Poetic Analysis and Biblical Background,” in Caquot and Delcor, Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, 247-258; Louis F. Hartman, “The Great Tree and Nabuchodonosor’s Madness,” in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (ed. John L. McKenzie; New York: Herder & Herder, 1962), 75-82. 12 Silviu N. Bunta, “The Mesu-Tree and the Animal Inside: Theomorphism and Theriomorphism in Daniel 4,” Scrinium 3 (2007): 364-384. 13 On the textual history of Daniel 4, see especially Tim McLay, “It’s a Question of Influence: The Theodotion and Old Greek Texts of Daniel,” in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 231254; Olivier Munnich, “Les versions grecques de Daniel et leurs substrats semitiques,” in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Leonard Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 291-308; Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2:586-607; Eugene Charles Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2:573-585; Johan Lust, “The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4-5,” in Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, 39-53. 14 Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. Transcriptions and Textual Variants (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 761. 15 For a thorough review of the differences between the two main versions of Daniel 4, see especially Henze, Madness, 24-33. 16 The relevant portions of Papyrus 967 (second or early third century C.E.), discovered in Egypt in 1931 and regrettably divided among three current locations, Dublin, Cologne, and Barcelona, were published in F. G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri (London: Walker, 1937), fasc. 7, 17-38; Winfred Hamm, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel Kap 3-4 (PTA 21; Bonn: Habelt, 1977). The Barcelona fragment does not contain any texts from chapter 4. The Codex Chisianus or MS 88 (ninth

CHAPTER TEN

161

supported by a seventh century literal Syriac translation.17 The second Greek version is attributed to Theodotion (henceforth Th). A text close to Th is attested in the New Testament, which suggests that the textual tradition behind Th circulated before the end of the Second Temple period. In chapter 4 Th generally follows MT against OG, as it does in chapters 5 and 6. In the rest of the book Th is closer to OG than to MT. The MT/Th version of the tree story of chapter 4 reads: 7 Behold, a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. 8 The tree grew large and overpowering, its height reached to heaven, and its sight [Th has “trunk”] to the ends of the entire earth.18 9 Its leaves were beautiful, its fruit plenty, and in it was food for all. The creatures of the field found shade under it, and the birds of the air dwelled19 in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it. 10 And I saw in the visions of my head, while on my bed, and there was a watcher, and a holy one, descended from heaven. 11 He cried aloud and said as follows: “Cut down the tree and chop off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the creatures flee from under it and the birds from its branches. 12 Yet, leave its stump and roots in the ground, with a band of iron and bronze, in the new grass of the field, and let it be washed with the dew of heaven, and let its portion be with the creatures, in the grass of the earth. 13 Let its heart be changed from that of a human and let the heart of a creature20 be given to it. . .”

through eleventh centuries C.E.) is the source of the text in A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart, 1935 and reprints). 17 A. M. Ceriani, Codex syro-hexaplaris ambrosianus (Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, 1874). 18 The Greek translation raises several issues at this point. It is not clear what prompted the use of κύτος. Regrettably verses 7 and 8 have not been preserved at Qumran. 19 I opted for this literal translation, in order to maintain the connection to 2:38, which uses the same verb in relation to people, beasts, and birds. 20 The Qumran text preserved for these phrases is not perfectly legible, but it seems to agree with the MT: ‫ לבבה מן אנשא‬and ‫( לבב חיותא‬Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 761).

162

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

The major features of the tree of Ezekiel 31 and of the Mesopotamian mēsu-tree appear in the depiction of the tree in Daniel 4: 1. the enormous size; 2. the top reaching the clouds of heaven; 3. the most conspicuous location in the middle of the earth. Moreover, the tree of Daniel 4 shares other features with the tree of Ezekiel 31: 1. not having comparison (Ezek 31:8); 2. nourishing all birds and animals; 3. showing hubris. Just as Ezekiel 31 uses the vocabulary of desecration of cultic images, so too does the description of the cutting of the tree of Daniel 4. As already noted above, throughout the ancient Near East, including Syro-Palestine, upmarket statues of gods were built of wooden cores overlaid with sheets of precious metal, as the very concept of the mēsu-tree suggests. Destructions and mutilations of the wooden cores are commonly depicted in terms of “cutting down,” “chopping off” (‫גדע‬: Deut 7:5, 12:3, cf. Isa 10:33; ‫כרת‬: 1 Sam 5:4, 1 Kgs 15:13, Exod 34:13, Mic 1:7), “stripping off,” “burning” (‫שרף‬: 1 Kgs 15:13, 2 Kgs 23:6, Deut 7:5, 25, 1 Chr 14:12; cf. also Mic 1:7, Isa 37:19 = 2 Kgs 19:18), and “scattering” (‫שלך‬: 2 Kgs 23:6, Exod 32:20, Deut 7:5, 12:3). The tree of Daniel 4 is mutilated in similar terms. The verb ‫ קצץ‬is particularly significant. It does not only refer to mutilations of human bodies (e.g., Judg 1:6, 2 Sam 4:12, 2 Kgs 18:16), but also to the defacement of cultic objects, particularly to the removal of their layers of precious metal (cf. 2 Kgs 16:17; 18:16).21 In 2 Kgs 24:13 the term defines the destruction and desecration of the vessels of the First Temple in 597 B.C.E., including its statue.22 Niehr, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 91; Mettinger, “Dethronement,” 61; W. Thiel, “‫קצץ‬,” in Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 13:96-99. 22 “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 91. Mettinger also notes that the biblical account seems to suggest “the throne was stripped of its gold plate already in 597” (“Dethronement,” 61). Ps 74:6-7, which mentions the breaking of the “carved work” and the burning of the sanctuary, might also allude to this disastrous event. In 2 Chr 28:24 (built on 2 Kgs 24:14), ‫ קצץ‬refers to a similar act. Niehr suggests that the chopping (‫ )קצץ‬of the cultic 21

CHAPTER TEN

163

The sense of this vocabulary is that Nebuchadnezzar the tree is an image of God, simply in virtue of his humanity (the reference to the human heart of the tree is particularly significant for how unusual it is—v. 13). His punishment amounts to the loss of this iconicity, just like the punishments of the king of Tyre and of the Pharaoh in Ezekiel 28 and 31. I already argued that this loss of theomorphism is carried not only by the imagery of the mutilation of the tree, but also by the imagery of theriomorphism.23 It seems to me now that there is more to this imagery than I saw then, namely a subtle allusion to the theriomorphism of the creatures carrying the divine throne in Ezekiel 1 and 10. That theriomorphism is composed of elements of all the animal kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 4 (a detail which did not escape the attentive scrutiny of early rabbinic and Christian readings),24 the beasts of Daniel 4 are named by precisely the same noun ‫( חיות‬and not ‫ )בהמות‬and live “underneath” the divine presence just like the creatures of Ezekiel 1 and 10, the difference being that in the latter texts the divine presence is the kabod himself, while in Daniel 4 it is the theomorphic humanity of Nebuchadnezzar. In support of this interpretation I would adduce one further textual element. In the very opening of the story (4:1) Nebuchadnezzar describes himself as “luxuriant” (‫)רענן‬. The word choice is peculiar. Both P. W. Coxon and Matthias Henze remark that the word is dendric (Hos 14:9; Ps 52:10) and in this verse it seems to allude to the long-established reference to idolatry as worship “under every luxuriant tree” (‫תחת כל עץ רענן‬: Deut 12:2, 1 Kgs 14:23, 2 Kgs 17:10, Isa 57:5, Jer 2:20, Ezek 6:13 etc.).25 The root of the imagery might be the mēsu-tree, the wood meant to supply

objects in the temple may also include the destruction of the central cultic image of YHWH in the holy of holies. 23 Bunta, “The Mesu-Tree and the Animal Inside.” It must be noted that Beverly somewhat disagrees with this conclusion, but not convincingly (“Nebuchadnezzar and the animal mind”). 24 Some of this evidence is presented in my article “The Voices of the ‘Triumphant Hymn’: The Orthodox Sanctus as a Christian Merkabah Text,” SVTQ 64/1-2 (2020): 93-127. 25 Coxon, “Great Tree,” 97; Henze, Madness, 75.

164

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

the statuary flesh of the gods and commonly portrayed as the most luxuriant of all trees. The iconic theology of the text is placed in a clearer focus by its aetiology. It has long been proposed that chapter 4 evolved from a sixth century tradition about Nabonidus attested in several Babylonian documents (the Nabonidus Chronicle, Verse Account of Nabonidus, and the stelae from Harran)26 and preserved in early Judaism as late as the Qumranic Prayer of Nabonidus, 4Q242 1, which has been paleographically dated to 75-50 B.C.E.27 The text reads as follows: Texts in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 305-307, 312-315; S. Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London: Methuen, 1924), 22-123; C. J. Gadd, “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus,” AnSt 8 (1958): 35-92. The materials are reviewed in Henze, Madness, 57-63. On the connection of Daniel 4 with these Nabonidus traditions see Collins, Daniel, 217-219; Henze, Madness, 52-73; P. W. Coxon, “Another Look at Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, 211-222, here 216-218; Klaus Koch, “Gottes Herrschaft über das Reich des Menschen: Daniel 4 im Licht neuer Funde,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, 77-119, here 94-98; P. Riessler, Das Buch Daniel (Stuttgart/Wien: Roth, 1899), 43. 27 É. Puech, “ ‘La prière de Nabonide (4Q242),” in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (ed. K. J. Cathcart and M. Maher; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1996), 208-227, here p. 209; F. M. Cross, “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus,” IEJ 34 (1984): 260264, here p. 260; John J. Collins, “4QPrayer of Nabonidus,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; DJD XXII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 83-93, here p. 85. The prayer was first published in J. T. Milik, “‘Prière de Nabonide’ at autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel,” RB 63 (1956): 407-415, but the official edition is Collins, “4QPrayer of Nabonidus,” 83-93. The text received other publications in Puech, “ ‘La prière de Nabonide (4Q242),” 208-227; Cross, “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus,” 260-264; F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 116-136; Pierre Grelot, “La prière de Nabonide (4Q Or Nab). Nouvel Essai de restauration,” RevQ 9 (1978): 483-495; R. Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid. Eine in den Qumran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzählung (Berlin: Akademie, 1962). On the prayer see also Carol A. Newsom, “Why Nabonidus? Excavating Traditions From Qumran, The Hebrew Bible, And Neo-Babylonian Sources,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls.Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. Sarianna Metso et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 57-79. 26

CHAPTER TEN

165

1. The words of the p[ra]yer which Nabonidus, king of [Baby]lon, [the great] king, prayed [when he was smitten] 2. with a bad disease by the decree of G[o]d in Teima. [I, Nabonidus, with a bad disease 3. was smitten for seven years and sin[ce] God set [his face on me, he healed me] ([‫)שרי א]להים עלי אנפוני ואסא לי‬ 4. and as for my sin, he remitted it. A diviner (he was a Jew fr[om among the exiles) came to me and said:] 5. “Pro[cla]im and write to give honour and exal[tatio]n to the name of G[od Most High”, and I wrote as follows:] 6. “I was smitten by a b[ad] disease in Teima [by the decree of the Most High God.] 7. For seven years [I] was praying [to] the gods of silver and gold, [bronze, iron,] 8. wood, stone, clay, since [I thoug]ht that th[ey were] gods . . .28 Several scholars, however, have argued that 4Q242 reflects an even closer proximity to the pre-Hellenistic Nabonidus traditions than Daniel 4.29 Whether or not that is the case, the parallels between Daniel 4 and 4Q24230 are clear: 1. Both texts refer to a Babylonian king. 2. In both texts the king is afflicted with a serious punishment. 3. In both texts the affliction lasts for seven years.

The text and translation are from Collins, “4QPrayer of Nabonidus,” 88-89. 29 See thus Peter W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in John J. Collins and Peter Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:329-367; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1961), 123-124. 30 The argument has also been made that a direct literary relationship between Daniel 4 and 4Q242 is improbable (Henze, Madness, 66-68; Cross, Ancient Library, 123-124). Yet, an indirect connection can be posited with reasonable confidence, given “the relatively large number of copies of the biblical book in the Qumran caves” (Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” 329). 28

166

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

4. In both texts the affliction of the king is announced by a decree. 5. As Collins notes, “in both a Jew interprets his [the king’s] situation.”31 6. In both texts the king speaks in the first person. 7. In both texts the ends with an acknowledgement and praise of God Most High.32 It has been also proposed that 4Q242 contained a dream that the Jewish diviner (Daniel?) interpreted, dream that contained a vision of a tree.33 The proposal is highly speculative and is inconsequential to my argument. What matters to my argument is that lines 7-8 place idol worship at the heart of the Nabonidus’ story: idol worship is the sin for which he is punished so severely. While his punishment is noted summarily and without any references to idol destruction (unlike Daniel 4), the healing alludes to Nabonidus’ initial iconicity. According to Collins’ reconstruction, Nabonidus’ healing is described as “having the divine face set on him.” J. T. Milik and Florentino García Martínez, on the other hand, reconstruct as “et loin [des hommes j]e fus relégué” and, respectively, “banished far from men.”34 Collins perceptively points out that such reading would assume that ‫ שרי‬is a passive participle, whereas a passive participle would be spelled with final ʾālep or hê, and not yôd. “An anomalous spelling with a yôd cannot be completely ruled out,” he continues, “but we should assume normal spelling unless we have compelling evidence to the contrary.”35 Collins consequently follows Pierre Grelot and reads ‫שרי‬ as a Pael active, “set.” While in targumic texts the phrase “to set the face on someone” is an idiom for paying attention—a reading Daniel, 217. For these and/or other parallels between Daniel 4 and 4Q242, see also Newsom, “Why Nabonidus?,” 77-79 (a very useful chart); Collins, Daniel, 217-219; Henze, Madness, 64-68; Koch, “Gottes Herrschaft,” 89-94; M. McNamara, “Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel,” ITQ 37 (1970): 131149; García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 129-130. 33 See reviews of this position in Collins, Daniel, 218, and idem, “4QPrayer of Nabonidus,” 87. 34 García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 120; Milik, “ ‘Prière de Nabonide’,” 408. 35 Collins, “4QPrayer of Nabonidus,” 90. 31 32

CHAPTER TEN

167

which Collins supports36—I would suggest that in the context of Nabonidus’ punishment for idolatry the phrase contains iconic overtones reminiscent of Ezek 28:12, “imprinted by the pattern.” I have shown above how in exilic texts the divine form acts as the initial imprint of humanity and it has been previously evidenced that in early Judaism the divine face acts as a counterpart to the visionary in transformational accounts.37 In view of this, Nabonidus is healed of idolatry through an encounter with the divine face which amounts to a restoration of his initial theomorphism through a re-imprint of the divine form. Yet, whether Collins’ reconstruction and my interpretation are accurate or not,38 4Q242 is a clear indication that the tradition to which Daniel 4 belongs is centered on concerns with legitimate channels of iconic worship. Specifically the theological point is that humanity cannot worship the divinity in idols because it itself acts as God’s only legitimate cultic statue, as made by God himself. This theology will be found in the most clear expressions in later Judaism, to which I will turn in the next part of this study. For all of these reasons, I suggest that the tree imagery of Daniel 4 is iconic. Moreover, the comparison of Nebuchadnezzar with a tree seems to build the same theomorphic anthropology as Ezekiel. As is the case with the king of Tyre and the pharaoh, the problem is not Nebuchadnezzar’s theomorphism, but his hubris;

Ibid., 90. Andrei Orlov, “Ex 33 on God’s Face: A Lesson from the Enochic Tradition,” SBLSP 36 (2000): 130-147; idem, “The Face as the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob,” in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Judaism Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture (2 vols.; ed. C.A. Evans; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2004), 2:59-76; idem, “Unveiling the Face: The Heavenly Counterpart Traditions in Joseph and Aseneth,” in The Embroidered Bible. Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone (ed. Lorenzo DiTommaso et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 771-808. For a similar argument about Exagoge, see idem, “Moses’ Heavenly Counterpart in the ‘Book of Jubilees’ and the ‘Exagoge’ of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” Biblica 88/2 (2007): 153-73. 38 It is equally speculative to read with Puech in the missing space a reference to a transformation into an animal (“‘La prière de Nabonide,” 211). 36 37

168

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

the implication is that Nebuchadnezzar claims more than he is allowed. The punishment is the same in both cases: a temporary loss of theomorphism. Therefore, just like Ezekiel, Daniel 4 refutes a conception of kings as divine and instead presents a divine morphology which it democratizes into a theomorphic anthropology. Against common presuppositions, I would contend that Daniel 4 is not chiefly a political lesson in the special status of Israel and its god. It is rather a theological text which redefines the borders between humanity and divinity in the tradition of Ezekiel 28 and 31. This point has obvious political (and even social) implications, but it is a mistake to confound the implications with the theological point which has engendered them. Yet, this theological point is not complete without a closer look at the other two chapters of this sub-unit of the Aramaic Daniel, chapters 2 and 3, which themselves have been linked to the story of Nabonidus.39 In many regards they bring nothing new to the substance of our conclusions about the theology of Daniel 4, except more clarity. As I already noted, in Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar dreams of an enormous statue (‫( )צלם‬2:31). Daniel proves that he knows the meaning of the king’s dream and indeed interprets it in terms strikingly similar to his interpretation of Daniel 4. The story is followed in chapter 3 with a narrative about Nebuchadnezzar imposing on his subjects the cult of a newly built idol (3:1) in similar terms (cf. 3:12, 14, 18). Yet again, at the end of the chapter (3:28), after another divine lesson in iconicity, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges and decrees (in the same terms) that the only god to be served and worshiped throughout his empire is the god of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.40 Beyond this common language, chapters 2 adds one essential element to the theology of the sub-unit and it does so in a

For connections to chapter 3, see Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “The Babylonian Background of the Motif of the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3,” JBL 128 (2009): 273-290. For connections to chapter 2, see Newsom, “Why Nabonidus?,” 58-60. 40 It must be pointed out that both ‫ פלח‬and ‫ סגד‬appear in Targum Neofiti in reference to idol worship, as they do also in Gen 34:31; Exod 20:5, 23:24; Num 25:5; Deut 3:29, 4:19, 5:9, 6:4, 11:6, 12:30, 26:10. 39

CHAPTER TEN

169

remarkable manner.41 The story of the great idol concludes abruptly with an astonishing scene: Nebuchadnezzar “fell on his face and worshipped Daniel (‫ )נפל על־אנפוהי ולדניאל סגד‬and commanded that sacrifices and incense be offered to him” (2:46). As John Collins notes, “the author of Daniel does not seem to notice a problem here.”42 Indeed, there is nothing in the text to indicate distress with the treatment of Daniel as a god. The full significance of this one verse and of this lack of distress can only be gained if one understands that the entire sub-unit Daniel 2-4 is written with an overwhelming concern with illegitimate iconic worship. The significance did not escape early rabbinic interpreters. They avoid any futile argument that the language of Dan 2:46 does not imply god-worship. Rather, they can only insist that Daniel did not accept the cult: Another reason why Jacob did not wish to be buried in Egypt was they should not make him an object of idolatrous worship; for just as idolaters will be punished, so will their deities too be punished, as it says, And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments (Exod 12:12). You find similarly in the case of Daniel. When he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, what is said? Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel and commanded that they should offer an offering and sweet odours unto him (Dan 2:46). He indeed commanded that they should offer to him, but Daniel declined it, saying, Just as idolaters will be punished, so will their gods be punished. You find the same in the case of Hiram. When he made himself a god, what is written of him? Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said: I am a god (Ezek 28:2). The Holy One, blessed be He, chided him: Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel (Ezek 28:3)! For you find that Nebuchadnezzar wished to make offerings to Daniel, but he declined, yet thou makest thyself a god! What was his fate? It is written of him, I have cast thee to the ground, I have Daniel 5 also contains a similar concern with idol worship. In what the chapter presents as one act (cf. 5:4), Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Belshazzar, and his court defile the vessels of the Jerusalem temple and worship idols (5:1-4). It is significant that Belshazzar’s idolatrous act is directly associated with Nebuchadnezzar’s story in chapter 4. 42 Daniel, 172. 41

170

THE LORD GOD OF GODS laid thee before kings, that they may gaze upon thee (Ezek 28:17). (Genesis Rabbah 96:5)43

It is also significant that the rabbinic text detects the connection between Ezekiel 28 and Daniel 2. As the rabbinic interpretation concedes, in Dan 2:46 Daniel is granted precisely what the king of Tyre is denied in Ezekiel 28 and what Nebuchadnezzar is denied in Daniel 4—divinity. Setting aside the rabbinic dismissal of the worship, in this reverse parallelism the deiform humanity of Nebuchadnezzar is torn down due to its hubris only to be rebuilt into the deified humanity of Daniel. Pace the rabbis, the author does not see a problem here—Daniel does not refuse the worship and the context does not explain it away—because there is no problem. The worship of Daniel is proper: it is a worship of deified humanity, which should remind us of the worship of Moses by angels in Exagoge. Moreover, to put it in the two inherited languages (of deification and of theomorphism), just like Moses in Exagoge, Daniel here can be worshipped as a god, because there is no danger to be worshipped as God. It is therefore significant that in the subsequent verse (2:47) the worshipping king Nebuchadnezzar praises YHWH: “surely, your god [i.e., of the Jews] is the god of gods and the lord of kings.” This element is in the other two chapters, but veiled in such a way that it can only be perceived in the light of Dan 2:46 (and this may explain the order of the narrative). In chapter 3, the three youths who are thrown into the furnace for refusing to worship idols (3:17-18) do not burn because burning is precisely what idols of wood and metal would suffer, and thus they are presented as the true embodiment of divinity. The fact that the three youths are presented as counter-idols also lies behind v. 28: God “gave This and all subsequent quotations from Midrash Rabbah follow (unless otherwise noted) the translation in H. Freedman and N. Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah (3rd ed.; 10 vols.; tr. H. Freedman and M. Simon; London: Soncino Press, 1983), with small corrections. For Genesis Rabbah I also consulted the critical text in Julius Theodor and Chanock Albeck, eds., Midrash Bereshit Rabbah: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary (3 vols.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1903-1928), 63-64 [no volume numbers will henceforth be provided in reference to this publication, since the pages of the three volumes are numbered consecutively]. 43

CHAPTER TEN

171

(!) their bodies that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God.” To revisit chapter 4 one last time, when Nebuchadnezzar describes his restoration to “glory,” “majesty,” and “brightness” (4:36), he is using cultic language (which I have already introduced in chapter six) and finds himself the proper statue of YHWH. Nevertheless, such language occurs immediately after he praises “the Most High” (4:34) in front of whom “all the dwellers of the earth are accounted as nothing” (4:35), just as Daniel’s worship is followed by the praise of YHWH as “the god of gods and the lord of kings” (2:46-47). The explanation for these juxtapositions lies in the background of Daniel 2-4, in the narrative themselves, but it is also explicitly stated in the blessing of the God of heaven in 2:20-23, in 2:47, and 4:17: it is YHWH, “the god of gods,” who “owns wisdom and power,” who makes and unmakes kings, in whom light dwells, who “reveals mysteries” through Daniel and who “gives power to whom he wishes.” Just like the gods of old, the deified humans of Daniel 2-4—Daniel, the three youths, and Nebuchadnezzar—are not actors independent of YHWH, who possess mysteries and authority on their own. Rather, they possess YHWH’s own divinity. Daniel, we are told, has “the spirit of the holy gods” within (4:8). It is the YHWH-only fluidity which I am proposing in this study which also explains best why the juxtaposed statements of 4:35-36 are not in tension: Nebuchadnezzar is a god and yet he— together with all who dwell on earth—is nothing, or rather he is a god precisely in understanding that he is nothing. As paradoxical as this statement is, this ascetical dimension of deification seems to be taken, in a reversed reading, from the language of Ezekiel 28 and 31: if hubris amounts to loss of iconicity, the restoration of iconicity and deification of the human being resides in humility.

CHAPTER ELEVEN. BOUNDARIES AND CROSSINGS IN PSEUDO-ORPHEUS: MOSES AS A GOD I will adduce a third text in support of my thesis that at this time in early Judaism the theomorphic language of exilic times is integrated into deification theology—Pseudo-Orpheus. The text has a complicated manuscript tradition.1 A detailed analysis of this complex textual history uncovered four main recensions. After Nikolaus Walter and Carl Holladay they are usually designated as A, B, C, and D.2 B is attested in the third century Stromata and Protrepticus The Greek text can be found in G. Hermann, Orphica (Leipzig: C. Fritsch, 1805), 447-453; E. Abel, Orphica (Leipzig: G. Freytag, 1885), 144-148; O. Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta (Berlin: Weidmann, 1922), 256-265; Denis, Fragmenta, 163-167; C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors IV (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 104-148, and in editions of the witnesses listed in Holladay, Fragments IV, 100-102. English translations appeared in E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light; The Mystic Gospels of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), 279-281; D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 5455; Michael LaFargue, “Orphica,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:795-801; C. Holladay, Fragments IV, 105-149. For proposals about textual history, see LaFargue, “Orphica,” 795-796; N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (TU 86; Berlin: Akademie, 1964), 103-115, 202261; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 220-224; Holladay, Fragments IV, 48-67; idem, “The Textual Tradition of Pseudo-Orpheus: Walter or Riedweg?,” in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel sum 70. Geburtstag. 1. Judentum (ed. P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 159180; Christoph Riedweg, Jüdisch-hellenistische Imitation eines orphischen Hieros Logos (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1993). 2 Walter, Der Thoraausleger, 202-207; Holladay, Fragments IV, 48-64. 1

173

174

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

of Clement of Alexandria, C is attested in the fourth-century Praeparatio evangelica of Eusebius, D is attested in the fifth-century Graecarum Affectionum Curatio of Theodoret and in the so-called Tübingen Theosophy,3 and the shortest recension A is attested entirely in the third-century Pseudo-Justin and partially in Clement.4 This version A is most probably the earliest and it is a non-Jewish poem about Zeus.5 It was subsequently revised into the Jewish recensions B and C, which identified the enthroned figure with a “Chaldean.” D seems to be a slightly later Christian redaction of C.6 A consensus on the dating of each recension and the form of the original text has not been reached.7 We can only ascertain the termini ante quem, which are determined by the aforementioned witnesses. Holladay is confident enough to propose a tentative date for the original, non-Jewish recension A as early as the third century B.C.E.8 My interest here is in the Jewish recension C, which Eusebius claims to have also copied from Aristobulus, which would place it in the second century B.C.E. or earlier, around the time of Ezekiel’s Exagoge.9 We have no reason to doubt Eusebius, as there is no perceptible agenda for which he would misattribute the text. As Holladay remarks, “it is altogether conceivable that an early recension occurs in a late patristic

For a list of the witnesses with specific references, see Holladay, Fragments IV, 43-48. 4 For the passages that attest to recension A in Clement, see Holladay, Fragments IV, 76 n.23. 5 Holladay, Fragments IV, 67; idem, “Hellenism in the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” 74-75. 6 Holladay, Fragments IV, 49. 7 For an analysis of the various proposals, see Holladay, Fragments IV, 50-59. 8 Holladay, Fragments IV, 67. 9 Scholars have not yet reached a consensus on assigning a date to Aristobulus. Eusebius and Clement mention that Aristobulus’ writings are dedicated to Ptolemy Philometor (181-145 B.C.E.). Modern proposals vary from the middle of the second century B.C.E. to the middle of the first century B.C.E. For these opinions see Walter, Der Thoraausleger, 1026; Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 1:163-164; Adela Y. Collins, “Aristobulus,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:831-842, here 832-833. 3

CHAPTER ELEVEN

175

witness.”10 Recension C contains a vision with intriguing similarities to Exagoge’s throne scene: 26 οὐ γάρ κέν τις ἴδοι θνητῶν µερόπων κραίνοντα, 27 εἰ µὴ µουνογενής τις ἀπορρὼξ φύλου ἄνωθεν 28 Χαλδαίων· ἴδρις γὰρ ἔην ἄστροιο πορείης 29 καὶ σφαίρης κίνηµ’ἀµφὶ χθόνα ὡς περιτέλλει 30 κυκλοτερές ἐν ἴσῳ, κατὰ δὲ σφέτερον κνώδακα. 31 πνεύµατα δ’ἡνιοχεῖ περί τ’ἠέρα καὶ περὶ χεῦµα 32 νάµατος· ἐκφαίνει δὲ πυρὸς σέλας ἰφιγενήτου. 33 αὐτὸς δὴ µέγαν αὖθις ἐπ’οὐρανὸν ἐστήρικται 34 χρυσέῳ εἰνὶ θρόνῳ· γαίη δ’ὑπὸ ποσσὶ βέβηκε· 35 χεῖρα δὲ δεξιτερὴν ἐπὶ τέρµασιν ὠκεανοῖο 36 ἐκτέτακεν· ὀρέων δὲ τρέµει βάσις ἔνδοθι θυµῷ 37 [a verse which appears only in D] 38 οὐδὲ φέρειν δύναται κρατερὸν µένος. ἔστι δὲ πάντως 39 αὐτὸς ἐπουράνιος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ πάντα τελευτᾷ, 40 ἀρχὴν αὐτὸς ἔχων καὶ µέσσην ἠδὲ τελευτήν, 41 ὡς λόγος ἀρχαίων, ὡς ὑδογενὴς διέταξεν, 42 ἐκ θεόθεν γνώµῃσι λαβὼν κατὰ δίπλακα θεσµόν. 43 ἄλλως οὐ θεµιτὸν δὲ λέγειν· τροµέω δέ γε γυῖα

The following is Holladay’s translation of C with small changes: For no one of mortals could see the ruler of men, Except a certain person, a unique figure, by descent an offshoot 28 Of the Chaldean race; for he was expert in following the sun’s course 29 And the movement of the spheres around the earth, as it rotates 30 In a circle regularly, all on their respective axes. 31 And the winds he rides around both air and stream 32 Of water. And he brings forth a flame of mighty fire. 33 He indeed is firmly established hereafter over the vast heaven 34 On a golden throne, and earth stands under his feet. 35 And he stretches out his right hand upon the extremities 36 Of the ocean; and the mountain base trembles from within with rage, 37 / 26 27

10

Holladay, Fragments IV, 59-60.

176

THE LORD GOD OF GODS And it is not possible to endure his mighty force. But in every way 39 He himself is heavenly, and on earth brings all things to completion, 40 Since he possesses the beginning, as well as the middle and end. 41 As a word of the ancients, as one sprung from water, he arranged 42 In statements the two-tablet ordinance, having received it from God. 43 Now to say anything other than this is not allowed, indeed I shudder…11 38

The pre-Jewish (and pre-Christian) recension A does not contain vv. 26-30 and depicts in vv. 31-40 a divine figure, most probably Zeus. The principal issue for my interest in the text is whether the added verses 26-30 in the Jewish recension make the Chaldean the subject of vv. 31-40, or whether, even after the insertion, the subject of 31-40 reverts back to verse 25 or earlier. Even after the insertion of vv. 26-30, these earlier verses retain many parallelisms and a strong connection with vv. 31-40. Therefore, the burden is to show that in version C the inserted vv. 26-30 interrupt these previous syntactic links. Since C has removed vv. 22-24, the immediately preceding reference to God as a subject occurs in v. 21: αὐτὸν δ’οὐχ ὁρόω· περὶ γὰρ νέφος ἐστήρικται. There is another problem at the other end of the possible syntactical bridge, in verse 31: πνεύµατα δ’ἡνιοχεῖ. The first issue is whether πνεύµατα is the subject of ἡνιοχεῖ. The question has occasionally been answered in the affirmative,12 but that is very improbable. All the other versions have here a dative of instrument πνεύµατι. Even when the phrase πνεύµατα δ’ἡνιοχεῖ is analyzed without attention to the other recensions, ἡνιοχεῖ is a singular, and while neuter plurals can on occasion take singular verbs, it is rather more likely that πνεύµατα is here a direct object and the subject is unstated. In this case the second issue is whether the particle δέ bears enough referential force to connect ἡνιοχεῖ back to the The translation, with small corrections, is from Holladay, Fragments IV, 195. 12 For this proposal, see Holladay, Fragments IV, 152. 11

CHAPTER ELEVEN

177

subject of v. 21, which is God. It is immediately obvious that it cannot bridge so far by itself. By itself it can bridge a short parenthesis, explication, progression, enumeration, or coordination. Long bridging would require a second correlative δέ or an oppositional µέν at the other end. This is not the situation here. δέ does indeed appear in v. 21, but it is used for opposition to the preceding verses 19-20. Moreover, the correlation between δέ in v. 21 and δέ in v. 31 is further hindered by the fact that another δέ appears in between the two verses and just immediately before v. 31, in v. 30.13 The particle also appears frequently throughout the text (vv. 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 43). The long chain of frequent occurrences suggests a short transitional value of δέ, as Holladay’s translation with “and” reflects, and not a long bridging. Since the subject of ἡνιοχεῖ is not πνεύµατα and δέ most probably does not provide sufficient transitional force to link ἡνιοχεῖ back to v. 21, bridging other occurrences of δέ, the referent of ἡνιοχεῖ can only be the immediately preceding subject, of vv. 27-30—the Chaldean. There is another issue which needs attention, in v. 33. This verse is introduced with αὐτὸς δή. δή by itself could express a resumption after an interruption or parenthesis, but in association with a pronoun it emphasizes the pronoun. Holladay translates the phrase as “he indeed,”14 but it could as well be translated as “he himself.” Therefore, the proposal that v. 31 shifts the subject back to God15 makes less sense in view of this emphasis; we would have here a pleonastic, double shift. Scholars commonly identify the Chaldean in this recension with Moses, who is called a Chaldean in Philo’s Mos. 1.2.16 In vv.

Recension B, however, has τε in v. 30. See also the comment in Holladay, Fragments IV, 212. 15 Thus Walter, JSHRZ 4:239. See Holladay, Fragments IV, 183-184. 16 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 222; Holladay, Fragments IV, 182, 207-208; LaFargue, “Orphica,” 799 n.i; L. C. Valckener, Diatribe de Aristobulo Judaeo, philosopho peripatetico Alexandrino (Leiden: Luchtmans, 1806), 11-16,73-85; A. Elter, De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia atque origine: Commentatio (Bonn: University Press, 1893-1897), 179. This is also the interpretation of a marginal gloss of the Theosophy (text in Holladay, Fragments IV, 229). 13 14

178

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

41-42 the peculiar adjective “one sprung from water” is doubtlessly an allusion to Exod 2:3-10 and the reference to “the twotablet law” is certainly an allusion to the Sinai story. At a first glance, this is an extraordinary description of a human being. It seems to me that only this extraordinariness of a human subject explains v. 43; there is no reason for which the author would shy away from describing God’s dominion, for which the biblical narrative itself provides plentiful material, as I have already shown in chapter two. Yet, as remarkable as this description of the governance and enthronement of Moses is at a first glance, closer examination will find that this text does not attribute to Moses anything which is not also in Exagoge. Holladay has already noted many parallels between the two passages (and Pseudo-Orpheus and Exagoge as a whole).17 To his list need to be added two additional similarities. The dimensions of the Chaldean’s “golden throne” (echoing the divine throne in Isa 66:1, as already noted by Clement of Alexandria) are enormous and Moses’ throne in Exagoge is depicted as “vast.” Second, the Chaldean’s possession of “the beginning, the middle and the end” echoes Moses’ knowledge of “those that are, those that have been and those that will be.” In light of his parallels between the two texts, Holladay even submits that “it is conceivable that the poem should be attributed to Ezekiel.”18 The biblical roots of Pseudo-Orpheus’ scene go far beyond the allusion to Isa 66:1. Christoph Riedweg associates the imagery of vv. 31-32 with the theme of the divine charioteer, present in Philo Somn. 1.25 and 2.44.19 Verses 36-38 are clearly reminiscent of the motif of divine warrior.20 Particularly similar to the Chaldean is the Destroyer (‫ )משחית‬mentioned in three biblical texts. In Exod 12:23 the Destroyer functions as a military envoy of YHWH, with the mission to kill all the firstborns of Egypt. 2 Sam 24:1517 describes an anthropomorphic ‫מלאך המשחית‬, sent by YHWH to kill thousands of people. The scene suggests that the ‫ מלאך‬has Fragments IV, 89-90 n.111. Fragments IV, 68. 19 Christoph Riedweg, Jüdisch-hellenistische Imitation, 92-93. See also Holladay, Fragments IV, 184. 20 On angels as divine warriors, see Michalak, Angels as Warriors. 17 18

CHAPTER ELEVEN

179

gigantic proportions, which is a divine feature. 1 Chr 21: 14-16, which re-narrates the same event, describes the Destroyer as a being of gigantic proportions standing “between earth and heaven.”21 The rage or fury of the mountains in verse 36 only makes sense at the presence of a warrior, not of God, in front of whom the mountains tremble, melt, get ablaze, and prostrate themselves (cf. Ps 18:7, 97:5, 104:32, 144:5). Michael LaFargue attributes the fury to the enthroned,22 but grammatically that is too far of a stretch, unless we are willing to take the dative θυµῷ as agentive

While there is a tendency in late Second Temple and early rabbinic periods to ignore the mention of this figure (e.g., Josephus, Ant. II.313), several sources acknowledge his existence (see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews [trans. H. Szold, P. Radin; 7 vols.; 3rd edition; Baltimore, London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998], 5:433-434). The most interesting is Wis 18:15-16, which describes the slayer of the firstborns as the personified Logos of God, descended from the heavenly throne in the form of a warrior who “touched heaven while standing on the earth.” Ezekiel the Tragedian also mentions a “fearsome angel” (Exagoge 159) as a gruesome destroyer, whom he subsequently identifies with Death (Exagoge 187). Testament of Abraham depicts the angel of death as similarly fearsome. Interestingly, in the Falashic Death of Moses the angel of death is no other than Suriel, another identity of the archangel Uriel (W. Leslau, Falasha Anthology [2nd ed.; New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1979], 109). In Memar Marqah 2:9 the Destroyer is identified as God’s “regent” (‫ )שלטן‬and “Glory” (‫)כבוד‬. It must be noted that the destructive character of heavenly warriors is not necessarily malevolent in Second Temple literature. A fierce and destructive nature is common among the angels of the apocalyptic and merkabah literatures. Thus 1 Enoch mentions several destructive angels that serve under YHWH’s command as his helpers (53:3; 56:1; 66:1). It is a later development of this tradition that the higher an angel’s status in heaven is the more fearsome is his countenance. The highest princes in 3 Enoch are repeatedly called “terrible” (16:5; 18:19-22; 19:1). In Apocalypse of Abraham the attendants of the throne are even perilous to each other (10:9; 18:8-10). In rabbinic literature Gabriel is often depicted as a destructive angel: Genesis Rabbah 50:2; Lamentations Rabbah 2; b. Bava Metzi’a 86b; Ginzberg, Legends, 6:160. See also the testimony of Origen in On First Principles 1.8.1. 22 “Orphica,” 35. 21

180

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

and as a title of the Chaldean.23 In light of the presence of a divine warrior, it seems more likely to me that in their fury the mountains join the divine warrior in his mission, which is the subduing of the world. Nonetheless, it is evident that a Greek poem about Zeus was revised and expanded into an extensive portrayal of Moses most probably as early as the second century B.C.E. The portrait depicts Moses as a charioteer divine warrior, enthroned in heaven and possessing unlimited dominion over the earth. Yet, it is not the portrayal of Moses as a god that is the most intriguing aspect of the text. This portrait only attests to what has already been witnessed in Exagoge. Rather, the most intriguing aspect is that this remarkable deification is framed by two emphatic mentions of Moses’ humanity: we are told that he is “one of mortals” in v. 26 and “one sprung from water” in v. 41. Just like with Exagoge and Daniel 2-4 there is no indication here that this emphasis on Moses’ humanity is held in tension with his deification. On the contrary, God is acknowledged as the “ruler of men” (v. 26) and to be human means to be deified. The divine selfhood is completely open to participation, even in impressive ways, only once God’s distinctiveness is established.

Evidence adduced by Olyan suggests that the divine rage retains a hypostatic character and evolves toward “angelification” in late Second Temple Judaism (A Thousand Thousands, 98-102). 23

CHAPTER TWELVE. CROSSING THE DIVINE BORDERS IN 4Q491C AND 4Q427 7 I The outlines of this deification paradox common to Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus recension C, are even clearer when placed in contrast with two peculiar and related fragmentary scrolls from Qumran: 4Q491c and 4Q427 7 I. My interest here is not to hold these two groups of texts in a direct or indirect connection,1 but rather in mere contrast. The first text, 4Q491c, 2 contains the words of a person claiming divine status, residence in heaven among ‫אלים‬, and a “mighty As one of the anonymous reviewers of Gorgias justly pointed out, “even if one imagines that multiple copies of a text is a sure sign of its authority and popularity, it is hard to argue for the proliferation of the ideas in this composition to other texts in the Second Temple period.” I wish to thank this reviewer again. 2 The fragments are edited in M. Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482– 4Q520) (DJD VII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 26-30, pl. VI. For literature on these fragments, see Morton Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QMa,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman; JSPS 8; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 181-188; idem, “Two Ascended to Heaven - Jesus and the Author of 4Q491,” in Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 290301; M. G. Abegg, “Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteousness,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 1997), 61-73; Devorah Dimant, “A Synoptic Comparison of Parallel Sections in 4Q427 7, 4Q491 11 and 4Q471B,” JQR 85 (1994): 157-161; J. C. O’Neill, “ ‘Who is Comparable to Me in My Glory?’ 4Q491 fragment 11 (4Q491C) 1

181

182

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

throne.” The following is Florentino García Martínez’ translation of fragment 1 lines 4-11 based on Maurice Baillet’s reconstruction: […] … […] … and the council of the poor for an eternal congregation. […] the perfect ones of 5 [… et]ernal; a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods (‫)כסא עוז בעדת אלים‬ above which none of the kings of the East shall sit, and their nobles no[t …] silence (?) 6 […] my glory is in{comparable} and besides me no-one is exalted, nor comes to me, for I reside in […], in the heavens, and there is no 7 […] … I am counted among the gods (‫ )אני עם אלים אתחשב‬and my dwelling is in the holy congregation (‫[ ;)בעדת קודש‬my] des[ire] is not according to the flesh, [but] all that is precious to me is in (the) glory (of) 8 […] the holy [dwel]ling. [W]ho has been considered despicable on my account? And who is comparable to me in my glory? Who, like the sailors, will come back and tell? 9 […] Who bea[rs all] sorrows like me? And who [suffe]rs evil like me? There is no-one. I have been instructed, and there is no teaching comparable 10 [to my teaching …] And who will attack me when [I] op[en my mouth]? And who can endure the flow of my lips? And who will confront me and retain comparison with my judgment? 11 [… friend of the king, companion of the holy ones … incomparable, f]or among the gods is [my] posi[tion, and] my glory is with the sons of the king. To me (belongs) [pure] gold, and to me, the gold of Ophir.3 4

Fragment 2, which undoubtedly belongs with fragment 1,4 reads: [. . .] his dwelling, and honoured [. . .] [. . .] for my enlargement (‫[ )לרחובי‬. . .] [. . .] I am the majesty of the [. . .].5 and the New Testament,” NT 42 (2000): 24-38; Florentino García Martínez, Qumranica Minora I. Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105-125. 3 Translation and original text from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 980-981, the original text being taken from Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 26-30, pl. VI. 4 Baillet notes that 4Q491c 2 “fait sans doute partie de la même colonne que 11 I [i.e. 4Q491c 1], mais on n’a pu déterminer sa place exacte” (Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 30). 5 Translation from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 981.

CHAPTER TWELVE

183

Baillet, the original publisher of the fragments, dated 4Q491c paleographically to the early Herodian period.6 It has been well established that the 4Q491c is connected—possibly even as different recensions of the same Urtext—to 4Q427 7 I.7-13, 1QH 25:34-27:3, and 4Q431 frag. 1 (=4Q471b) and frag. 2.7 Whereas 4Q431 fragments 1 (=4Q471b)8 and 2 are too fragmentary to be discussed here and 1QH 25:34-27:3 is largely reconstructed, 4Q427 7 I.7-13 contains legible text which parallels 4Q491c.9 Eileen Schuller dates 4Q427 to either the late Hasmonean or the early Herodian period.10 I will refer to the text in my analysis of the imagery it shares with 4Q491c, but for now it is sufficient to point out that these related texts point to an earlier date for their common Urtext, in the early first century or even late second century B.C.E. No one has described the essence of the poem in 4Q491c and 4Q427 more colorfully than Morton Smith (setting aside the misreading of early Christologies): The Qumran fragments have provided a little poem by some egomaniac who claimed to have done just what I conjectured Jesus claimed, that is, entered the heavenly kingdom and

Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 12. Abegg, “Who Ascended to Heaven?” 61-73; John J. Collins and Devorah Dimant, “A Thrice-Told Hymn: A Response to Eileen Schuller,” JQR 85/1 (1994): 151-155, here pp. 152-153; Dimant, “A Synoptic Comparison,” 157-161. 8 This fragment has been published twice by two different editors in Esther Chazon et al., Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XXIX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 199-208 (Eileen Schuller’s edition 4Q431) and 421-432 (Esti Eshel’s edition of 4Q471b). 9 Particularly the parallels between 4Q491c and 4Q427 7 I lead to the conclusion that the two texts are “witnesses for the same textual tradition, at least for the passages in question [i.e., those parallel]. It would also mean that the two distinct literary units were already juxtaposed in the textual tradition reflected by the two texts. Thus, these texts indicate that the complexity, and perhaps the antiquity, of the textual and literary history lying behind these works.” (Dimant, “A Synoptic Comparison,” 161) 10 Eileen Schuller, “Hodayot,” in Cazon, ed., Qumran Cave 4.XX, 69-254, here p. 83. 6 7

184

THE LORD GOD OF GODS secured a chair with tenure, while yet commuting to earth and carrying on his teaching here.11

Baillet proposes Michael for the identity of the “egomaniac,”12 García Martínez accepts Baillet’s proposal as a possibility and advances the “prince of light” from the War Scroll as another possibility.13 Angelic identities have been called into question, mostly based on the denial of fleshly desires in line 7 and on the speaker’s comparison with earthly kings.14 Yet, these arguments, as García Martínez rightly points out, are not convincing.15 Regardless of the identity, John Collins notes that the closest parallel to 4Q491c is the throne scene in Exagoge.16 I would also note that two of these parallel elements are shared with both the Exagoge and the Jewish recension of Pseudo-Orpheus analyzed above (C): enthronement and enlargement. In my opinion, line 11 of 4Q491c might suggest an additional correspondence: . . . among the gods is [my] posi[tion, and] my glory is with the sons of the king. To me (belongs) [pure] gold, and to me, the gold of Ophir.

Smith translates differently the reference to the gold of Ophir: I shall be reckoned with gods, and my glory, with [that of] the king’s sons. Neither refined gold, nor gold of Ophir [can match my wisdom].17 “Two Ascended to Heaven,” 294-295. Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 26-30. Other proposals are reviewed in García Martínez, Qumranica Minora I, 106-111. 13 García Martínez, Qumranica Minora I, 122-123. 14 E.g., Smith, “Two Ascended to Heaven,” 296-299; Segal, “The Risen Christ,” 308; Collins and Dimant, “A Thrice-Told Hymn,” 154-155; John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star. The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 136-139; idem, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London/New York: Routledge, 1997), 143-147; Dimant, “A Synoptic Comparison,” 161; O’Neill, “Who is Comparable to Me in My Glory,” esp. 24-26. 15 García Martínez, Qumranica Minora I, 119-120. 16 Collins and Dimant, “A Thrice-Told Hymn,” 154-155. 17 “Two Ascended to Heaven,” 296. Also James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 160: “I will not crown myself with gold, nor the gold of Ophir”. 11 12

CHAPTER TWELVE

185

The original will explain the difference. Here in Baillet’s reconstruction: ‫ אניא עם אלים אחשב וכבודי עם בני המלך לוא פז ולוא כתם אופירים‬18 Since there is no discernable distinction in handwriting between wāw and yôd, the difference between translations lies on whether one reads the two italicized words as ‫ לוא‬or as ‫ליא‬. Baillet, who simply remarks that one should read “‫ ליא‬plutôt que ‫ לוא‬d’après le contexte” in line 8 (15 in his edition), recommends in line 11 “‫לוא‬ plutôt que ‫ליא‬,” although there is no discernable difference in handwriting between the two lines.19 However, the two negating ‫ לוא‬in line 11 do not make any sense without a further development in the sentence and, despite Smith’s addition of “can make my wisdom”, the line which follows this phrase seems to be left blank intentionally, in order to mark the transition to another canticle.20 If the sentence ends with ‫כתם אופירים‬, the only possible reading in this context is ‫ליא‬, as García Martínez rightly concludes. García Martínez’ and Eileen Schuller’s dissenting translations of the parallel line in 4Q427 7 I.11-12 also need explanation: [. . .] my [glo]ry it will not be comparable; a[s f]or me, [my] place is with the heavenly beings,21 12 [. . .]r not (‫ )לא‬by gold will I . . . (‫ )אכתיר‬for myself, and the gold of ( ‫וכתם או‬ ‫ )ביורים‬Ophirim not (‫[ )לוא‬. . .] .22 11

The text is clearly puzzling. While the first full word of line 12 is clearly ‫לא‬, it is not immediately obvious why the writer uses this spelling when he consistently spells throughout the fragment ‫לוא‬. If ‫ לא‬is unintentional, it could stand for both ‫ ליא‬and ‫לוא‬. Second, Schuller considers that three letters are missing from []‫אכ‬. The top or the letter following kāp is partially visible and Schuller simply rules out mêm.23 However, the letter could also be a tāw The text follows Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 26-27. Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 27-28. 20 Ibid., 28. 21 I would rather translate ‘gods.’ 22 Schuller, “Hodayot,” 99. For the original text, see Ibid., 96, pl. V. 23 Ibid., 98. 18 19

186

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

and the word could be reconstructed as ‫אכתיר‬, as García Martínez does.24 Third, there is a perceptible space between ‫ או‬and ‫;ביורים‬ ‫ וכתם או ביורים‬is certainly not ‫ כתם אופירים‬and neither it is immediately meaningful. Fourth, the final ‫ לוא‬in line 12 could very well be a ‫ליא‬. All these textual problems suggest that the above translation is problematic, if not improbable. There is no clear reference to the gold of Ophirim. If the gold is mentioned, it could be either denied or granted to the speaker. The parallelism with 4Q491c suggests that it is granted. The literary history of the gold of Ophir further supports the attribution of the precious metal to the enthroned subject of 4Q491c. In biblical narratives the special gold is used in the temple (cf. 1 Chr 29:1-5) and in later literature it becomes associated with the divine presence in the holy of holies, the kabod. Dan 10:5-6 describes “a man dressed in linen with loins girt with gold from Ophir” in terms reminiscent of the kabod of Ezekiel 125 and of the primeval humanity of Ezekiel 28.26 It has been commonly contended that the “man” is an angelic being, especially Gabriel.27 However, the fact that the anonymous figure is both patterned after the kabod of Ezekiel 1 and the primeval humanity of Ezekiel 28 rather suggests a human identity. At Qumran, one of the fragments of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q405 23.II 9-10), composed before the late Hasmonean period (75-50 B.C.E.) and exhibiting several parallels to 4Q491c,28 depicts “the likeness of García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 896. Both Dan 10:5-6 and Ezekiel 1 refer to the loins of their subjects. The eyes of the man of Daniel 10 are compared to “torches of fire” (‫)לפידי אש‬, expression reminiscent of Ezek 1:14. For other parallelisms with Ezekiel 1, see Rowland, Open Heaven, 98-99; Collins, Daniel, 373-374. 26 Rowland notes that Daniel 10 shares with Ezek 28:13 several words such as ‫תרשיש‬, ‫זהב‬, and ‫ברקת‬. He concludes that “common indebtedness [of Rev 4:3 and Dan 10:4-9] to Ezekiel 28:13 suggests that this passage was an important feature of the development of the heavenly man tradition and at the same time is an indirect link between Daniel 10.6 and the human figure sitting on the throne of glory [i.e. the kabod].” (Open Heaven, 99) 27 Christopher C. Rowland, “A Man Clothed in White Linen,” JSNT 24 (1985): 99-110; Collins, Daniel, 373-374. 28 See Davila, Liturgical Works, 160. 24 25

CHAPTER TWELVE

187

the spirit of the glory” (‫ )דמות רוח כבוד‬as an “appearance of whiteness” (‫ )מראי חור‬and “like the workmanship of Ophir, which diffuses light” (‫)כמעשי אופירים מאירי אור‬. James Davila has noted that the phrases echo both the depiction of the kabod in Ezekiel 1 as ‫דמות כמראה אדם‬, and the creation of Adam “in the likeness of your glory” (‫ )בדמות כבודכה‬in 4Q504 8 recto.29 The word play ‫מראי‬-‫מאירי‬ is evident. In light of all this evidence, it is probable that 4Q491c 1 does not deny, but attributes the pure gold of Ophir to the one seated on a “mighty throne” in heaven and thus constructs a reference to the kabod. The speaker of 4Q491c 1 seems to claim not only enthronement, deification, and an enormous size, but also an identification with the kabod of Ezekiel 1. Yet, the glorification hymn carries an aspect in which the text is most contrasting to Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus: it maintains no distinction between God and the glorified. Smith phrases this as follows: This speaker’s claim to have been taken up and seated in heaven and counted as one of the gods (ʾelîm) is more direct and explicit than anything I remember in the Thanksgiving Hymns or in any other of the Dead Sea Scrolls hitherto published. . . There is nothing here of the emphasis on revelation, on the secrets of the heavens, the role of the spirit, and the distinction between the ʾelîm and the one God “with whom there is no other” (12.11).30

The claim made here—by a human or, less likely, by an angel— exceeds the boundaries of deification. Even though it speaks of a plurality of gods, it abounds with the “who-is-like-me” language traditionally used of YHWH and the hubris punished in Ezekiel 28 and 31, and Daniel 2-4. Furthermore, in line 6 the speaker even denies the glorification of others; to my knowledge, nowhere else in Second Temple literature is the distribution of divinity a prerogative of anyone else but YHWH. Indeed, the hymn is so bold that J. C. O’Neill feels compelled to submit unwarranted semantic subtleties: the language “is more likely to mean ‘my office is (recognized) among the gods’ [i.e., 4Q427 7 I.10] than ‘my 29 30

Davila, Liturgical Works, 161. “Two Ascended to Heaven,” 298.

188

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

office is (to be equal) with the gods’.”31 However, the hymn claims precisely the opposite: “my office is among the gods” and “I am a god.”32

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the evidence presented in this part converges on the second century B.C.E. On the one hand, 4Q491c and 4Q427, which describe a god without any concerns for distinctions or exclusions from YHWH, provides the best contrast against which the deification tradition appears in clearer outlines. On the other hand, three texts—Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and PseudoOrpheus recension C—mark an important stage in the development of deification traditions: the language of the postexilic theomorphic anthropology is incorporated into the forgiving fluidity of deification. The remarkable deification of their human subjects—Moses and Daniel—is accompanied by the exclusionary language of the theomorphic anthropology prominent in Ezekiel. There is nothing in these texts to indicate that the two traditions are held in tension, but rather both the inclusion and exclusion of humanity in the divine are equal aspects of a paradoxical simultaneity: human beings are made gods just as they remain distinct from God. With this clear distinction in place, the deification of the human being is no longer expressed as a shedding of one’s humanity, but rather as a true embracing of it. The point is theological and ascetical, and paradoxical in both regards: God is revealed as simultaneously shared and unshared, and the human being shares in his divinity not in becoming less of itself, but more—more nothing, in the language of Daniel 2-4.

O’Neill, “Who is Comparable to Me in My Glory,” 26. O’Neill, who pursues similarities with early Christologies (John 3:13 and Hebrews 1-2), concludes: “The speaker is accordingly boasting of his dual status: not only is he counted among the gods, but also his foundation is in the Holy Congregation on earth” (“Who is Comparable to Me in My Glory,” 27). However, it is precisely the unsettled boundaries of the divine ontology, which O’Neill fears so much in regard to 4Q491c, that allowed their challenge in early Christian texts such as John 3:13 and Hebrews 1-2. 31 32

CHAPTER TWELVE

189

In this new deification model, the boundaries between God and gods become at once clearer and less rigid. On closer inspection of the texts this is not a paradox: the fences come down between those who have learned well the boundaries. It is only clarity which affords greater fluidity. Thus in this newer model of deification theology there is nothing which one would naturally direct to God and which God does not also allow—and even prescribe—to be directed to his gods. The only limit is confusion— the deified gods can receive the entire treatment of God, even worship, but as gods and not as God. And indeed in these texts confusions are rare, so lessons in exclusion are rarely given. With this clarity in place, I am turning in the last part of this study to the accounts of human deification which abound in subsequent Jewish literature.

I NTRODUCTION

The previous chapters have already advanced my three main arguments. The first is that at the heart of the theology of the Hebrew Bible overall is a fluid YHWH-only divinity, which means that there is only one divine selfhood, YHWH’s, which he shares with other beings, including humans, to varying degrees and at his own discretion. As such, the difference between the deified and YHWH lies primarily in the manner in which they possess divinity: YHWH possesses it absolutely, as his own, while the gods possess it relatively, only through participation in YHWH and in dependence of him. In Second Temple literature this distinction is widely defined as creatureliness, language which comes to serve not as an absolute exclusion from divinity, but rather as a line of demarcation in inclusion. The second argument is that, in Ezekiel and the Priestly source, the human access to divinity is appropriated into a new anthropology and iconicity which, on the one hand, assign humanity overall the function of YHWH’s cultic statue, and, on the other, remove it from participation in YHWH’s selfhood through a redefinition of iconicity. Finally, the third argument is that three texts—Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus—mark another stage in the development of deification traditions, in which inclusion into the godhead is not accompanied by the exclusionary language of the theomorphic anthropology prominent in Ezekiel. On the contrary, theomorphic and deified humans are allowed everything which ultimately belongs to God—enthronement, governance of the world, worship, etc. The only limit is confusion—the deified gods can receive the entire divine identity and treatment, but as gods and not as God. This heightening of both boundaries and crossings between God and gods, in which difference becomes both clearer and less rigid, has led to an explosion of deification accounts. In these, as we will find in this final section, it is not very often that the divine selfhood needs to exclude the deified, as much as these exclusions have arrested the attention of contemporary scholarship. The issue is not a particular divine feature which humans (or angels) share, 193

194

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

but the manner in which the divine features are perceived in the deified, by the deified themselves or by others. There is nothing in the texts analyzed in this part to suggest that the participation in God is ever a threat to God’s uniqueness. The rare correction shows that God does not share the manner in which he possesses divinity. In line with biblical theology, God uniquely possesses divinity in and of himself. The deified possess God’s divinity at God’s discretion, in an absolute dependence on him. Therefore, the correction does not always amount to the permanent removal of the divine feature from the deified, but it does always point to this essential distinction between God and his gods. This final part of my study is dedicated to such late ancient accounts of inclusion in the godhead with a particular attention to language, especially as they retain the language of the inherited texts analyzed so far. It is now propitious to revisit a question which I introduced earlier on, in the conclusion to part two: How do we recognize deification? Or rather, How do we know when our authors recognize and express deification? I revisited there the argument already advanced in the introduction, that modern categories are not particularly useful. Their fixed clarity does not accommodate well the complex dynamism of divinity and humanity in early Judaism, and proceeds in ways thoroughly estranged from the early Jewish processing of life, from definition toward recognition. In contrast early Judaism, unaided by much later formalizations and categorizations of religious thought, recognized divinity first and last, at the basic level of inherited experiences and descriptors, and then it proceeded to expressing this recognition in the inherited symbolic language of divinity, of descriptors or features of God. It could be said that this final part of my study is an exercise in the recognition of a recognition. As I already confessed, it may be possible to parse the textual evidence in more minute ways than I do (such as to talk about different kinds of divinity and their particulars), or, reversely, to pursue overarching paradigms,1 but my I agree with Annette Yoshiko Reed’s criticism of pursuits of general paradigms, but only to a certain extent (“Categorization, Collection, and the Construction of Continuity: 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch in and beyond ‘Apocalypticism’ and ‘Mysticism’,” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 29 [2017]: 268-311). My reservation is primarily due to the fact that 1

PART FOUR. INTRODUCTION

195

aim is more restrained—to find the symbolism of this recognition language.

her (over-)contextualization does not allow the ancient language to work—both synchronically and diachronically—in the manner in which it was designed to work, as symbols. Of course, the point is well made that more often than not we cannot posit any connections, direct or indirect, among our sources. Yet, symbolic language does not require such connections. Paradoxically, the power of symbolism lies precisely in its ability to work outside of propositions. Of course intertextuality is at the heart of symbolic language, but this intertextuality is not conceptual or propositional, but aesthetic. A symbolic text connects to other symbolic texts like paintings connect to one another.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN. THE INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION OF HUMANITY AND ANGELS IN THE DIVINE IN RABBINIC JUDAISM Before this investigation in symbolism proceeds in the earnest, classical rabbinic literature—which will be used in this part extensively—must be introduced in its intricacies.1 As it will be obvious, I both agree and disagree with existing scholarship on rabbinic theology. Early rabbinic literature offers only very few examples of confusions between God and angels or humans.2 Many of these instances surface in the Two Powers ‘heresies’ (so labelled by rabbinic texts). Illustrative is b. Hagigah 15a, one of the classical texts on Metatron,3 the primary “mediatorial” figure of early rabbinic literature: To date the best (and thorough) introduction to this literature is Hermann L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (2nd ed., trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). The latest (ninth) German edition is fully revised and it includes an updated bibliography (Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch [Munich: C. H. Beck, 2011]). It still awaits translation into English. The essays in Shmuel Safrai, ed. The Literature of the Sages (2 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987, 2006), are also useful, even if they are less critical and historical. 2 On the confusion between God and humans see especially the illuminating discussion in Idel, Kabbalah, 59-73. 3 On Metatron in general see G. F. Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron,” HTR 15 (1922): 41-85; Hugo Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: Ktav, 1973); 1

197

198

THE LORD GOD OF GODS 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

C. Kaplan, “The Angel of Peace, Uriel - Metatron,” AThR 13 (1931): 306313; Black, “The Origin of the Name Metatron,” 217-219; Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism; idem, Major Trends; idem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead; idem, Origins of the Kabbalah (trans. Allan Arkush; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); Segal, Two Powers; Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 156-180; G. Vajda, “Pour le dossier de Metatron,” in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History Presented to A. Altmann (ed. S. Stein and R. Loewe; University of Alabama Press, 1979), 345-354; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic; S. Lieberman, “Metatron, the Meaning of His Name and His Functions,” appendix in Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 235-241; J. Dan, “The Seventy Names of Metatron,” in Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1982), C.19-23; Cohen, The Shi’ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theorgy; Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God,” 269-288; Fossum, Name of God, 307-320; Idel, “Enoch Is Metatron,” 220-240; W. Fauth, “Tatrosjah-totrosjah und Metatron in der juedischen Merkabah-Mystik,” JSJ 22 (1991): 40-87; Moray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism”; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Metatron and Shi`ur Qomah in the Writings of Haside Ashkenaz,” in Mysticism, Magic and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism (ed. Karl E. Groezinger and J. Dan; Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 6092; James R. Davila, “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron. Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St Andrew’s Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (ed. C. Newman et al.; SJSJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 3-18; Andrei Orlov, “Ex 33 on God’s Face,” 130-147; Idem, “The Origin of the Name ‘Metatron’ and the Text of 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” JSP 21 (2000): 1926; Idem, “Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch,” JSP 18 (1998): 71-86; idem, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition; idem, Yahoel and Metatron: Aural Apocalypticism and the Origins of Early Jewish Mysticism (TSAJ, 169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017). For proposals on the name of Metatron, beside several of the titles mentioned above, see also Black, “The Origin of the Name Metatron,” 217-219; Lieberman, “Metatron, the Meaning of His Name and His Functions,” 235-241; Scholem, Major Trends, 67-70; Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God”; Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 162-167; Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 142-146.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

199

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.4

The text draws a sharp and remarkable boundary between a heretical Aher, who stands for the otherness of Two Powers theologies, and an orthodox self, One Power in Heaven.5 The Two Powers heresies and the alternative rabbinic orthodoxy have been justly reevaluated in more recent scholarship.6 The old paradigm which, by simply replicating the rabbinic agendas rather than deconstructing them,7 estimated the rabbinic opposition to the Two Power heresies as the imposition of an existing orthodox norm has been justly abandoned. According to the new perspective, the views predominantly regarded as heretical by the late rabbinic corpus constituted traditional theological options in the pre-orthodox environment of late antiquity Judaism. As Daniel Boyarin frames this new view, “‘Two Powers in Heaven’ could not have been an early category of heresy but could only have been one of the options for the Jewish belief at the time.”8 Reversely, “the This and all subsequent texts from the Babylonian Talmud (unless noted otherwise) follow the translation in I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud (35 vols.; London: Soncino Press, 1935-1948). 5 See commentary in Boyarin, Border Lines, 142-144. 6 E.g., Boyarin, Border Lines, esp. 120-147; idem, “Two Powers in Heaven; Or, The making of a Heresy,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 331-370; idem, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94 (2001): 243-284. 7 Boyarin astutely warns: “We must avoid the serious methodological error of regarding all non-rabbinic religious expression by Jews during the rabbinic period as somehow not quite legitimate or of marginalizing it by naming it as syncretistic or uninformed, thus simply reproducing the rabbinic theology, rather than subjecting it to historical criticism. In other words, the consensus of scholars of rabbinic Judaism [that postulates a rabbinic consensus protective of a traditional orthodoxy] . . . simply replicates the consensus of the Rabbis themselves, whereas the current scholarly task is to read this latter consensus against its grain, in order to see what it is that it mystified in order to construct its hegemony” (“Two Powers in Heaven,” 335-336). 8 Boyarin, “Two Powers in Heaven,” 333. 4

200

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

orthodoxy that the Rabbis were concerned about was an orthodoxy that they were making [my emphasis] by constructing ‘Two Powers in Heaven’ as heresy.”9 In other words the rabbis move in two directions at once, outwardly and inwardly: by constructing a heretical “other” or a designated outsider, they concomitantly define an orthodox “self.”10 The conclusion of this new paradigm is that the new rabbinic orthodoxy amounts not to a defense of tradition, but rather a repudiation of it, through the removal of (certain) traditional theological options. Also, in their re-envisioning of tradition in their image, the rabbis construct an imposition on the past. Furthermore, this retroactive “repudiation of all intermediaries is a repudiation of something internal, not only to Judaism but even to rabbinic Judaism”11; “the difference within has been renominated a contamination from without.”12 The rabbinic repudiation of Two Powers heresies is not a report of essential differences between Judaism and a heretical “other,” but rather “a rabbinic production of the defining limits of what the Rabbis take to be Judaism [my emphasis] via the abjection of one traditional element in Jewish religiosity.”13 For a better understanding of this rabbinic orthodoxy, another rabbinic text has to be brought into discussion—b. Hagigah 14a, in which we can observe the same tradition-making strategy as in the nearby 15a: One passage says: His throne was fiery flames; and another passage says: Till thrones were places, and One that was ancient of days did sit! — There is no contradiction: one [throne] for Him, and one for David; this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: Akiba, how long wilt thou treat the Divine Presence as profane! Rather, [it must mean], one

Boyarin, “Two Powers in Heaven,” 332. Boyarin, Border Lines; idem, “Two Powers in Heaven,” esp. 332-339; Christine E. Hayes, “Displaced Self-Perceptions: The Deployment of Minim and Romans in B. Sanhedrin 90b-91a,” in Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine (ed. Hayim Lapin; Potomac: University Press of Maryland, 1998), 249-289. 11 Boyarin, Border Lines, 132. 12 Boyarin, “Two Powers in Heaven,” 347. 13 Boyarin, Border Lines, 133. 9

10

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

201

for justice and one for grace. Did he accept [this explanation from him, or did he not accept it? — Come and hear: One for justice and one for grace; this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah to him: Akiba, what hast thou to do with Aggadah? Cease thy talk, and turn to [the laws concerning defilement through] leprosy-signs and tent-covering! Rather, [it must mean] one for a throne and one for a stool; the throne to sit upon, the stool for a footrest, for it is said: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My foot-rest.

The critical question in the understanding of the Two Powers heresies and the rabbinic orthodox solution lies in the manner in which the second power is conceived in relation to the first. In Daniel Abrams’ terms, “the difference [between the two beliefs] centers around the inclusion or exclusion of the divine manifestation within the godhead.”14 In this regard, Rabbinic orthodoxy, it has been concluded, is modalist.15 I do agree by and large with this new paradigm, but it needs further adjustment, in light of my proposal that early Jewish theology overall is defined by deification, not by exclusions from the divine. This, as I will venture to evidence even further in the following chapters, is true of rabbinic theology.16 For now the following introductory observations to this end will suffice. Daniel Abrams, “The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead,” HTR 87 (1994): 291-321, here p. 297. 15 On modalism as the center of rabbinic theology, see particularly Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, and Boyarin, Border Lines. Several Christian sources suggest that modalism was a widespread theological practice in Judaism by the fourth century. Thus, several of Basil of Caesarea’s letters identify Judaism with the modalism of Sabellius and Marcellus (letters 189, 210, 226, and 263). In letter 210 the Asia Minor bishop straightforwardly contends that “Sabellianism is Judaism brought into the preaching of the gospel under the disguise of Christianity” (letter 210.3; my translation of the Greek text in Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Lettres [3 vols; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1957, 1961, 1966]). For the early Kabbalah, the depiction in certain kabbalistic texts of the fourth and fifth sefirot—respectively the right and the left hand of the godhead—as the divine mercy (‫ )חסד‬and justice (‫)דין‬, is particularly significant. 16 For deification in the Hekhalot corpus, see particularly Joseph Dan, “The Concept of Knowledge in the Shi`ur Qomah,” in Studies in Jewish 14

202

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Since Steven Fraade’s seminal 1988 study on Jewish asceticism, the old perception according to which, unlike its contemporary Christianity, early rabbinic tradition was not ascetic, has been rightly discarded.17 The rabbis observed ascetical behaviors in their heroes and they, in their own turn, joined the same life. The question remains to be asked: If their contemporary Christians had a sense that asceticism prepares for (and somewhat even constitutes) transformation, or more specifically deification, for what purpose were the rabbis engaging in their own asceticism? Regrettably, the presupposition undergirding the old perception of rabbinic asceticism—that early rabbinic theology does not know transformational mysticism (or is even anti-mystical)—still needs to be abandoned. As this ongoing presupposition goes, the rabbis perceived mysticism overall as subversive of (their) authority. This decision is taken based on the presumed scarcity of visionary accounts and the perceived18 caution against them in texts such as m. Hagigah 2:1: One cannot examine forbidden relations before three, nor the work of creation before two, nor [the work of] the chariot by himself, unless he is wise and understands of his own knowledge. Whosoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world—what is above? what is beneath? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter? And whosoever takes no thought for the glory of his creator, it were better for him if he had not come into the world.19

Religious and Intellectual History, Presented to Alexander Altman (ed. S. Stein and R. Lowewe; Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1979), 67-73; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 82-85. 17 Steven D. Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism,” 253-288; Eliezer Diamond, Holy Men and Hunger Artists. Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Michal BarAsher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Mira Balberg, Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014). 18 Thus Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism,” 5-7. 19 This and other quotations from the Mishnah come, with some corrections, from The Mishnah (trans. Herbert Danby; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933).

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

203

I submit that the key to this text is in the final sentence. The phrase “no thought for the Glory of his creator” cannot be taken strictly in reference to the divine kabod, as if the passage prohibited gazing at the Glory. The preceding lines just allowed precisely such gazing, although with the requirement of wisdom and knowledge by oneself. Rather, it prohibits a disregard for the presence of the Glory in the human being. As we will see shortly, in classical rabbinic literature the Glory of God is embodied in humanity. (As we will find in later chapters, this embodiment receives at times striking expressions.) I would go even further and suggest that what is prohibited here is the gaze at the Glory outside of its instantiation in the human being and that this refers at once both to the human being who is seen and the human being who sees. Rather, there is a correspondence between seer and seen, and the point of the rabbinic prohibition is not simply epistemological, but ascetical. The demand at the heart of these prohibitions is that one be “wise” and understand “of his own knowledge.” Another rabbinic text serves at a perfect illustration of my point. In a recent close look at b. Yoma 35b, Herbert Basser finds in it a meaning which, in my view, explains m. Hagigah 2:1.20 In Basser’s translation: They said about him about Hillel the Elder that on every day and day he would work and earn a tarpeik; half of it he would pay to the guard of the study hall and half of it for his sustenance and the sustenance of the people of his household. One time he was not finding (able) to earn. And the guard of the study hall did not allow him to enter. He ascended, and he was suspended, and sat at the edge of the window in order that he would hear the words of the living God from the mouth of Shemayah and Avtalyon. They said that day was Shabbat eve and it was the winter solstice of Tevet, and snow was descending upon him from the sky. When the pillar of the dawn ascended, Shemayah said to Avtalyon, “Avtalyon, my brother, every day the house shines and today it is dark; is it Herbert W. Basser, “B. Yoma 35b: Some Observations Concerning Divine Mediators and Rabbis,” The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 22 (2019): 133-151. 20

204

THE LORD GOD OF GODS perhaps a cloudy day?” Their eyes gazed and they saw demut adam (form of a man) through the window. They ascended and found on him a height of three amot of snow. They rescued him, and they washed him, and smeared him with oil, and they placed [lit. sat] him opposite the fire. They said, “This one warrants desecrating the Shabbat for him.”21

The language in which Hillel is depicted,22 Basser shows, is the language of transformational mysticism and of Two Powers traditions, although greatly dimmed, because “such teachings were not meant to be public.”23 In short, Hillel is gazed at and seen as the kabod, the rabbis have to ascend to bring down to earth his body which is cleansed from impurity by the snow,24 and they anoint him and enthrone him. In Basser’s summary: What strikes me as significant here are the portrayals of the rabbinic masters, at the very roots of rabbinic Judaism, using images that were restrained and muted in rabbinic tradition. In short, these rabbis are presented as divine figures, alluded to by stock images and terminology suggesting ascension scenes and the heavenly abode known from the literature of Ezekiel, Daniel, Pseudepigrapha (like the Enoch cycles), and Merkavah.25

Moreover, Hillel’s conformation to the kabod is also his own revealing: “The composition of the Hillel story suggests it had been a tale of personal transition, of trial and liminality. And finally one of completion: Hillel is revealed.”26 The program of rabbinic asceticism is at once humanization, as it were, and deification.

Basser, “B. Yoma 35b,” 135-136. Among the most significant additions to the literature on Hillel are Yitzhak Buxbaum, The Life and Teachings of Hillel (Lanham, Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008); J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997). See also Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 64-65. 23 Basser, “B. Yoma 35b,” 150. Here Basser appeals to m. Hagigah 2:1 as supporting evidence. 24 The snow if of the same quantity as the water required for cleansing. 25 Basser, “B. Yoma 35b,” 147. 26 Ibid., 148-149. 21 22

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

205

Nevertheless, it is an ascetical program; this humanization is an embodiment of divinity. And this humanization-deification, to go beyond Basser’s point, is played out at once both in the seers and the seen. In other words, Shemayah and Avtalyon perceive the divine kabod in Hillel because they themselves are instantiations of it. Thus the text includes the vision of Hillel within another vision: the vision—by the author—of Shemayah and Avtalyon as just the persons who would recognize the divinity of Hillel. The final remark goes precisely to this second revelation: the rabbis’ desecration of the Sabbath is the ultimate expression of their deification. This is also why the text presents them as ascenders to the kabod and the rescuers of the kabod. That this transformation—at once humanization and deification—is accomplished in both visions through love for and embodiment of the Torah is not surprising, given what is said about the nature of the Torah in texts such as Genesis Rabbah 44:1: After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, etc. (Ps 18:31). It is written, “As for God — His way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried (‫( ”)צרופה‬2 Sam 22:31). If His way is perfect, how much more is He Himself! Rab said: The precepts were given only in order that man might be refined (‫ )לצרף‬by them. For what does the Holy One, blessed be He, cares whether a man kills an animal by the throat or by the nape of its neck? Hence its purpose is to refine (‫ )לצרף‬man.

The study of the Torah is an embodiment of God’s own perfection. This process may very well be described as obedience to the commandments or as a special relationship with the Torah, but what it ultimately amounts to is a permeation with the divine, or, in one word, deification. Therefore, at closer inspection, the rabbis speak of deification, but in their own terms. The presence of God within the righteous may be mediated, particularly through the Torah, but it is pervasive and transformative:

206

THE LORD GOD OF GODS Just as the roots of a tree spread out in every direction, so the words of the [Torah] penetrate and spread throughout the entire human body. (Pesiqta Rabbati 3:6)27

To return now to the new perspective on Two-Powers, in light of this evidence of rabbinic asceticism and deification, the rabbis should be suspected of harboring (some of) the theological positions and attitudes of their tradition alongside the new modalism. Moreover, whether the rabbis’ estimation of Two-Powers theology is accurate or not (and we should concede the probability that it is not), even the opposition which the rabbis raise against it is fundamentally very traditional: gods cannot be confused with God. It is entirely true and ironic that, in opposition to this confusion, the rabbis engender another, entirely new confusion, namely the mergence of different manifestations of divinity into one, shifting thus differentiation from outside to within God, but the concern which prompts this innovation cannot be imputed to rabbinic agendas, because it is also found in Christian orthodoxy and, I would daresay, is fundamentally the same concern as the one of the major texts analyzed so far, of the “YHWH-only” texts of the Deuteronomist, the theomorphic anthropology of Ezekiel 28 and 31, and the venerable humanity of Exagoge, Daniel 2-4, and Pseudo-Orpheus. Therefore, it does not seem to me that we can position the rabbis against Logos theology per se, as Boyarin would posit, but rather only against Logos theologies which frustrate God’s class of his own. In other words, the problem is not deification, that David or Hillel is enthroned (even next to God), but that this second throne is perceived as entirely indistinguishable from God’s own. And it is worth pointing out that in the language of m. Hagigah 2:1 such a theological misperception (as the one of Aher and, initially, of Rabbi Akiva) is not an epistemological deficiency, but an ascetical failure, a dis-embodiment of God. In the words of Pesiqta Rabbati 3:6, it reflects the body which has not been permeated with the words of the Torah.

Rivka Ulmer, A Bilingual Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati: Volume 1, chapters 1-22 (SJ 86; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 89. 27

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

207

Two texts will illustrate this further, one in relation to angels (Deuteronomy Rabbah), another in relation to humans (Genesis Rabbah 8:10). First, the angelic thrones in Deuteronomy Rabbah: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, descended to Mount Sinai, says R. Ammi from Jaffa, there descended with him 22,000 of the ministering angels, as it says‫( רכב אלהים רבתים אלפי שנאן‬Ps 68:18). What is ‫ ?שנאן‬The most beautiful and praiseworthy amongst them, namely, Michael and his group and Gabriel and his group. And Israel looked at them and saw that they were praiseworthy and beautiful and they were struck dumb. And when the Holy One, Blessed be He, saw them, he said to them: “Do not go astray after one of these angels who came down with me; they are all my servants. I am the Lord, your God.”28

The story and the lesson in divinity to which it leads echo b. Hagigah 15a: angels are praiseworthy, but they are not alternatives to God. They can only be taken as such by seers who are “struck dumb.” The lesson is biblical, of the antiquity of YHWH-only texts: YHWH is in a class of his own and nobody can compare and be confused with him. Genesis Rabbah 8:10 builds the same story and the same lesson, but reversely, from angels to humanity: R. Hoshaya said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, the ministering angels mistook him [for a divine being] and wished to exclaim ‘Holy’ before him. What does this resemble? A king and a governor who sat in a chariot, and his subjects wished to say to the king the qedusha but they did not know which it was. What did the king do? He pushed the governor out of the chariot, and so they knew who was the king. Similarly, when the Lord created Adam, the angels mistook him. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He caused sleep to fall upon him, and so all knew that he was [but mortal] man (‫ ;)אדם‬thus it is written, Cease ye from man,

28

Translation from Hayman, “Monotheism,” 7.

208

THE LORD GOD OF GODS in whose nostrils is a breath, for how little is he to be accounted (Isa 2:22)!29

The parable has been occasionally interpreted as a rabbinic attack against the tradition of the worship of Adam, which—it has been argued—is taken in some rabbinic circles as a threat to monotheism.30 The simile used here indicates that this could hardly be the case. The imagery is patterned—accurately or not—on a Roman imperial ceremony, the triumphus (merged in late antiquity with the similar ceremony of accession to consulship) 31 or the imperial adventus,32 either in their late pagan forms (Rabbi Hoshaya lived in the third century),33 or in their later Christianized forms. As accurate or inaccurate a sense of the (Christian) Roman ceremonies the rabbinic source may have had, it retains well the central idea that, at least in official interpretations of such ceremonies, the “governor” (victor or accessor) possesses no authority in and of himself. The “governor” was seen as sharing in the governance of the emperor. Around the time of the composition of the The tradition reappears without attribution in Ecclesiastes Rabbah 6:9. A different version of the confusion is also recorded in Pirqe DeRabbi Eliezer 11, which I will analyze below. 30 D. Steenburg, “The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God,” JSNT 39 (1990): 95-109, here p. 98; Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism,” 17. 31 It is probable that the parable is based on Roman ceremonies because it uses Roman loanwords: ‫( קרונין‬carruca), ‫( אפרכוס‬ὕπαρχος). The punishment of Adam also recalls imperial methods of preventing or rectifying the overreaction of the audience toward the rewarded (Altmann, “The Gnostic Background,” 380-381). For an insightful look at the pre-Christian Roman triumph, see Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), esp. 219256. For the triumph in the Christian Roman empire, see ibid., 318-328. 32 On this see Sabine G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 17-89. 33 On Rabbi Hoshaya see Dominique Barthélemy, “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le ‘Commentaire Allegorique’?,” in Etudes D’Histoire du Texte de l’Ancien Testament (Fribourg: Editions Universitaire; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, Ruprecht, 1978), 140-173; Halperin, Faces, 215-216, 325326; I. M. Levey, “Caesarea and the Jews,” in Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 43-78; Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 83-84. 29

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

209

rabbinic text, the sixth century, Procopius describes an official mosaic of such a ceremony as follows: On either side is war and battle, and many cities are being captured, some in Italy, some in Libya; and the Emperor Justinian is winning victories through his General Belisarius, and the General is returning to the Emperor, with his whole army intact, and he gives him spoils, both kings and kingdoms and all things that are most prized among men. In the centre stand the Emperor and the Empress Theodora, both seeming to rejoice and to celebrate victories over both the King of the Vandals and the King of the Goths, who approach them as prisoners of war to be led into bondage. Around them stands the Roman Senate, all in festal mood. This spirit is expressed by the cubes of the mosaic, which by their colours depict exultation on their very countenances. So they rejoice and smile as they bestow on the Emperor honours equal to those of God, because of the magnitude of his achievements.34

The point of the rabbinic simile is the same: the merits of the governor are ultimately the merits of the king; the servant-governor acts only as a legitimate channel of king worship, as an embodiment of the king’s imperium. There is a certain parallelism between this story and b. Hagigah 15a: just as there Metatron is punished for the mistake of a human, Aher, here Adam is punished for the mistake of angels. I will address the particular issue of worship later on, for now it suffices to point out that the angels see no discernable difference between Adam-god and God, or rather that the fundamental difference is not perceptible: the imperium, to adopt the Roman imperial language of the simile, is absolutely God’s and Adam only shares in it at God’s discretion. In other words, they possess divinity differently—God in an absolute sense, while Adam (and Metatron) in a relative sense.35 As inward as this difference is, the

Procopius, On Buildings. General Index (Loeb 343; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1940), 85, 87. 35 Here I go further than Alon Goshen-Gottstein’s remark that “Adam is distinguished from God not by form, but by the different quality of life attached to the same form; in other words, God and Adam are 34

210

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

issue it poses is, in one word, one of perception. To ask the question whether the text speaks to simple theomorphism (as did Ezekiel 28 and 31) or to actual deification obfuscates the fact that the text refuses this dichotomy. In short, its symbolic language describes Adam in divine terms without denying him humanity. We can also recall here the presentation of Hillel in b. Yoma 35b. From the perspective of later Judaism, the perception or nonperception of deification in early rabbinic theology becomes also a problem of rooting or uprooting later rabbinic schools. An absolute exclusion from divinity is not the common stand in early Judaism overall. I have already acknowledged the studies which point out that such an exclusion is the innovation of Maimonides. When centuries later rabbinic schools with strong deification traditions appear (such as the famed school of Yitzhak Ben Sh’lomo Lurya36 or its offshoot under Shneur Zalman of Liadi), these are not outliers of the classical rabbinic trajectory, but its natural developments. This observation brings me to the second modification I would bring to the new perspective on rabbinic theology. As b. Hagigah 14a and 15a indicate and as the new perspective has acknowledged (e.g., one of the above quotes from Boyarin), the options which the rabbis repudiate as heresies are internal as much as external to their own class.37 Yet, what is still needed is distinguished not by body, but by bodily function” (“The Body as Image of God,” 182). 36 See its appreciations in Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988) and Lawrence Fine, Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship (Stanford University Press, 2003). 37 Naomi Janowitz is a bit too optimistic in what regards both the demise of the rabbinism-as-orthodoxy paradigm and the effectiveness of the rabbinic orthodoxy: “Only a few decades ago late antique Judaism was reconstructed through the eyes of the rabbis with, not surprisingly, rabbis at the center of the picture as conveyors of normative, orthodox Judaism. Attention to new sources (archaeological finds, Jewish texts written in Greek) and new questions (where are the women?) has so changed our view that we now find ourselves asking: How is it that rabbis were able to build an institutional basis that so thoroughly drowned out the many other voices?” (“Rabbis and Their Opponents: The Construction of the

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

211

a closer inspection of this repudiation for theological strategies and literary tools which serve more complex purposes than heresy-making, to use Boyarin’s terms. Indeed, upon such closer inspections, the “removal” of the heresies appears more as an internal readjustment in order to preserve the deification of biblical authority. I would submit that when the rabbis espouse modalism and reject Two Powers, they do not aim for the exclusion of tradition, not even in part, but rather for a defense mechanism which would integrate their entire inheritance, even the two thrones in heaven, only in such a way as not to threaten God’s class of his own. In order to recognize this intent, I will revisit one of the texts already quoted for closer inspection and I will introduce another text. Unlike in b. Hagigah 14a, where heresy and orthodoxy are exclusively rabbinic disputes, in b. Hagigah 15a the heresy-making the rabbis do in the telling of the story is only the heresy-making which God performs in the story itself.38 This shift of heresy-making to God, it seems to me, is supposed to draw the story-hearer’s attention to the fact that in the vision Metatron is enthroned by God, just as he is later on dethroned by God. The rabbis endorse this enthronement with an unneeded and peculiar detail, and consequently a very significant one: Metatron is enthroned in order to “write down the merits of Israel.” This focusing of Metatron’s enthronement on Israel places Metatron, of course, not only in Israel’s graces, but also in a particular theological position, subservient to both God and Israel. (Therefore, when later on Aher confuses Metatron with God, he also undermines the superiority of the human Israel to the angelic Metatron.) The problem therefore is not that Metatron is enthroned, and it is not what Metatron does with his enthronement, rather the problem is entirely in the eye of the beholder; first it is in one’s ‘Min’ in Rabbinic Anecdotes,” JECS 6 [1998]: 449-462, here 449). It is doubtful that the rabbinic orthodoxy was able to thoroughly drown out “the many other voices.” Moreover, the rabbinic orthodoxy is in itself quite inhomogeneous, indulging and nurturing theological ideas that are considered heretical by the prevalent rabbinic standards. 38 In this subtle parallelism, God ends up being the “heresy-maker,” as it were.

212

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

ascetical ability to perceive reality for what it is, and only second it is in how one expresses it (and I hold language to be tied to ability, attitude, and context). In a few words we could say that the problem is how one embodies the Torah in self, reading, and speech (and in this order). There is a collective element in this embodiment, an instantiation of tradition and Israel. Aher subverts Israel’s superiority to Metatron and holds his perception against (rather than concomitant with) the inherited teaching that there is no enthronement in heaven. The problem is not in what Aher observes, the problem is in how he is perceiving it and is saying it. One cannot overestimate the importance of speech in the vision: without Aher’s imprudent and inelegant remark (indubitably an expression of his unrefined self—to use the language of Genesis Rabbah 44:1), Metatron would have remained enthroned. This subtle point hides in the blatant fact that there are two thrones and that both are a creation of God. Just not two equal powers. The orthodoxy of the rabbis—a very old orthodoxy indeed—is to perceive reality clearly through refined selves. To use the language of the correction of Rabbi Akiva in b. Hagigah 14a, this clarity concludes that the two thrones are a symbolic and aggadic reality, but not literal and halakhic. This is an important point and must be stated in clearer terms: the pressure on the rabbis is from tradition and what they do is ultimately toward its preservation in its entirety in a way which does not hold the parts in tension. The words of Aher frame the entire scene in this issue of tradition: the two thrones are not only in front of Aher’s eyes, but they come to him and the others in the holy texts of Judaism. What b. Hagigah 15a does is not to ostracize this reality (indeed, it could not). Rather, the point is to keep it as symbolic and aggadic, in the words of b. Hagigah 14a. What we have in b. Hagigah 15a is not an opposition to deification and a radical promotion of “exclusive monotheism” in a modalist form (to appeal to the discussion in chapter four), it is rather a rearrangement of the dynamism and vitality of the traditional deification theology.39 Boyarin rightly concludes that Aher represents in b. In a different way Hayman says the same thing (“Monotheism,” 1-15). Contra Hayman, I would not say that this is polytheism, but rather 39

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

213

Hagigah 15a “older theological traditions.”40 But I disagree with his argument that the rabbis throw these out altogether. Rather, it seems to me that the rabbis keep them in a frame which at the center has a heightened sense of God’s uniqueness. And this point brings me to the new text and the final adjustment to the prevailing perspective on rabbinic orthodoxy. The text is y. Berakhot 12d. 41 The minim asked R. Simlai: “How many gods created the world?” He said to them: “Do you ask me? Go and ask the first man, as it is written, ‘Ask now the former days which were before thee, since God created man upon the earth’ (Deut 4:32).42 It is not written here ‘(they) created’ (‫)בראו‬, but ‘(he) created’ (‫( )ברא‬Gen 1:1).” They said to him, “It is written, ‘In the beginning gods (‫ )אלהים‬created’ (Gen 1:1).” “Is it written ‘(they) created’? It is only written, ‘(he) created’ (‫)ברא‬. “ R. Simlai said, “In every passage where the minim go wrong, the answer to them is close by.” They (the minim) returned and asked him, “What of that which is written ‘Let us make man in our image (‫)בצלמנו‬, after our likeness’ (Gen 1:26)?” He said to them, “It is not written here ‘And they created man in their deification. It is telling that in none of the texts he provides the angels are divine independently of God. John Day accuses Hayman’s position of being “too extreme” and contends that “much of Hayman’s case hangs on the prominent position given to angels in Second Temple Judaism and subsequently, but over against this it should be noted that throughout history monotheists have not felt belief in angels to be incompatible with monotheism” (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses, 228). However, Day misses the point of Hayman’s argument. Hayman argues specifically that several texts attest to the fact that occasionally angels do threaten the borders of the divine and become divine. 40 Boyarin, Border Lines, 142. 41 For a fuller assessment of this text, see also Silviu N. Bunta, “Driven Away with a Stick: The Femininity of the Godhead in y. Ber. 12d, the Emergence of Rabbinic Modalist Orthodoxy, and the Christian Binitarian Complex,” in Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism. Studies in Honor of Alexander Golitzin (ed. Andrei Orlov; Vigiliae Christianae Supplements; Leiden: Brill, 2020), 66-84. 42 As Alan Segal already noted, different versions of the story make references to different authorities at this point (Two Powers in Heaven, 126). Genesis Rabbah 8:9 refers to the first days and Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:13 mentions the record of creation.

214

THE LORD GOD OF GODS image,’ but ‘And God created man in his image (‫( ’)בצלמו‬Gen 1:27).” His disciples said to him: “Rabbi, thou has driven away these men with a stick (‫)בקנה‬. But what dost thou answer to us?” He said to them, “At the first, Adam was created out of the dust, and Eve was created out of the man. From Adam onward (it is said) ‘in our image according to our likeness.’ It is impossible for man to exist without woman, and it is impossible for woman to exist without man, and it is impossible for both to exist without the Shekinah (‫)שכינה‬.”43

This is a very common narrative structure of a double answer: an outsider asks a polemical question, the rabbinic authority replies dismissively, the outsider walks away, the disciples complain that the reply is unsatisfactory, and the rabbinic authority offers the real explanation, different from his initial answer. It appears often in many other rabbinic confrontations with minim.44 This dialogue itself of rabbi Simlai with the minim is followed by four more confrontations with similar double answers45 and herein—it seems to me—lies the key to this passage. Let us unravel the text. The minim of Rabbi Simlai wish to prove that there is a bifurcation or a plurality in the godhead based on the scriptural text. They appeal to the divine council imagery of Gen 1:1 and 1:26 to support the concept that “many gods” created the world. Rabbi Simlai’s response is based on the same exegetical principle attributed in b. Sanhedrin 38b to Rabbi Yohanan, his teacher and colleague: the answer is in a nearby Translation from Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 124. For the original text I have consulted the Vilna edition (1835), the Leiden manuscript Or. 4720, and Rabbi Shlomo Sirilio’s 1875 Meinz edition of the tractate Berachot. There is insignificant variation among these sources. This common midrash on Gen 1:26-28 is also attested in Genesis Rabbah 8:9 and Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:13. 44 See also Exodus Rabbah 3:17, 29:1; Numbers Rabbah 9:48, 19:8 (parallels in Pesiqta Rabbati 14, Tanḥuma Ḥuqat 26, Pesiqta de Rav Kahana pisqa 4 [ed. Mandelbaum], uses ‫ ;)קנה‬Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:16; y. Sanhedrin 19b (uses ‫ ;)קנה‬Leviticus Rabbah 4:6 (uses ‫ ;)קנה‬b. Hullin 27b (uses ‫)בקש‬. Some of these passages and Rabbi Simlai’s disingenuousness have been noted in David Daube, “Public Denouncement and Private Explanation in the Gospels,” ExpTim 57 (1945-1946): 175-177. 45 Y. Berakhot 12d-13a. 43

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

215

text. Thus the plural ‫ אלהים‬is accompanied by the singular ‫ ברא‬and the plural pronominal suffix in ‫ בצלמינו‬is followed by the singular suffix in ‫בצלמו‬, solutions which Rabbi Yohanan himself also uses against similarly-minded minim in b. Sanhedrin 38b. The disciples seem to accept initially their teacher’s interpretation (and interpretive principle), but upon the departure of the minim they find it as ineffective and inept an admonition as driving someone away with a “stick” or, in other narratives, a “straw,” or “broken reed.”46 The fact that Rabbi Simlai’s minim leave without receiving a real explanation, that they accept the stick or the straw, of course functions as a negative reflection on their asceticism and intellectual perspicacity. In contrast, the rabbinic authority can only be praised for his ability to employ efficiently such ineffective means of admonition,47 as also can the disciples for detecting it.48 Indeed, Rabbi Simlai does not dismiss the disciples’ confusion, but admits that he did not offer a true rebuttal to the minim’s question about Gen 1:26. Simlai’s evasiveness toward the minim and the secretiveness of the ensuing real answer set the stage for an inevitable conclusion: the minim were (somewhat) right. Indeed, at closer analysis the esoteric explanation understands Gen 1:26 to point to a bifurcation in the godhead:

It is feeble in many ways. As Alan Segal rightly points out, “the correct understanding of Gen 1:26 was not evident” (Two Powers in Heaven, 126). In Gen 1:26 both subject and verb are plural. The only solution “at hand” could be the singular of Gen 1:27, but it is conceivable that a god can create alone (hence, the singular of Gen 1:27) as a delegate of a divine assembly (the plural of Gen 1:26). Rabbi Simlai’s appeal to Gen 1:27 without elucidating Gen 1: 26 in itself does not offer sufficient proof, at least to his astute disciples, that God was not accompanied by other heavenly beings in conceiving the creation. 47 Pace Jacob Neusner, who wonders whether the rabbinic authorities in these passages are even portrayed positively, given that their real explanations do not seem to respond to the initial question effectively (Jacob Neusner, Development of a Legend [Leiden: Brill, 1970], 138-139). 48 I think we should not underestimate shrewdness as a personal quality (intellectual and more) and as an argumentative tool in early rabbinic documents. In our text the shrewdness of Rabbi Simlai is matched by the shrewdness of the disciples: when he drives people away with a stick, they pretend that the stick is effective. 46

216

THE LORD GOD OF GODS ‫מיכן ואילך בצלמינו כדמותינו לא איש בלא אשה ולא אשה בלא איש ולא‬ ‫ שניהם בלא שכינה‬49

The divine image is not imprinted on the initial human being (androgynous or not), nor on Eve, but rather it is only manifested in the human couple, and more specifically in their procreation, as the phrase “neither man without woman, nor woman without man” makes clear.50 In other words, God is reflected in the fecund bifurcation of male and female. In his second answer Rabbi Simlai has somewhat switched sides. I say “somewhat” for two reasons. The first is that, if the rabbi sees the minim as dualists or ditheists (and it seems that he does), in conceiving a bifurcation in God similar to sexual union he is certainly not subscribing to either dualism or ditheism. The second is the fact that, in contrast to the minim, the story presents Simlai throughout as an ascetic stability, as an embodiment of the Torah. Yet, it is also difficult to fit Simlai’s concession to the minim into the frame of modalism. Rather, modalism is the stick showed to the minim and abandoned in the realm answer. In the realm answer the rabbi no longer insists on Tellingly, when the story resurfaces in Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:13, the final, esoteric dialogue, the capitulation, is omitted. Yet, the most important manuscripts of all the other versions of the story have it. See Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 63 (Genesis Rabbah 8:9). 50 The same phrase also indicates sexual procreation in another interpretation, attributed to Rabbi Akiba, the almost heretic of b. Hagigah 14a, namely that ‫ את‬of Gen 4:1 means “with the help of” and that human multiplication is impossible without the Shekinah: 49

R. Ishmael asked R. Akiba: “Since you have served Nahum of Gimzo for twenty-two years, [and he taught], Every ak and rak is a limitation, while every eth and gam is an extension, tell me what is the purpose of the eth written here [that is, Gen 4:1]?” “If it said, ‘I have gotten a man the Lord,’” he replied, “it would have been difficult [to interpret]; hence ETH [WITH THE HELP OF] THE LORD is required.” Thereupon he quoted to him: “‘For it is no empty thing from you’ (Deut 32:47), and if it is empty, it is so on your account, because you do not know how to interpret it. Rather, ETH THE LORD [teaches this]: In the past, Adam was created from the ground, and Eve from Adam; but henceforth it shall be, ‘In our image, after our likeness’ (Gen 1:26): neither man without woman nor woman without man, nor both of them without the Shechinah.” (Genesis Rabbah 22:2).

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

217

explaining plurals with singulars. He rather describes the divine in terms of complementarity; in biblical terms sexual union is a complementary oneness (cf. Gen 2:24). I would suggest that the Shekinah is chosen to express this complementarity vision of the divine, at once both non-ditheist and non-modalist, for her considerable flexibility: while functioning as a companion of God, somewhat independent from him, she also constitutes one godhead with him. In the terms of Rabbi Simlai’s analogy, just as Adam’s bifurcation from Eve does not generate two humanities or two images, the Shekinah does not double the divine. Rabbi Simlai does not need to appeal to a modalist interpretation of Gen 1:26 because he can offer an interpretation without splitting, conflicting, or tensing the divine. Yet, there is another theological pressure in the story: such interpretations (and deification theology overall) are not meant to be public. Even written down, they are cloaked in obscure language and complex literary artistry in order to prevent an encounter which is immature and unprepared, or, in other words, in order to prevent their removal from their proper, ascetical framework, and abandonment to unrefined access. This, I would submit, is the ultimate concern behind the prohibitions of m. Hagigah 2:1, the demand that one be “wise” and understand “of his own knowledge.” Under these considerations, the modalism of the rabbis presents itself more as an ultimate theological recourse to avoid the misperception of conflicts in the divine, and not as a theological principle or ideal. In other words, it is not as much a gravitational center as it is a border. The large space of rabbinic theology, all the way up to modalism, is filled with a spectrum of other options, all of which still fall under the YHWH-only fluidity inherited from the Bible itself. The manner in which b. Hagigah 15a adjudicates the exclusion and inclusion in divinity does not appeal to modalism: the theological conundrum can receive a simpler solution—the punishment of Metatron. In y. Berakhot 12d also the theological pressure receives resolve not in modalism, but in complementarity. In b. Hagigah 14a modalism is triggered by a David who cannot be “punished him with sixty fiery lashes,” by an apparent conflict in the divine firmly inscribed in the biblical text. Modalism as such, as a solution to ultimate problems, takes

218

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

deification an extra step and absorbs into God everything which threatens ditheism or confusion with him, if and only once all other methods fail. David and Hillel can be and are made gods in many ways and to varying degrees (deification) until their thrones must be assumed into God (modalism). Modalism is a new boundary around the old (and gradual) theology of deification. Any temptations to cross over to other theologies are thus challenged to step into this outlying territory of ultimate divine uniqueness. With this introduction to classical rabbinic theology, to which I will appeal often, my attention can now turn to the afterlife of the symbolic imagery of deification surveyed in earlier chapters. Since the figure of Adam has played such an important role in these traditions ever since Ezekiel, I will focus more closely on Adamic traditions. First and foremost, the connections between Adam and the kabod which has already been introduced by b. Yoma 35b.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN. ADAM AND THE KABOD It has been argued above that after 586 B.C.E., when the preexilic theology of YHWH’s physical presence in the First Temple, most probably in his cultic statue, has to be reassessed, priestly theologies develops a theology centered in the kabod enthroned on the cherubim throne. It has also been noted that in the Priestly theology Adam or humanity functions as the replacement of the statue no longer extant. As such, in the Priestly theology the protoplast shares an intimate connection with the kabod: Adam is his image. In later texts, as just found in rabbinic literature, this distinction will not always hold and Adam is in one way or another identified with the kabod. Two texts will show not only the use of these biblical traditions discussed earlier, but will also place Adam on the deification spectrum. 4Q504 8 (Puech col.I), 1-7 attests to an association of Adam with the kabod prior to the first century B.C.E.1 The fragment reads: [Remem]ber, Lord, that [. . .] 2 [. . .] us. And you, who live for ev[er, . . .] 3 [. . .] the marvels of old and the portents [. . .] 4 [. . . Adam,] our [fat]her, you fashioned in the likeness of [your] glory ([‫[ )יצרתה בדמות כבוד]כה‬. . . ] 5 [. . . the breath of life] you [b]lew into his nostril, and intelligence and knowledge [. . .] 6 [. . . in the gard]en of Eden, which you had 1

1

Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 163; Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 92-93.

219

220

THE LORD GOD OF GODS planted. You made [him] govern ([‫[ )המשלת]ה אותו‬. . .] 7 [. . .] and so that he would walk in a glorious land. . . .2

The earliest copy of this scroll has been paleographically dated to around 150 B.C.E.3 The autograph is possibly non-Qumranic.4 The phrase [‫ יצרתה בדמות כבוד]כה‬is not only a reference to the creation of Adam in the language of Gen 1:26 (which is associated here, as in the biblical text, with Adam’s dominion over creation), but also recalls, as both Baillet and Fletcher-Louis point out, the depiction of the kabod in Ezek 1:28 as ‫דמות כמראה אדם‬.5 However, Fletcher-Louis’ intriguing conclusion that “it would be fair to say that . . . Adam is identified in some way with the Glory occupying God’s throne in Ezekiel 1”6 is overreaching. No identification between Adam and the kabod is explicitly stated, rather the implication is that they are not one and the same thing. In this sense, the text reflects very well the earlier Priestly theology that primeval humanity functions as an iconic counterpart to the divine kabod. The language is different in the Testament of Abraham, a pseudepigraphon preserved in two recensions: long and short.7 The text is in Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III. The translation is from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1008-1009. 3 Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 137. 4 E. G. Chazon, “Is Divrei Ha-me’rot a Sectarian Prayer?,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls; Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1-17; D. K. Falk, “Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies Oslo 1998 (ed. D. K. Falk et al.; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 106-126, here 109. 5 Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 163; Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 93; idem, “Some Reflections on Angelomorphic Humanity Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 7 (2000): 292-312, here 297. 6 All the Glory, 93. 7 For translations, see G. H. Box, The Testament of Abraham: Translated from the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (London: SPCK, 1927); M. Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham (SVTP 2; Leiden: Brill, 1973); M. Stone, Testament of Abraham. The Greek Recensions (SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 2; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972); E. P. Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:871-902; F. Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986); N. Turner, “The Testament of Abraham,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. D. Sparks; Oxford, 1984), 393-421. For 2

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

221

an analysis of the debates regarding the Jewishness of the text, see especially Dale C. Allison, Jr, Testament of Abraham (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 28-31. On the testament in general, see M. James, The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Text Now First Edited with an Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892); Box, The Testament of Abraham; Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham; G. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies in the Testament of Abraham (SBLSCS 6; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976); Allison, Testament of Abraham. The long recension is supported by Greek and Romanian manuscripts only. The Greek manuscripts of the longer recension are critically published and edited in Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 96-169; Stone, Testament of Abraham, 2-57. For a list of the manuscripts see Schmidt, Testament grec d’Abraham, 2-3, 17-26; Allison, Testament of Abraham, 4-6. The Romanian manuscripts are listed in Nicolae Roddy, The Romanian Version of the Testament of Abraham. Text, Translation, and Cultural Context (Early Jewish Literature Series; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 9-12; Émile Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 234235; Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 37-38; N. Cartojan, Cărțile populare în literatura românească (2 vols.; București: Editura Enciclopedică Română, 1929), 1:114-115. The shorter recension has versions in Greek, Romanian, Slavonic, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. The Greek versions are critically edited in Schmidt, Testament grec d’Abraham, 46-95; Stone, Testament of Abraham, 58-87. For a list of these versions see Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 1-2, 6-10; Allison, Testament of Abraham, 6-7. For lists of the Romanian manuscripts see Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 36-37; Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains. The Slavonic manuscripts are listed in Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 33-36; Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 201-238. The only Coptic version published and translated is the manuscript Vaticanus Copt. 61, fols. 148v-163v: I. Guidi, “Il testo copto del Testamento di Abrahamo,” in Rendiconti della reale academia dei Lincei, classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche serie Quinta, vol. IX (Rome, 1900), 157-180; G. MacRae, “The Coptic Testament of Abraham,” in Nickelsburg, Studies in the Testament of Abraham, 327-340; M. Chaîne, “Traduction des Testaments faite sur le texte copte bohaïrique,” in Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham, 186-213; E. Andersson, “Abraham’s Vermächtnis aus dem Koptischen übersetzt,” Sphinx 6 (1903): 220-236. The other known Coptic version, a fifth-century papyrus at the Institut für Altertumskunde of the University of Cologne, remains, to the best of my knowledge, unpublished, although publication was promised many decades ago: M. Philonenko, Le Testament de Job (Semitica 18; Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1968), 61. For descriptions of the Arabic manuscripts, see Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 42-43; Allison, Testament of

222

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

The complex textual history of the Testament and the dates of the extant versions and of the Urtext are still very much subjects of debate. However, there is a growing consensus that places the date of the Urtext no later than the first century C.E.8 Chapter 11 of the longer recension contains one of the most remarkable associations of Adam with the kabod, in a language similar to Exagoge and Pseudo-Orpheus. During Abraham’s tour of heaven with the archangel Michael, the patriarch sees a mysterious enthroned figure: And Michael turned the chariot around and carried Abraham toward the east, at the first gate of heaven. 2 And Abraham saw two ways. One was narrow and constricted, the other broad and spacious. 3 And he saw there two gates. One gate was broad, down on the broad way, and one gate was narrow, down on the narrow way. 4 And outside the two gates there, they saw a man seated on a gilded throne (ἄνδρα καθήµενον ἐπὶ θρόνου κεχρυσωµένου). And the appearance of that human was fearful, similar to the Master’s (ἡ ἰδέα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου9 ἐκείνου φοβερὰ, ὁµοία τοῦ δεσπότου). . . 8 Then Abraham asked the commander-in-chief, “My lord commander-in-chief, who is this 1

Abraham, 8-9. For the Ethiopic manuscripts, see Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 43-44; Allison, Testament of Abraham, 9. 8 For dating, see Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” 874-876; Allison, Testament of Abraham, 34-40; P. Munoa, Four Powers in Heaven. The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Testament of Abraham (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 17-18; Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham, 47-51, 73-77. M. James, G. Box, M. Delcor, G. Nickelsburg, E. P. Sanders, and D. C. Allison have argued that the longer recension has chronological priority and that it preserves more accurately the original work, which is supposedly a common root of both recensions: James, The Testament of Abraham, 49; Box, The Testament of Abraham, XIII; Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham, 33; Nickelsburg, Studies in the Testament of Abraham, 47-64; Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” 872-873; Allison, Testament of Abraham, 12-27. James argues that the priority does not extend to the vocabulary; the vocabulary of the short recension is a more accurate witness of the original work. The followers of his position generally accept this conclusion. Allison makes a strong case for later Christian interpolations in the long recension. Several other scholars contend that the shorter recension has priority: Turdeanu, Schmidt, Turner, etc. 9 Some manuscripts have here ἀνήρ, but that reading seems secondary.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

223

all-wondrous man, who is adorned in such glory (ὁ ἐν τοιαύτῃ δόξῃ κοσµούµενος). . . ?” 9 And the bodiless one said, “This is the first-formed Adam, who is thus seated in his glory and beholds the world (κάθηται ὧδε ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ δόξῃ καὶ βλέπει τὸν κόσµον), since all have come to be from him. . .” (Testament of Abraham 11: 1-4, 8-9)10

The description of the “appearance” of the enthroned “human” as “similar to the Master’s” (ἰδέα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. . . ὁµοία τοῦ δεσπότου) is an evident play on the description of the kabod in Ezek 1:28, in reverse: ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁµοιώµατος τοῦ θρόνου ὁµοίωµα ὡς εἶδος ἀνθρώπου (LXX). Yet even more intriguing is the description of Adam’s throne as “gilded.”11 The only “gilded” throne mentioned anywhere in the Bible is the cherubim throne, the ride of the kabod (cf. 1 Kings 6:28: καὶ περιέσχεν τὰ χερουβιν χρυσίῳ). Furthermore, there is an intriguing turn of language from “such a glory” (τοιαύτη δόξα) to “his [i.e., Adam’s] glory” (αὐτοῦ δόξα). Finally, initially the vision of the entire scene is Abraham’s alone: “he saw.” But the vision of the protoplast himself is emphatically double, both his and Michael’s: “they saw.” All these peculiarities of language present Adam from two different perspectives: through the eyes of the mortal patriarch and respectively those of the angelic psychopomp. Abraham sees Adam as the human counterpart of the divine kabod: as the kabod is patterned after Adam, so Adam is patterned after the kabod. With a masterful turn of language, in the double vision Adam takes possession of the kabod and becomes him.

My translation of the critical text in Schmidt, Testament grec d’Abraham, 128, 130. 11 E. P. Sanders mistranslates κεχρυσώµενος with “golden” (“Testament of Abraham,” 11)! 10

CHAPTER FIFTEEN. ADAM-LIGHT SPECULATIONS Gilles Quispel and Jarl Fossum have both argued that Ezekiel the Tragedian’s choice for φως for the description of the anonymous enthroned being is meant as a wordplay φώς-φῶς, man-light, and connects the figure with Adam, who is portrayed in late antiquity Jewish traditions as a luminous being.1 Yet, the presence of Adam-light speculations cannot be ascertained solely on the basis of one word, as unusual and non-biblical φώς is, and later developments should not be read into earlier texts. Furthermore, luminosity is a widespread divine feature from pre-exilic times on, as I have already shown. Nevertheless, the use of φώς in Exagoge is intriguing. Since in the throne scene there is no other mention or allusion to the luminosity of the transformed Moses on Sinai and this aspect figures so prominently in the biblical narrative itself, assuming that φώς is used here with a pun on luminosity is not unreasonable. As a modification of Quispel and Fossum’s proposal, I would suggest that Ezekiel the Tragedian’s choice for φως is at least an allusion to the luminosity of divinity and the deified in general, and of the deified prophet in particular. The current chapter analyzes Jewish speculations about the luminosity of the deified in their historical development, through several key texts, from the end of the Second Temple period to the classical rabbinic corpus.2 Quispel, “Gnosis,” 417; idem, “Ezekiel 1:26,” 6-7; Fossum, Name of God, 280; idem, Image, 16-17. 2 In dealing with rabbinic texts, it is good practice to assume that “rabbinic writings are necessarily evidence for the time and place in which 1

225

226

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

The most remarkable Adam-light speculation comes from the rabbinic corpus,3 namely from Genesis Rabbah, one of the classical Palestinian midrashim tentatively dated to the fifth century.4 Genesis Rabbah 20:12 speaks of the following peculiarity of Rabbi Meir’s copy of the Torah: In R. Meir’s Torah it was found written, “Garments of light” (‫[ )אור‬i.e., instead of skin, ‫]עור‬: this refers to Adam’s garments, which were like a torch, broad at the bottom and narrow at the top.5

they have come into being as texts and not necessarily for the time and place of which they tell us” (Boyarin, Border Lines, 46). The traditions of these texts should not be dated to the periods to which they are attributed, unless the rabbinic claim is corroborated by external evidence (of which there is usually little). Moreover, external evidence should not be viewed as attesting to the veracity of an entire rabbinic story, but simply to the antiquity of the corroborated tradition, in the form in which it is attested in the external evidence. On this and other biographical issues, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 56-62. 3 On this and other such traditions in classical rabbinic literature see especially Goshen-Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God,” 171-95; David H. Aaron, “Shedding Light on God’s Body in Rabbinic Midrashim: Reflections on the Theory of a Luminous Adam,” HTR 90 (1997): 299-314, arguments diverging from Gottstein’s; Ginzberg, Legends, 5:103-104, 276277; J. Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen 1:26f. in Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 40. 4 On it see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 276-283 (the dating is covered on pp. 279-280). 5 The figure of R. Meir is constructed in the rabbinic corpus as a secondcentury Palestinian tanna, purportedly a student of R. Elisha b. Abuyah and R. Akiba, two of the four personae of the pardes story, and of R. Ishmael. R. Meir is made aware of Elisha b. Abuyah’s faults (y. Hagigah 77b; parallel in b. Hagigah 15a; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:16 etc.). For R. Meir’s association with R. Akiba, see Genesis Rabbah 61:3; 96; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:16. For Rabbi Meir, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 76. For the pardes story, see t. Hagigah 2:3-4; y. Hagigah 77b; b. Hagigah 14b-15b. For analyses, see especially Boyarin, Border Lines, 142-144; Scholem, Jewish Mysticism; Halperin, Faces; idem, Merkabah; MorrayJones, “Paradise Revisited”; Segal, Two Powers. An exalted view of Adam is also attributed to R. Meir in b. Eruvin 18b. Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, another classical Palestinian midrash, also attributes to Meir a teaching that Adam is created enormous in stature (it will be discussed below).

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

227

Most likely, in light of all the evidence which I will introduce in this chapter, to Rabbi Meir the luminosity of Adam’s garments was not about shape.6 Indeed, the luminosity of Adam is inscribed into Gen 3:21 in targumic sources, which attests to the circulation of the tradition in late antiquity Judaism beyond rabbinic circles. As products of the synagogue7 and not of the rabbinic house of study,8 the targums constitute para-rabbinic writings and reflect the opinions of the leaders of the local Jewish communities.9 Therefore, it is particularly significant that at least two targumic texts, Targum Neofiti10 and the slightly more rabbinized Targum Jonathan,11 also record “garments of glory” instead of “garments of skin” in Gen 3:21. Sebastian Brock proposes the ingenious Moreover, Genesis Rabbah 94:9 mentions another idiosyncratic reading in R. Meir’s Torah. 6 For rabbinic traditions about Adam’s luminous garments, see also Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 56-64. 7 The rabbis did not take control of the synagogue until the end of antiquity or even the middle ages. On this see Günter Stemberg, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 277-279. 8 The targums are not rabbinic in their religious ideas and practice. See Lee I. Levine, “The Sages and the Synagogue in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of the Galilee,” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity (ed. Lee I. Levine; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 201-224; Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 253 n. 35; William Horbury, “Suffering and Messianism in Yose Ben Yose,” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler (ed. William Horbury and Brian McNeil; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 143-182. 9 Seth Schwartz emphasizes that “in late antiquity, though the rabbis were not totally insignificant, the real religious leaders probably were the heads of the synagogues, that is, of the local Jewish communities” (Imperialism and Jewish Society, 13). See also the analysis of the predominance of the synagogue in late antiquity Jewish ethos in ibid., 215-274. 10 “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of glory, for the skin of their flesh, and he clothed them.” Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (tr. M. McNamara, M.S.C.; ArBib 1A; Collegeville, 1992), 62-63. 11 “And the Lord God made garments of glory for Adam and for his wife from the skin which the serpent had cast off (to be worn) on the skin of their (garments of) fingernails of which they had been stripped, and he clothed them.” Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (tr. M. Maher, M.S.C.; ArBib 1B; Collegeville, 1992), 29.

228

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

solution that the interpretation of Gen 3:21 as a creation act rather than a post-lapsarian reality could have been produced by the reading of the verb as a pluperfect.12 There is further evidence in Genesis Rabbah itself that, by shifting this tradition about Adam’s garments away from luminosity to shape, the midrashic voice of 20:12 is not discarding this tradition and saving Rabbi Meir from error, as his teacher Akiva is saved in b. Hagigah 15a, but rather is veiling the tradition through misdirection, in the manner of Rabbi Simlai.13 The beginning of this evidence is in Genesis Rabbah 3:4,14 which wraps in secrecy another tradition on primordial garments of light: R. Simeon b. R. Jehozadak asked R. Samuel b. Nahman: “As I have heard that you are a master of haggadah, tell me whence the light (‫ )אור‬was created?” He replied: “The Holy One, blessed be He, wrapped Himself therein as in a robe (‫)כשלמה‬15 and irradiated with the lustre of His majesty the whole world from one end to the other.” Now he had answered him in a whisper, whereupon he [i.e., Simeon] observed, “There is a verse which states it explicitly: Who coverest Thyself with light as with a garment (Ps 104:2), yet you say it in a whisper!” “Just as I heard it in a whisper, so have I told it to you in a whisper,” he rejoined.

As I have already pointed out in relation to m. Hagigah 2:1, rabbinic secrecy does not mean the abandonment of a teaching, but its veiling for the unprepared. Moreover, the mishnaic text

See Sebastian Brock, “Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition,” in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter (Regensburg, 1982), 1140, here p. 14. 13 But one is to recognize that this misdirection is itself a torch: the peculiarity of the shape of the garments directs the attention of the prepared (the ascetic) back to their light. The text points to the meaning just as it directs away from it. 14 The text has parallels in Leviticus Rabbah 31:7, Exodus Rabbah 50:1, Pirqe DeRabbi Eliezer 3. 15 The textual history presents no major editorial variants, except the variant reading in the thirteenth-century compilation Yahkut Shimʿoni of ‫ כשלמה‬as ‫( בשלמה‬Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 20). 12

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

229

requests secrecy in several matters,16 including the account of creation, and Rabbi Simeon inquires here about the origin of the primordial light. Nevertheless, his puzzle is understandable: why secrecy around a tradition which is already in the Bible?17 Rabbi Samuel does not explain but simply appeals to tradition, and the midrash moves on to relate the (more) public teaching that the primordial light radiated from the place of the temple. In other words, the text shuns publicizing the secret teaching. The passage is a conversion story, similar to the one in b. Hagigah 14a about Rabbi Akiva. Yet, unlike Akiva, Simeon is here converted not from a teaching, but from speaking on a teaching. The decoding of the secrecy around the biblical imagery begins in another Genesis Rabbah text, also associated with Samuel b. Nahman. The Amora shows his hand partly in Genesis Rabbah 42:3, in which Rabbi Judah (b. Ezekiel) is inserted as support for Samuel’s teaching that only the righteous share in the primordial light: R. Judah said: By the light which was created on the first day

‫ אדם‬could have seen from one end of the world to the other;

but when the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw the wicked, He hid it away for the righteous, as it is written, “But the path

Cf. b. Hagigah 13a. See also Scholem’s cautionary note on the motif of whisper in Jewish Gnosticism, 58 n.10. 17 R. Simeon b. R. Jehozadak is presented in the rabbinic corpus as a Palestinian Amora who lived in the early third century. R. Samuel b. Nahman is a widely mentioned Palestinian Amora with connections with Babylonia who flourished in the late third century. He was the pupil of R. Jonathan b. Eleazar (or simply R. Jonathan), a contemporary of R. Simeon b. R. Jehozadak (cf. Genesis Rabbah 78:1; Leviticus Rabbah 6:5; Exodus Rabbah 35:1; Numbers Rabbah 7:10, 9:7, 10:10; Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:2; b. Sanhedrin 14a), and one of the teachers of Helbo (cf. Genesis Rabbah 42:5, 43:5, 76:1; Leviticus Rabbah 13:5, 14:1; Lamentations Rabbah 2:9, 3:15). On Samuel b. Nahman see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 89. This midrashic passage and its parallels are also the only instances in which the two are associated. About this dialogue see also Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 57-58; A. Altmann, “A Note on the Rabbinic Doctrine of Creation,” JJS 7 (1956): 195-206. 16

230

THE LORD GOD OF GODS of the righteous as the light of dawn, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov 4:18).18

In the light of Genesis Rabbah 3:4 and 20:12, this text speaks of a twofold hiding of the light from the wicked, ascetical and hermeneutical: the wicked do not shine just as they do not see light, or the secret teaching veiled in the text. In support of my reading I adduce another Genesis Rabbah text, the only other place in this midrash to refer to Ps 104:2—Genesis Rabbah 1:6: R. Judah b. R. Simon said: From the commencement of the world’s creation “He revealeth the dark and secret” (‫)עמיקתא ומסתרתא‬. It is written, “In the beginning God created the heaven” (Gen 1:1). But it is not ‫פרש‬. Where then is it ‫ ?פרש‬Elsewhere: “That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain” (Isa 11:22); “and the earth,” which is likewise not ‫פרש‬. Where is that ‫ ?פרש‬Elsewhere: “For He saith to the snow: Fall thou on the earth, etc. (Job 37:6). “And God said: Let there be light” (Gen 1:3), this, too, is not ‫פרש‬. Where is it ‫ ?פרש‬Elsewhere: “Who coverest Thyself with light as with a garment” (Ps 104:2).

The attribution is most probably a case of mistaken identity. Judah b. R. Simon—an early fourth-century Palestinian Amora and pupil of his own father, Simon (b. Pazzi in the Babylonian Talmud)—is associated twice in Genesis Rabbah (3:2 and 3:6) with the diverging position that the primordial light originated in God’s speech. Therefore, the teaching most probably should be attributed to the same “Rabbi Judah” (a common appellation of Judah b. Ezekiel) as in Genesis Rabbah 42:3. The play on the double meaning of ‫“( פרש‬separate” or “parse,” and consequently “specify,” “clarify,” or “interpret”) comes out immediately: that which is “dark and secret” (an allusion to Gen 1:2) and therefore is to undergo ‫פרש‬, is both the world itself and the account of its creation. In other words, as heaven is “parsed” in the act encoded in Gen 1:1, so Gen 1:1 is parsed in Isa 11:22. Therefore, God’s donning of light needs to be discerned both in the world narrated in Gen 1:3 and in the narrative of Gen 1:3. In the light of Genesis

The text has parallels in Exodus Rabbah 35:1; Leviticus Rabbah 11:7; Numbers Rabbah 13:5; Esther Rabbah Prologue 11. 18

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

231

Rabbah 3:4 and 20:12, Rabbi Judah introduces the same twofold unveiling—of world and of text—in Genesis Rabbah 42:3. What is important for my study is that this ascetical-hermeneutical point, the use in Genesis Rabbah 42:3 of the same imagery and language as in 3:4, and the parallelism of 42:3 with 20:12, all point to the veiled teaching around Ps 104:2: it is not that God dons the primordial light like a garment, but rather that this garment of God is also, in one way or another, the garment of Adam and of the righteous of future generations. This veiled teaching of the transmission of the divine light from God to humanity surfaces in different ways in several texts, but arguably the most well-known is b. Bava Batra 58a: R. Bana’ah used to mark out caves. . . . When he came to the cave of Adam, a voice came forth from heaven saying “Thou hast beholden the likeness of my likeness [i.e., he just beheld Abraham], my likeness itself thou mayest not behold.” . . . R. Bana’ah said: I discerned his [Adam’s] two heels, and they were like two orbs of the sun (‫)לשני גלגלי חמה‬. Compared with Sarah, all other people are like a monkey to a human being, and compared with Eve Sarah was like a monkey to a human being, and compared with Adam Eve was like a monkey to a human being, and compared with the Shechinah Adam was like a monkey to a human being. The beauty of R. Kahana was a reflection of the beauty of R. Abbahu; the beauty of R. Abbahu was a reflection of the beauty of our father Jacob, and the beauty of Jacob was a reflection of the beauty of Adam.”19

Shamma Friedman notes that the Hamburg Codex completes the chain of beauty with: “The beauty of Adam the first was like the beauty of the Shekinah.”20 The addition is a logical conclusion to the previous comparison of Adam with the Shekinah. The beauty of Adam, who is created in the image of God, is itself a reflection of the beauty of God, and the beauty of the righteous is a reflection of the beauty of Adam. The text presents a complex editorial history and it is possible that in its original form it mentioned The last phrase also appears in b. Megillah 84a, but without this context. 20 Shamma Friedman, “Graven Images,” Graven Images 1 (1994): 233238, here 237-238. 19

232

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

only the Shekinah, Adam and Jacob.21 The rabbinic names are part of a later addition which serves the obvious intent to draw a line of transmission of beauty from contemporary rabbis to Adam and the Shekinah. Genesis Rabbah 40:5 presents this transmission without the element of diminishment, either polemically or incidentally. Sarah, we are being told, has the image (‫ )איקונה‬and beauty of Eve. That this beauty is luminous is indicated by the comparison with the sun(s).22 The tradition of Adam’s beauty can be traced back to Ezekiel 28, which, as I have already pointed out in chapter five, links beauty with light. A clearer witness to the para-rabbinic (and possibly pre-rabbinic) circulation of the tradition of the luminous Adam is the Life of Adam and Eve, a Jewish text (yet, heavily Christianized in parts) whose terminus ante quem is generally placed at the beginning of the fourth century.23 In the Greek version the tradition lies behind the portrayal of Adam’s sons Cain and Abel, heirs of the protoplast’s status. In chapter 1 Abel is named Αµιλαβές. Samuel T. Lachs argues that the name is a corrupted transliteration of ‫מעיל לבש‬, “he who dons the garment.”24 This tradition is not supported by the other versions of the text, but it is likely Jewish; the name makes no sense at all in Greek. The connection of Abel’s garments with luminosity is also supported by the name given to Cain—Διάφωτος, which, in my opinion, is an evident wordplay. The compounded preposition διά expresses both separation and through-ness. Διάφωτος could therefore mean both “one that has lost the light” and “one that has light shining through.” Of course, Thus Friedman, “Graven Images,” 236. Aaron’s point that this comparison does not imply luminosity is not convincing (“Shedding Light,” esp. 305-309). It is difficult to conceive the “beauty” of the sun as anything else but luminosity. It also seems to me that the question of whether luminosity is meant figuratively should be considered separately. 23 M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBL EJL 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 53-58. 24 “Some Textual Observations on the Apocalypsis of Moses and the Vita Adae et Evae,” JSJ 13 (1982): 172-176. Ginzberg has made the less probable proposal that the name originates in ‫המחבל‬, “the destroyed one” (Legends, 5:135). M. D. Johnson has adopted the proposal (“Life of Adam and Eve,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:249-295, here 267 n.c). 21 22

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

233

it is the first connotation which is the most likely to be associated with Cain (and it is also suggested in the manuscript variant Ἀδιάφωτος25), but it seems to me that the second meaning plays the role of highlighting it through contrast. Furthermore, even though the Latin version of L.A.E. does not have these names, it seems to preserve this word-play when, in 21:3, it describes the newborn Cain as lucidus, which means not only luminous, but also transparent, therefore lacking one’s own light. Also, the transparency (rather than luminosity) of Adam and of the righteous (‫קלסטר‬/‫)קלסתר‬ is present in several rabbinic texts (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 20:2, b. Megillah 87a).26 Regardless of this word-play, what is significant for my study is that the two sons of Adam are associated with luminosity, and by implication, so is also the protoplast.27 That Adam’s light is a garment is intimated in 3 Baruch 4:13, in which Adam’s loss of “the glory of God” (δόξα θεοῦ) is presented as a “stripping” (γυµνόω). It is also possible that Adam’s “adornment” (cf. κοσµέω) with δόξα in Testament of Abraham 11:8 refers to a tradition about Adam donning the divine glory like a garment of light. The Romanian Manuscript 3110 (B.A.R.)28 of this longer recension29 fills in precisely this detail at 11:4: Thus six manuscripts (see Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 267 n.1c) and the Armenian version. Johannes Tromp argues that Ἀδιάφωτος is the original reading of the Greek text (“Cain and Abel in the Greek and Armenian/Georgian Recensions of the Life of Adam and Eve,” in Literature on Adam and Eve [ed. G. Anderson et al.; Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000], 277-296, here 279). 26 See comments in Aaron, “Shedding Light,” 304. 27 Crispin Fletcher-Louis further notes a connection between these names and the tradition about Adam wearing not garments of skin, but of light (All the Glory, 18). 28 The Romanian manuscripts are catalogued according to the system of the Library of the Romanian Academy (abbreviated here as B.A.R.), where these manuscripts are. Manuscript 3110 of the Library of the Romanian Academy dates from 1781. However, Turdeanu has already remarked that the translation is much older, since the 1781 copy contains several “mots anciens” (Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 236). It is most probably a medieval translation of a lost Greek manuscript. 29 The Testament has received attention from scholars mostly in its Greek versions; these are generally assumed to be the best witnesses for the autograph. Only a small number of articles has been dedicated to its 25

234

THE LORD GOD OF GODS Near the outside narrow path he (i.e., Abraham) saw a luminous man (bărbat luminat) sitting upon a gilded throne, and his countenance (firea) was fearful in the likeness of Christ.30

When, in 11:8-9, Abraham asks his accompanying angel about the identity of the luminous man, the angels explains: And Abraham asked the Commander, saying, “Lord, who is this luminous man (bărbat luminat) in such a glory in the world that he sometimes cries and other times rejoices?” 9 The Commander said: “This is Adam, the first-formed, who in his glory sees the world (întru slava lui ce vedea lumea), for all are born from him.”31 8

This text is also remarkable in another detail: Adam sees the world “in his own glory,” which, in the language of the text, means “in his own light.” This reading eliminates the first verb from the Greek text: κάθηται ὧδε ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ δόξῃ καὶ βλέπει τὸν κόσµον.32 Yet, the Romanian version’s attaching of ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ δόξῃ to βλέπει is not a mistake. More likely than not, in the absence of a more disjunctive link than καί between κάθηται and βλέπει, the phrase ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ δόξῃ could indeed determine both verbs. The phrase bărbat luminat is a peculiar (but not singular) use of the passive participle with active meaning, an unnatural and Romanian versions, and none of them has made an extensive analysis of their theological importance. Moses Gaster and Nicolae Roddy have edited and translated critical texts of the Romanian longer version. Nicolae Cartojan, Émile Turdeanu, and Roddy, have analyzed the manuscript tradition. Roddy and Turdeanu have also dedicated to it an analytical interest. This, however, has been unfortunately limited to the impact of the testament on Romanian culture. See Moses Gaster, “Apocalypse of Abraham: from the Roumanian Text, Discovered and Translated,” in Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 9 (1887), 195-226; Roddy, The Romanian Version, 9-116; Cartojan, Cărțile populare, 1:114-115; Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains. 30 This and all following translations from Romanian manuscripts are my own. The Romanian text is in Roddy, The Romanian Version, 36-37. 31 Roddy, The Romanian Version, 37. My own translation. Roddy, who does not notice the unity of the phrase, translates according to the reading of the Greek texts. 32 Text in Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham, 130; translation from Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” 888.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

235

rarely used syntactical feature which Romanian inherited from Latin.33 It is identical to the portrayal of the first human in several Gnostic texts34 and is similar to Adam’s depiction as φωτεινὸς ἄνθρωπος in the Jewish traditions mentioned by Zosimus of Panopolis.35 The adjective luminat is not found in the description of Adam in any existing Greek textual variants.36 All existing Greek and all other Romanian manuscripts (with the exception of manuscript 3110) lack any epithets for “man” in the first quoted passage (11:4). Yet, the divine descriptor “luminous” is not missing entirely from the Greek and Romanian manuscripts, but it is not used in relation to Adam. In chapter 7 of both recensions of the Greek manuscripts, a being sent to fetch Abraham’s soul—whom Abraham will later on identify as Michael in the longer recension (7:10-12)—is described in the shorter recension as a “shining man” (ἀνὴρ λάµπων)37 and a “radiant man” (φωτεινὸς ἀνήρ),38 and, in the longer, as “light-bearing man” (ἀνὴρ φωτόφορος).39 The Romanian manuscripts translate the latter expression with the phrase which describes Adam in manuscript 3110, “luminous man” (bărbat luminat).40 In the Greek longer recension, in 12:9 and 14:8, φωτόφορς is also used for an angel, and in 16:10 it describes Death. In 7:4, 13:1, 13:10, 16:6, and 16:10, the lightSee A. Ernout and F. Thomas, Syntaxe Latine (2nd ed.; Paris: Klincksieck, 1953), 276-277; Gramatica limbii romîne (2nd ed.; 2 vols.; București: Editura Academiei, 1963), 1:230. 34 Cf. On the Origin of the World 103.19-22, 108.2-9, 20-24. See also Eugnostos 76.14-24. 35 On the Letter Omega 9, 10,11,15. Critical Greek text in Howard M. Jackson, ed. and trans., Zosimus of Panopolis On the Letter Omega (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 28, 30, 36. 36 The closest parallelism to the luminescence of Adam in the Romanian version is Adam’s depiction as a “man wearing white garments” in the Coptic manuscript Vaticanus Copt. 61 (MacRae, “Coptic Testament,” 327-329), which alludes to the tradition that Adam is clothed in luminous garments. 37 7:5 in Sanders, 7:6 in Schmidt. 38 7:9 and 7:13 in Sanders, 7:10 and 7:14 in Schmidt. 39 7:3, 7:6, and 7:8 in both Sanders and Schmidt. In 7:6 the adjective appears only in manuscripts G, H, B, J, and Q. In 7:5 it is present only in manuscripts A and J. 40 Roddy, The Romanian Version, 31. 33

236

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

bearing beings are further described as ἡλιόµορφος (of a sunlike form). This manuscript evidence points to two possibilities: either the Greek manuscript which the Romanian 3110 translates moved a descriptor of angels to the protoplast, or the description of the protoplast in a term otherwise reserved for angels was removed early in the transmission of the text. It seems to me that the second possibility is more likely, since bărbat luminat is not a natural expression. Philo is another witness of the antiquity of the tradition of the luminous Adam, but his testimony has to be glimpsed through his Logos theology. Similarly to the rabbis, Philo links the luminosity of the Logos to Gen 1:3. Moreover, for Philo the Logos is also the ideal humanity, the human after the image of God (cf. Conf. 146). This heavenly humanity, which Philo contrasts with the earthly humanity, a creation of dust and earth (Gen 2:7), is then both the light of Gen 1:3 and the image of God of Gen 1:26: ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστι-κύριος γὰρ φωτισµός µου καὶ σωτήρ µου ἐν ὕµνοις ᾄδεται-καὶ οὐ µόνον φῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου φωτὸς ἀρχέτυπον, µᾶλλον δὲ παντὸς ἀρχετύπου πρεσβύτερον καὶ ἀνώτερον, λόγον ἔχον παραδείγµατος. τὸ µὲν γὰρ παράδειγµα ὁ πληρέστατος ἦν αὐτοῦ λόγος, φῶς. εἶπε γάρ φησιν ὁ θεός· γενέσθω φῶς αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδενὶ τῶν γεγονότων ὅµοιος. (Somn. 1.75)41 God is light, for it is sung in the hymns [i.e., psalms] “the Lord is my illumination and my savior” (Ps 26:1). And he is not only light, but also the archetype of every other light, and rather even the archetype greater and higher than every archetype, the archetype bearing the Logos of patterning. For the pattern was his most-complete Logos-Light; for “God said, ‘let light come to be’ (Gen 1:3)”, while he himself is similar to none of the things which have come to be.

The godhead is the very principle and the ultimate source of archetyping. It, however, belongs to a realm transcending every resemblance with the created realities and is not the direct archetype of any creature. This archetype is the light created on the very first day, the Logos, who embodies and actualizes God’s archetypal power in a concrete and direct relation to creation. In 41

The text is from Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 5:335-336.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

237

his typical language Philo distinguishes God from everything else as the one who is (εἰµί), who has existence in and of himself, whereas all other things and beings come into existence (γίγνοµαι). God therefore is the light which simply is, while the Light-Logos is brought into existence by God in the uttering of γενέσθω φῶς, “let Light come to be.” Nowhere else does Philo describe this luminosity of the Logos as an aspect of human life as clearly as further down from the above quotation, in Somn. 1.112-114. In the preceding paragraphs Philo speaks of the λόγος in ambivalent terms, both as reasoning faculty and as the Light of Gen 1:3 (cf. 1.105-111). The λόγος, he says, “is bound to us, a friend and acquaintance and coinhabitant and companion, or rather joined and made one [with us] by some indissoluble and unseen glue of nature” (φίλος γὰρ καὶ γνώριµος καὶ συνήθης καὶ ἑταῖρος ἡµῖν ἐστιν, ἐνδεδεµένος, µᾶλλον δὲ ἡρµοσµένος καὶ ἡνωµένος κόλλῃ τινὶ φύσεως ἀλύτῳ καὶ ἀοράτῳ— 1.111).42 Somn. 1.112-114 deserves a full quote: He [the λόγος] does not exercise a half-worked power, but one complete in all regards, and at any rate, if he actually falls in the things he thinks or executes in deed, he reaches for the third aid—encouragement. For just as there is healing of wounds, so the λόγος is salvation from the passions of the soul (ψυχῆς παθῶν … σωτήριον), who—the lawgiver says—must get restored “before the setting of the sun” (Exod 22:26), that is, before the all-encompassing rays of the most-high and mostmanifest God go down, the rays which through mercy for our race God sends forth from heaven into the human mind. For, when the most-godlike and bodiless light (τοῦ θεοειδεστάτου καὶ ἀσωµάτου φωτὸς) remains steadfast in the soul, we will restore the pledged λόγος, like a garment, so that it is possible for the one receiving the possession peculiar to humanity both to cover the indignity of life and to delight in the divine gift, and to rest with calmness in the presence of such a counsellor and shield who never abandons the position to which he has been appointed. Therefore, as long as God still shines upon you the

My translation of the Greek text from Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 5:354. 42

238

THE LORD GOD OF GODS sacred brightness (τὸ ἱερὸν φέγγος), hurry earnestly to restore the pledge to the Lord in the day.43

The paragraph has puzzled the readers and has received many interpretations. The language is overwhelming, but once we parse it in light of Philo’s theology of deification, two figures emerge clearly: the Logos-Light and the logos-reason. The “all-encompassing rays of the most-high and most-manifest God,” “the mostgodlike and bodiless light,” “the counsellor and shield who never abandons,” and “the sacred brightness” is the Logos who comes down from God. The logos who “must get restored,” “the pledge of the Lord,” “the possession peculiar to humanity,” is the human logos. Yet, there is a link and correspondence between the Logos and the logos: the logos must get restored before the Logos goes down, while he remains steadfast in the soul, while he shines. The language is one of embodiment: the Logos comes into the human mind, and soul, and is the day or daytime in which the logos fulfils its natural functions. In other words, the Logos and the logos do not simply collaborate, but intertwine. The λόγος “joined and made one [with us]” in 1.111 can now be understood as the Logos. Philo pursues this deification language in other places. In Leg. 3.169-178,44 Philo describes the Logos as “summoning the soul to itself” (καλέσῃ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τὴν ψυχήν—1.171) so as to feed himself to it, and as one “holding together, in the likeness of dew, grasping around the entire [soul] and leaving no part un-partaken with him” (συνεχής, ἐοικὼς δρόσῳ, κύκλῳ πᾶσαν περιειληφὼς καὶ µηδὲν µέρος ἀµέτοχον αὑτοῦ ἐῶν—1.169).45 Philo builds the imagery on My translation of the Greek text from Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 5:356. 44 The following are my translations of the Greek text from Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 1:414-420. 45 This strong deification language may be the primary reason for which Philo is significantly concerned with the boundary between divinity and humanity. But contrary to common assumptions, it is not this fluidity that constitutes the novelty or the departure from tradition, but a departure would rather be any firm closure of the divine selfhood. For a lucid and thorough discussion of Philo’s challenges to the divine boundaries and his border concerns, see Segal, Two Powers, 159-181. 43

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

239

Exod 16:13, which he quotes twice in this section: “This bread which the Lord gave us to eat, is this word, which the Lord has arranged” (οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος ὃν δέδωκεν ἡµῖν κύριος τοῦ φαγεῖν. τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆµα ὃ συνέταξε κύριος). This communion with the Logos, Philo explains, turns the soul luminous with the very light of the Logos: Τί γὰρ ἂν εἴη λαµπρότερον ἢ τηλαυγέστερον θείου λόγου, οὗ κατὰ µετουσίαν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὴν ἀχλὺν καὶ τὸν ζόφον ἀπελαύνει φωτὸς κοινωνῆσαι ψυχικοῦ γλιχόµενα; For what could be more radiant or more far-shining than the divine Logos, in communion with whom the others also drive away the mist and the darkness, longing to partake of spiritual light?

It is now useful to turn to the ancient φώς-φῶς speculation noted at the beginning of this chapter. There is no need to review the evidence provided by Quispel and Fossum.46 Rather, I like to submit that the speculation has a close parallel, and possibly even a root, in the word play ‫אש‬-‫איש‬, man-fire. As far as I can tell, the earliest clear occurrence of the latter is in the first century B.C.E. Qumranic text 4Q377, which, like Exagoge, is also focused on the deified Moses. Based on parallels with Deut 5:4-7, Fletcher-Louis has argued that the subject of the divine portrait in lines 6b-8 is Moses, although this has been called into question.47 Regardless of this identification there is a strong consonance between the following phrases in line 748:

Quispel, “Gnosis,” 417; idem, “Ezekiel 1:26,” 6-7; Fossum, Name of God, 280; idem, Image, 16-17. 47 All the Glory, 141-148; idem, “Some Reflections,” 298-305. Against the argument see Wido van Peursen, “Who Was Standing on the Mountain? The Portrait of Moses in 4Q377,” in Axel Graupner and Michael Wolter, eds., Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions (BZAW 372; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2007), 99-113, and Phoebe Makiello, “Was Moses Considered to be an Angel by Those at Qumran?” in ibid., 115-127, here pp. 122-126. 48 I have adopted here the text as restored by J. Strugnell (in James VanderKam and Monica Brady, “4QApocryphal Pentateuch B,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2 [ed. E. Schuller et al.; DJD XXVIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001], 205-217, here p. 214) and accepted by 46

240

THE LORD GOD OF GODS ‫“ יראה איש א]ו[ר‬like a man sees light” ‫“ הראנו באש בעורה‬he has made himself seen to us in burning fire”

The parallelism is evident. Both phrases contain three words. The verb ‫ ראה‬appears in first position in both sentences and it is followed by two consonances: ‫אש‬-‫ איש‬and ‫אור‬-‫עור‬. James VanderKam and Monica Brady rightly note that the form ‫ בעורה‬is “surprising.”49 A regular qal activ participle would have the form ‫( בערה‬cf. Jer 20:9) or a plene ‫בוערה‬, bōērāh. The existing spelling rather reflects the vocalization of a passive participle “burned,” which would be nonsensical here—”burned fire.” I would contend that this irregular spelling is meant to draw attention to and enhance the parallelism with ‫אור‬, and that this elaborate parallelism—defiant of proper spelling—is most probably meant to strengthen the word play ‫אש‬-‫איש‬, which is in central position. In this enhanced parallelism, the consonance ‫אש‬-‫ איש‬could not have eluded the reverent attention of the Qumran readers. Within this complex consonance and reverse parallelism, Moses (?) as ‫ אש עורה‬corresponds to the light (‫ )אור‬seen by man (‫)איש‬. Moreover, I would submit that at least one earlier text may contain this word play. Ezek 8:2 portrays the kabod as ὁµοίωµα ἀνδρός in LXX (with echoes of Ezek 1:26 and 28), but as ‫דמות כמראה‬ ‫ אש‬in MT. Most probably the original was ‫איש‬. As Moshe Greenberg notes, the words ‫ אש‬and ‫ איש‬constitute natural pauses in the two consecutive phrases: ‫דמות כמראה איש ממראה מתניו ולמטה אש‬.50 Moreover, the choice of ‫ איש‬in this description of the kabod, instead of ‫( אדם‬Ezek 1:26) is peculiar,51 but it suggests an intention to create a consonance with ‫אש‬. The MT repetition of ‫ אש‬is only proof that the pun worked too well. All these light speculations could have been encouraged by the description of Adam’s garments adorned with precious stones in Ezek 28:13, description which I analyzed in chapter six. The passage evokes the garments of the high priest in Exod 28:17-20, García Martínez and Tigchelaar (The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, 744745). My henceforth arguments support Strugnell’s reading. 49 “4Qapocryphal Pentateuch B,” 215. 50 Greenberg, Ezekiel, 166. 51 Greenberg, Ezekiel, 166.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

241

but it also implies a connection between the luminous garments of Adam and the concept of kabod. I already noted above that the Priestly concept of kabod correlates with the Mesopotamian concepts expressing divine presence puluẖtu and melammu. The terms indicate divine (and royal) majesty and luminosity as concretely envisioned in the cultic statues of the gods, predominantly in their crowns (melammu)52 and garments (puluẖtu).53 As Haran notes, in contrast to melammu – which is borne on the head and the verb indicating its use is mostly našû, “to carry” (the same verb that is used in connection with hôd in Zech. 6.13), - in pulḫu one wraps himself and the verb accompanying it is labâšu, “to wear, to be covered up in.” The pulḫu is frequently metaphorized as a covering of fire. . .54

The connection between the Akkadian terms and kabod is further evidenced in the association of the Priestly kabod with luminous phenomena (e.g., Lev 9:23-24).55 The divine kabod manifests itself as fire, ‫אש‬, surrounded by cloud, ‫( ענן‬cf. Exod 24:16-17; Num 17:7). Ezekiel’s conception of kabod parallels that of the Priestly source. The prominent elements of the description of the kabod in Ezekiel are fire, ‫אש‬, (cf. Ezek 1:27; 8:3) and splendor, ‫נגה‬ (1:27,28). Moreover, the whole appearance of the kabod is compared to a rainbow surrounded by a cloud, ‫( ענן‬1:28), an imagery even closer to the Priestly conception of the kabod as fire enveloped in cloud (see also Ezek 10:4).

Moshe Weinfeld notes that “in the ancient Near East the divine glory was embodied in the crown of the deity or hero; this holds true of Heb. kabod as well” (“‫כבוד‬,” 27). His references are Job 19:9 (“he has stripped me from my kabod and taken the crown from my head”) and Ps 8:6 (“You have made him a little less than God, and crowned him with kabod and honor”). 53 Weinfeld, “‫כבוד‬,” 28; Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments.” 54 “The Shining of Moses’ Face,” 172 n.19. 55 See also Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 80-81; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:124. 52

CHAPTER SIXTEEN. THE ENORMOUS BODY OF ADAM As I have already shown in chapters two and three, enormity was a widespread divine feature in early Jewish theologies and in ancient Near Eastern pantheons. The size of the gods was commonly reflected in the dimensions of their statues. The vitality of this imagery, sustained by the Hellenistic environment which itself commonly associated gods with bodily enormity (also reflected in their statues),1 is attested by its reoccurrence in texts such as Daniel 3 and 4, Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge, and Pseudo-Orpheus, in which the divine feature is fully transferred to (deified) humanity. Subsequent literature will develop the capability of humanity to emulate divine size in unequivocal terms. Modern scholarship has dedicated several studies to early Jewish traditions about the enormous body of Adam.2 Although not the earliest witnesses, the classical rabbinic texts are the most prominent and furnish the most comprehensive view of the traditions. b. Sanhedrin 23b, b. Sanhedrin 38b, and b. Hagigah 12a

Cf., among others, Herodotus, Histories 1.183; 2.110, 143, 153, 172, 175; Diodorus of Sicily, History 1.46-49; 2.9. 2 On Adam’s enormous body in Judaism see Jervell, Imago Dei, 99-100, 105-107; B. Barc, “La Taille cosmique d’Adam dans la littérature juive rabbinique des trois premières siècles après J.C.,” RSR 49 (1975): 173185; Susan Niditch, “The Cosmic Man: Man as Mediator in Rabbinic Literature,” JJS 34 (1983): 137-146; C. Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos: eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch (Frankfurt am Main, New York: Lang, 1995). 1

243

244

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

attribute one such teaching to Rab and R. Eleazar.3 b. Hagigah 12a reads: But now that this is inferred from [the expression] From one end of heaven unto the other, wherefore do I need [the expression], Since the day that God created man upon the earth? — To intimate that which R. Eleazar taught. For R. Eleazar said: The first man [extended] from the earth to the firmament, as it is said: Since the day that God created man upon the earth; but as soon as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, for it is said: Thou hast fashioned me after and before, and laid Thine hand upon me (Ps 139:5). Rab Judah said that Rab said: The first man [extended] from one end of the world to the other, for it is said: Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other (Deut 4:32); as soon as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, for it is said: And laid Thine hand upon me. If so, the verses contradict one another! — They both [have] the same dimensions.

Genesis Rabbah 8:1, 21:3, and 24:2 associate the same Eleazar with Adam speculations incorporating another element—the four cardinal directions: R. Joshua b. R. Nehemiah and R. Judah b. R. Simon in R. Eleazar’s name said: He created him [Adam] filling the whole world. How do we know that he stretched from east to west?

Rab is well-known as a very productive Babylonian Amora from the turn between the second and third centuries. R. Judah (b. Ezekiel) is recorded in several texts as transmitting the teachings of Rab, his teacher (e. g., b. Berakhot 5b, 10b, 17b, 19b, 25a, 27a, 29a; Numbers Rabbah 9:24; Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:31; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:12). R. Eleazar is most probably R. Eleazar b. Pedath, the disciple of Rab and of R. Johanan b. Nappaha. He left Babylonia with Rab for Palestine and was active around the middle of the third century. The proximity of the teaching attributed to them in the above documents to the tradition that Adam was able to contemplate the whole world in the light of the first day, also attributed to the two, R. Eleazar (b. Hagigah 12a) and R. Judah (b. Ezekiel) (Genesis Rabbah 42:3; Leviticus Rabbah 11:7; Exodus Rabbah 35:1; Numbers Rabbah 13:5; Esther Rabbah Prologue 11), suggests a well-developed Stammaitic tradition. 3

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

245

Because it is said, Thou hast formed me behind and before (Ps 139:5). From north to south? Because it says, Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of Heaven unto the other (Deut 4:32). And how do we know that he filled the empty space of the world? From the verse, And laid Thy hand upon me (Job 13:21). (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)

Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 and 18:2 further attest to the association of Adam’s size to the four directions, but reference other rabbinic authorities: R. Berekiah and Rabbi Helbo and Rabbi Samuel b. Nahman said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first man, He created him from one end of the universe to the other (in size). Whence do we know that Adam was in size from east to west? Since it is said: “Thou hast formed me west and east” (Ps 139:5). Whence do we know that he was in size from north to south? Since it is said: “God created man upon earth, even from one end of the heaven unto the other” (Deut 4:32). And whence do we derive that he was in height as the whole space of the universe? Since it is said: “And Thou hast laid Thy arch upon me.” (Leviticus Rabbah 14:1)

The most striking connection between all the above testimonies is the common use of Psalm 139. It is probable that Psalm 139 was introduced into these Adamic speculations by the rabbinic tradition according to which the biblical text is an autobiographical creation of the protoplast.4 In all testimonies, the psalm supports the association of Adam’s enormous size with the four directions. ‫( אחור‬behind) and ‫( קדם‬before) in the psalm are interpreted as references to west and east. I will return to this association between Adam’s size and the four directions. Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, a text dated to the sixth or even fifth century,5 attributes to R. Meir, the same second century rabbi b. Bava Batra 14b. See also Barc, “La Taille cosmique d’Adam,” 175. On it see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 291-296. Different considerations for dating are on pp. 295-296. The Pesiqta has two editions: S. Buber, ed., Pesikta, die älteste Hagada, redigiert in Palästina von Rab Kahanah (Lyck: Silbermann, 1868); B. Mandelbaum, ed., Pesikta de Rav Kahana (2 vols.; Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962). An English translation to be used with caution is available in W. G. Braude and I. J. 4 5

246

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

accredited with the speculation on Adam’s luminous garments, the following statement: At that moment [i.e., sin] the first man’s stature was cut down and diminished to one hundred cubits. (Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 1)6

The imagery is remarkable, given that that one hundred cubits is itself an enormous dimension for a “diminished” human. Therefore, it is more than likely that the rabbinic authority alludes to the most known association of this particular size—the holy precinct. In the Bible, the hangings and the court of the tabernacle have this precise measure (cf. Exod 27:9, 11, 18, 38:9, 11), as do Ezekiel’s reconstructed temple and all its courts, in all directions (cf. Ezek 40:19, 23, 27, 47, 41:13-15, 42:2-8). Certainly, the rabbinic text invites to speculation, and indeed we can only speculate that the body of Adam is presented as a temple or as a presence befitting the temple. In support of this I adduce Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, a midrash generally dated to the 8th or 9th century (on the basis that in chapter 30 it contains “prophecies” about the beginning of Muslim rule in Palestine).7 Chapter 11 ties Adam’s cosmic proportions with his function as a cultic statue of God,8 making use of the aforementioned testimony of Ps 139:5: Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975). A more reliable translation is in Pesiqta de Rab Kahana (tr. Jacob Neusner; 2 vols.; BJS 122-123; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). 6 Translation from Pesiqta de Rab Kahana (Neusner), 1.1. 7 See an introduction to it (including on matters of dating) in Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 328-330. There is no critical edition of Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. An English translation of one manuscript tradition is available in G. Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (New York: Hermon Press, 1965). 8 Morton Smith (“The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism with Special Reference to Goodenough’s Work on Jewish Symbols,” BJRL 40 [1958]: 473-512; idem, “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of the Gentiles,” in Religions in Antiquity [ed. Jacob Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1970], 315-326) notes that the rabbinic concept of ‫ צלם‬inherits the anthropomorphic connotations of the biblical concept. Alon GoshenGottstein (“The Body as Image of God,” 171-195) has contended that the only Rabbinic reading of ‫ צלם‬is anthropomorphic. All other meanings, of

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

247

Adam stood and began to gaze upwards and downwards. . . . He stood on his feet and was adorned with the Divine Image. His height was from east to west, as it is said, “Thou hast beset me behind and before” (Ps 139:5). “Behind” refers to the west, and “before” refers to the east. All the creatures saw him and became afraid of him, thinking that he was their creator, and they came to prostrate themselves before him. (Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 11)9

The text has a close parallel in Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva 59, in which the angels wish to worship Adam as a second power (the connection to Two Powers heresies is explicit).10 The Pirqe is certainly later than the Pesiqta, but, as I showed in chapter ten, the worship of deified humanity has biblical roots in Daniel 2, and, as I will show in this chapter and in the final chapter, the specific worship of Adam is widespread in Christian and Jewish sources much earlier than the Pesiqta. Certainly the focus on Adam’s resemblance to God in size predates the activity of the Amoraim. The second century apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew preserves it as follows: Bartholomew said to him: . . . “Tell me, Lord, who was he whom the angels carried in their arms, that exceedingly large man?” . . . 22 “It was Adam, the first created, for whose sake I came down from heaven upon the earth.” . . . 23 Again 21

whom Gottstein is aware, seem to be developments of this original reading. However, Gottstein does not take his thesis as far as to identify the image with the physical body, with Adam’s corporeality. His argument focuses on the concept of body of light, a broader and more inclusive term. 9 Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 79. 10 “Initially Adam was created from the earth to the firmament. When the ministering angels saw him, they were shocked and excited by him. At that time they all stood before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said to Him: “Master of the Universe! There are two powers in the world, one in heaven and one on earth.” What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do then? He placed His hand on him, and decreased him, setting him at one thousand cubits.” Translation from Moshe Idel, “Enoch Is Metatron,” Imm 24/25 (1990): 220-240, here 226.

248

THE LORD GOD OF GODS Bartholomew said: “Lord, I also saw the angels ascending before Adam and singing praises.” . . . (Gos. Bart. 21-23)11

The pre-rabbinic antiquity and para-rabbinic nature of the enormity of Adam is witnessed by many sources. Apocalypse of Abraham, an apocalypse dated to the end of the first century C.E.,12 attests to it as follows: My eyes ran to the side of the garden of Eden. And I saw there a man very great in height and terrible in breadth, incomparable in aspect, entwined with a woman who was also equal to the man in aspect and size. And they were standing under a tree of Eden. (Apocalypse of Abraham 23:4-6)13

The language of “height” and “breadth” is particularly significant, as it also figures in speculations about Adam’s knowledge, speculations associated with the tradition about Adam’s size. (I will return to these speculations in the next chapter.) Only slightly later (end of the second century) is Irenaeus’ report that Sethians and Ophites maintain, in conjunction with Gen 1:26, a tradition according to which the first man is of an enormous size (Against Heresies I.30.6). Philo is aware of speculations about Adam’s body and warns against such literal readings of Gen 1:26: Let no one represent the likeness in the form of the body (σώµατος χαρακτῆρι); for neither is God anthropomorphic (ἀνθρωπόµορφος), nor is the human body deiform (θεοειδές). (Opif. 69)14

Edgar Hennecke, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; ed. W. Schneemelcher; trans. R. M. Wilson; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), 1:490-491. 12 On the dating of the apocalypse see especially L. Ginzberg, “Abraham, Apocalypse of,” JE (1904), 1:91-2; R. Rubinkiewiecz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en slave (Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin; Zródla i monografie 129; Lublin, 1987); Idem, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:681-705, here 683; A. Kulik, “K datirovke ‘Otkrovenija Avraama’,” in In Memoriam of Ja. S. Lur’e (ed. N. M. Botvinnik and Je. I. Vaneeva; St. Petersburg: Fenix, 1997), 189–95. 13 Rubinkiewiecz, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” 700. 14 My translation of the Greek text from Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 1:54. 11

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

249

It is intriguing and significant that Philo does not completely abandon the image language. He rather emphasizes that the resemblance between divinity and humanity resides not in the body (he never denies that God has a body, in one way or another), but in the νοῦς and the λόγος, such as in the immediately subsequent sentence: “Image” is said in reference to the mind (νοῦς) which governs the soul; for the mind in each one of those who exist individually has been molded according to that one archetype, as it were, of all things (πρὸς ἕνα τὸν τῶν ὅλων ἐκεῖνον ὡς ἂν ἀρχέτυπον). (Opif. 69)15

Yet, the Alexandrian has also to hold humanity superior to animals in the body. Therefore, in Questions on Genesis 1.32 Philo has the following to say: And since they were not provided only with defective senses, such as belong to a miserable bodily frame, but were provided with a very great body and the magnitude of a giant, it was necessary that they should also have more accurate senses, and what is more, philosophical sight and hearing. For not inaptly do some conjecture that they were provided with eyes with which they could see those natures and beings and actions which were in heaven, and with ears to perceive sounds of every kind.16

A New Testament passage offers early testimony to a Jewish tradition that deified humanity recovers the resemblance to God even in the enormous stature of his body. Moreover, the language

My translation of the Greek text from Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 1:54. Translation from Philo. Questions and Answers on Genesis (Loeb; trans. Ralph Marcus; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), 19. The work is only preserved in an Armenian manuscript tradition. It is extant in Greek only in fragmentary quotations. The Armenian witness was published for the first time and translated into Latin by J.-B. Aucher, Philonis Judaei paralipomena armena … opera hactenus inedita (Venetiis, 1826). For a detailed description of the extant Greek sources see Françoise Petit, Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. Tome 33. Questiones in Genesim et in Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca (Paris: Cerf, 1978), 13-15. 15 16

250

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

in which Eph 4:10-13 expresses this tradition is particularly significant: The one who descended [Christ], he is also the one who ascended far beyond all the heavens, so that he fills all things (πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα). And indeed himself gave some to be apostles, and others prophets, and others evangelists, and others shepherds and teachers, toward the refashioning of the holy ones (πρὸς τὸν καταρτισµὸν τῶν ἁγίων) into the work of service (εἰς ἔργον διακονίας), into the building up of the body of Christ (εἰς οἰκοδοµὴν τοῦ σώµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ), to the point that we all attain the oneness of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, the complete man (εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον), the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (εἰς µέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ).

The language is at once ministerial, iconic, and physical. Michael Fishbane remarks that the expression µέτρον ἡλικίας has an exact correspondent in the Hebrew phrase ‫ שעור קומה‬and proposes that it constitutes an early case of Christian appropriation of Jewish speculations about God’s enormous body, of which Adam’s body is an image.17 Alon Goshen-Gottstein also notes that πλήρωµα τού “The ‘Measures’ of God’s Glory in Ancient Midrash,” in Messiah and Christos (ed. I. Gruenwald et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 53-74, esp. 70-2. G. Scholem remarks that a similar phrase exists in 2 En. 39:6 (shorter recension) (On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead [New York: Schocken Books, 1991], 29). For ‫ שעור קומה‬type speculations in the Pauline corpus, see also Quispel, “Ezekiel 1: 26,” 1-13; Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God,” esp. 281-6; Segal, Paul the Convert, 58-64; Fossum, “Jewish-Christian Christology,” 261-74; Morray-Jones, “The Temple Within,” 426-30. For ‫ שעור קומה‬literature, see M. S. Cohen, The Sh’iur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Washington: University Press of America, 1983); M. Bar-Ilan, “The Hand of God: A Chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism,” in Rashi 1040-1990: Hommage à Ephraim E. Urbach, Congrés europèen des études juives (ed. G. Sed-Rajna; Paris: Cerf, 1993), 321-335; Dan, “The Concept of Knowledge in the Shi`ur Qomah,” 67-73; Naomi Janowitz, “God’s Body: Theological and Ritual Roles of Shiu’r Komah,” in People of the Body (ed. H. Eilberg-Schwartz; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 183-201; P. Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992); G. Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, 15-55; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, 36-42, 101-126, 17

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

251

θεοῦ serves in several texts as an anthropomorphic reference to the body of the kabod.18 Moreover, even if the text speaks of different functions of ministry, the phrase καταρτισµὸς εἰς ἔργον διακονίας (“refashion into a work of service”) parallels “the building up of the body of Christ” and together they allude to the construction of a cultic image. In the Septuagint “the works” (τὰ ἔργα) is shorthand for the artistic representations of the Cherubim (Exod 25:18-22) and of other objects (Exod 35:21, 32-35). When the artistic representations in the tabernacle are called for the first time τὰ ἔργα, in Exod 31:4-5, this is done emphatically to the point of incoherent repetition: “[I filled him with a divine spirit] to conceive and to design, to work… the liturgical objects, and to work the works crafted out of wood, according to all the works” (διανοεῖσθαι καὶ ἀρχιτεκτονῆσαι, ἐργάζεσθαι… τὰ λιθουργικὰ καὶ εἰς τὰ ἔργα τὰ τεκτονικὰ τῶν ξύλων ἐργάζεσθαι κατὰ πάντα τὰ ἔργα). Num 4:43 even uses the peculiar expression λειτουργεῖν πρὸς τὰ ἔργα, “to liturgize toward the works.” In Numbers (LXX) the verb λειτουργέω is used exclusively for liturgical service,19 which makes “the works” in 4:43 objects of cultic service, most probably the kabod in its cultic state. It is also significant that the “measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” is presented as synonymous (or at least equivalent) to the phrase “complete man” (ἀνὴρ τέλειος), whose noun is

129-131; idem, Major Trends, 63-70; E. R. Wolfson, “Images of God’s Feet: Some Observations on the Divine Body in Judaism,” in EilbergSchwartz, People of the Body, 143-181. For collections of ‫ שעור קומה‬texts, see Peter Schäfer et al., Synopse zur Hekhaloth-Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981), §§ 367; 375-386; 468-488; 688-704; 939973; Peter Schäfer et al., Übersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur (TSAJ 22; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1989), §§ 367; 375-86; 468-88; 688-704; 939-73; Martin Cohen, The Shi’ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy; idem, The Shi’ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985). 18 “‫מה למעלה למה למטה מה לפנים למה לאחור‬,” in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, August 16-24 1989 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990), C:61-68. 19 G. Dorival et al., eds., La Bible d’Alexandrie. IV. Les Nombres (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 115-117.

252

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

peculiar in several ways: it is non-collective, gendered,20 and indicates maturity.21 It would be a mistake to say that the referent of this phrase is Christ and not Adam. Given the iconic overtone of the entire paragraph, it is very likely it refers at once to both Christ and Adam, and it is only through this ambivalence that the imagery applies collectively to the Church. Just as with divine images, in Eph 4:10-13 the deification of humanity—described here in terms of enlargement and completion—is the indwelling of Christ; the different ministries of the faith and the church in general are filled with Christ.22 And this christification secures, or rather is, the oneness of humanity. Ephesians consistently uses ἄνθρωπος for indicating experiences which pertain to humanity collectively, including just after this text (2:15, 3:5, 16, 4:14, 22, 24, 6:7). Excluding the text on marriage in 5:22-33, where ἀνήρ evidently refers to a husband, the epistle uses ἀνήρ only here, in 4:13. 21 Since maturity is implicit in the noun, the adjective cannot refer to completeness. 22 Not surprisingly, in Augustine’s testimony some early Christian anthropomorphites used Eph 4:13 in support of their claim that the resurrected human body, the body which is restored in Christ, will be of “gigantic proportions” (giganteae magnitudines). Augustine takes advantage of the common Latin translation of ἡλικία as aetas (which, to my knowledge, never means “stature,” unlike the Greek ἡλικία) and contends that the phrase µέτρον ἡλικίας cannot mean mensura corporis or mensura staturae, but only mensura aetatis (Civ. 22:15; Saint Augustine, The City of God Against the Pagans [The Loeb Classical Library; 7 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1972], 7:276, 278). I have also argued elsewhere that a similar correction of ἡλικία with aetas occurs in T. Mos. 11:8: “For all dying men have their graves on earth according to their age (secus aetatem) [instead of “according to their stature”], but your grave is from the rising of the sun to the west, and from the south to the limits of the north. The whole world is your grave” (Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses. A Critical Edition with Commentary [SVTP 10; Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1993], 20). See Silviu N. Bunta, “Too Vast to Fit in the World: Moses, Adam, and ‫ צלם אלהים‬in Testament of Moses 11:8,” Henoch 26/2 (2004): 188-204. For early Christian anthropomorphism, see particularly G. Stroumsa, “The Incorporeality of God: Context and Implications of Origen’s Position,” Religion 13 (1983): 345-358; idem, “Form(s) of God”; idem, “Jewish and Gnostic Traditions among the Audians,” in Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land (ed. A. Kofsky and G.G. Stroumsa; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1998), 345-358; David 20

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

253

Finally, more must be said in this chapter about the association between Adam’s size and the four directions, association which we have found in Genesis Rabbah 8:1, 21:3, 24:2, Leviticus Rabbah 14:1, 18:2. This element of the traditions about the enormity of Adam is attested in a different form in much earlier texts—first in reference to the name Adam itself.23 The earliest attestation could very well be Sibylline Oracles 3:24-26. The two prevailing theories on the third book of the Sibylline Oracles see it either as a literary unity composed between 80-30 B.C.E. or as a composite of two distinct units written between 150-50 B.C.E.24 Yet, there is an almost universal consensus that verses 1-92— which contain the Adam tradition of interest to my study—are an introductive addition, probably the conclusion of a different sibylline book, composed anywhere between the late Hellenistic Paulsen, “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” HTR 83 (1990): 105-116; Alexander Golitzin, “‘The Demons Suggest an Illusion of God’s Glory in a Form’: Controversy over the Divine Body and Vision of Glory in Some Late Fourth, Early Fifth Century Monastic Literature,” Studia Monastica 44 (2002): 1343; idem, “The Vision of God and the Form of the Glory: More Reflections on the Anthropomorphite Controversy of 399 AD,” in Abba: The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West. Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (ed. A. Louth and J. Behr; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 267-291. 23 For the place of the four cardinal points in speculations about Adam’s name, see also Dominique Cerbelaux, “Le nom d’Adam et les points cardinaux,” VC 38 (1984): 285-301. 24 For its literary coherence and unity, see Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting: With an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (SVTP 17; Leiden: Brill, 2003). For its composite nature, see J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBLDS 13; Missoula, Mont.; Scholars Press, 1974), 21-34; idem, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:354-380; idem, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 84. For dating and location, see Buitenwerf, Book III, 124-134; Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 354-355, 358; idem, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 85-86; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 161-165. For a bibliography on dating, see Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 144. Slightly later dates have been proposed by V. Nikiprowetzky, La Troisième Sibylle (Paris: Mouton, 1970), 215; A. Paul, “Les Pseudépigraphes juifs de langue grecque,” in Études sur le Judaïsme hellénistique (ed. R. Kuntzmann and J. Schlosser; Paris: Cerf, 1984), 90.

254

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

period and the early Roman period (the preference being for the second half of the first century B.C.E.).25 The text reads: 24

αὐτὸς δὴ θεός ἐσθ’ ὁ πλάσας τετραγράµµατον Ἀδάµ τὸν πρῶτον πλασθέντα καὶ οὔνοµα πληρώσαντα 26 ἀντολίην τε δύσιν τε µεσηµβρίην τε καὶ ἄρκτον. 25

Indeed it is God himself who molded the tetragrammatic Adam, 25 the first-molded and filling in name 26 east and west and south and north.26 24

Dominique Cerbelaud offers a clear support for the Jewishness of the text: Remarquons que le nom d’Adam est ici désigné comme “tetragrammatique” . . . comme l’imprononçable nom de Dieu luimême! Cette allusion confirme bien le caractère proprement juif du passage. . .27

At first glance, the speculation about Adam’s name is simple, acronymic: it is given by the initials of the Greek names of the four directions—ἀνατολή, δύσις, ἄρκτος, and µεσηµβρία.28 What is not clear is what it means to say that Adam “makes full” the directions “in name.” Two possibilities seem feasible: either there is here a direct reference to the body of Adam reaching the directions from which he receives his name, or, if there is an emphasis on “in name,” there is a polemical transfer of such imagery to the name alone. In either case, what cannot be assumed is that the text does not know of the tradition about the enormity of Adam’s body.

Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 354, 359-360. The Greek text is from Johannes Geffcken, Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902), 47-48. The translation is mine. 27 Cerbelaud, “Le nom d’Adam,” 298. For support for the Jewishness of the entire book 3, see also Ashley L. Bacchi, Uncovering Jewish Creativity in Book III of the Sibylline Oracles (JSJSup 194; Leiden: Brill, 2020). 28 Interestingly the text renders the Greek acronym the wrong way, namely ADMA, even though the inaccuracy is quite evident and should not have evaded the eyes of the author. Strikingly, this incorrect order corresponds perfectly to the sequence of the four directions in T. Mos. 11:8. 25 26

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

255

The same speculation about the name of Adam is found in 2 Enoch 30:13-14 (longer recension): And I assigned to him (i.e., Adam) a name from the four components, from east A, from west D, from north A, from south M. And I assigned to him four special stars, and called his name Adam. (2 En. 30:11-14 longer recension)29

2 Enoch, a Jewish pseudepigraphon with probable Egyptian origins, is preserved in its entirety only in medieval Slavonic manuscripts, apparently translated from a Greek original tentatively dated to the first century C.E.30 The fact that two Slavonic F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:91-221, here 152. The passage has a strikingly close parallel (except for the mention of the four directions) in Philo, Opif. 148. Like the Enochic passage, the reference follows after a description of Adam’s creation from elements of the earth (four in Philo, eight in 2 En. 30:8), and an emphasis on man’s dual spiritual-material nature (Opif. 136-139: “body” and “soul”; 2 En. 30:10: “invisible and visible”). As in the Enochic passage, in Philo Adam “surpasses all men” (140), has a “second” place in heaven, is a “king,” and is endowed with “wisdom” (148). It is very possible that the parallelism is purely coincidental. However, it is equally possible that the agreement is due to a common matrix. 30 The following translations of the text are available: Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 91-221; R. H. Charles and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896); R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913); A. Pennington, “2 Enoch,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 321-362; A. Vaillant, Le livre des secrets d’Hénoch: Texte slave et traduction française (Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 1952); A. Kahana, HaSefarim haHitsonim leTorah (Jerusalem, 1936). A Jewish origin of the writing is the majority opinion: Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 95-97; Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic; Kahana, HaSefarim; Odeberg, 3 Enoch; S. Pines, “Enoch, Slavonic Book of,” EJ 6:797-99; M. Philonenko et al., eds., Jewish Apocalyptic and its History (JSPSS, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); A. De Santos Otero, “Libro de los secretos de Henoc (Henoc eslavo),” in Apócrifos del AT IV (ed. A. Díez Macho; Madrid, 1984), 147-202; Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism. For a probable Egyptian origin, see Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2:426; M. Philonenko, “La cosmologie du ‘Livre des secrets d’Hénoch’,” in Religions en Egypte hellénistique et romaine 29

256

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

manuscripts, GIM Khlyudov and RM 508, contain the mistaken rendering of the Greek acronym (ADMA) cannot constitute proof that the name speculation did not exist in the Greek Vorlage, since the same misorder occurs in the Greek Sibylline Oracles 3:24-26 quoted above.31 It must suffice to say, at the present stage of the research on 2 Enoch, that the tradition behind the text dates from before 70 C.E., as its occurrence in Sibylline Oracles suggests.

(Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1969), 109-116; U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im Hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW 44; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 40. For lists of manuscripts see Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 92. Unhelpfully, the argument for a Greek source relies mainly on this text and the historical fact that most medieval Slavonic texts are translations from Greek: A. Rubinstein, “Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” JJS 15 (1962): 1-21; Pennington, “2 Enoch,” 324. This is not to say that the Greek is the language of the original. It could very well be itself a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic text (Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 94). Modern scholarship still disputes whether the known versions come from a unique original translation or several sources. A date in the first century C.E. has been proposed by Charles and Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch; R. H. Charles, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch,” JTS 22 (1921): 161-163; Rubinstein, “Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” 1-21; Pines, “Enoch, Slavonic Book of,” 797-99; M. Scopello, “The Apocalypse of Zostrianos (Nag Hammadi VIII.1) and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” VC 34 (1980): 367-385; De Santos Otero, “Libro de los secretos de Henoc,” 147202; C. Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1995); J. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1995); Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic. The terminus ante quem could be supplied by the mention of Origen of a book of Enoch about the creation of the world (On First Principles 1.3.2). Since 1 Enoch does not have much material on speculations about creation, it is highly probable that the remark is about 2 Enoch. Andrei Orlov argues for a pre-70 C.E. date of the pseudepigraphon: “Noah’s Younger Brother Revisited: Anti-Noachic Polemics and the Date of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” Henoch 26 (2004): 172-187; idem, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 323328; idem, “The Sacerdotal Traditions of 2 Enoch and the Date of the Text,” in A. A. Orlov et al, eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (SJS 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 103-116. 31 Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 152 n. m.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

257

The tradition also surfaces in the Latin recension of the Life of Adam and Eve 57,32 Zosimus of Panopolis’ On the Letter Omega 9,33 and in both eastern and western patristic sources.34 I have set upon this course of investigation because of the association between Adam’s size and the four directions in Genesis Rabbah 8:1, 21:3, 24:2, Leviticus Rabbah 14:1, 18:2. Expectably, the rabbinic traditions do not incorporate the name speculation which is possible only in Greek, but they do use the cardinal directions to portray the first man as enormous in size. The fact that Sibylline Oracles 3:24-26 knows both the name speculation and the size speculation indicates a very likely, early connection between them. Given the departure of the former from the biblical lore itself (cf. Gen 2:7) and in light of the evidence presented here, the dependence can only be of the former on the latter, and not of the latter on the former.35 Thus, it seems that the Greek names of the four directions provided Greek-speaking Jewish circles a means of elaborating a name speculation on an earlier tradition about Adam’s cosmic size.36

Gary A. Anderson and Michael E. Stone, eds., A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (2nd ed.; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1999), 96E. 33 Jackson, Zosimus of Panopolis, 29. 34 For later expressions of this tradition, see Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos, 59-72, which follows the tradition up to the eighteenth century. 35 For other rabbinic traditions about Adam’s name, see Genesis Rabbah 4 and Pirqe DeRabbi Eliezer 12. Gen 2:7 is also the basis for the tradition in which Adam’s body is made out of major elements of the earth. For texts see Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos, 35-53, 73-82; Barc, “La Taille cosmique d’Adam”; Niditch, “The Cosmic Man.” For the equivalent Latin pun on homo-humus, see E. Turdeanu, “Dieu créa l’homme de huit éléments et tira son nom des quatre coins du monde,” Revue des études roumaines 13-14 (1974): 163-194, here 167. 36 Thus against Barc, who concludes that the traditions attested in the rabbis are not earlier than the third century C.E. (“La Taille cosmique,” 183-185). 32

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN. ADAM’S BODY OF KNOWLEDGE In several of the sources already cited, one may perceive the knowledge of Adam both as a deification prerogative and as an innate ability, although, given Philo’s language in Somn. 1.75 and 112-114 (see chapter fifteen), we must be careful not to draw too sharp a distinction. In Job 15:7-8 it is access to the divine council that gives primordial humanity divine knowledge: Were you born the first human? And were you given birth before the hills? 8 Did you listen in the council of God? And do you restrain wisdom for yourself?1 7

The biblical book furnishes no clues pertaining to its date. Scholarly proposals range from pre-monarchic times to the third century B.C.E., although a date in the middle of this range is generally favored.2 In the anthropology of our text the “first human” is

My translation from MT. It has been previously noted that the representation of the primordial humanity in the extant Hebrew text is connected with Ezek 28:11-15: G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT 16; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerb Mohn, 1963); C. Westermann, Genesis 111. A Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 245. 2 For the date and integrity of the text, see Carol Newsom, The Book of Job. A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), esp. 3-31; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job. A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 40-42; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 17-20. 1

259

260

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

not necessarily Adam, as it has been previously noted.3 It is also possible that this first human could have come into existence before the world,4 at least before the creation of the hills (reminiscent of “the wisdom” in Prov 8:25 and Ps 90:2). What is clear is that access to the divine council gave the first human discretionary possession of divine wisdom. In contrast, the beginning of chapter 17 of the Book of Sirach, generally dated to the second century B.C.E., refers to generic humanity (ἄνθρωπος) as possessing ἐπιστήµη συνέσεως (vv. 7, 11). 4Q504 8.1-7, which, as noted above, has been paleographically dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E., describes Adam similarly: [Remem]ber, Lord, that [. . .] 2 [. . .] us. And you, who live for ev[er, . . .] 3 [. . .] the marvels of old and the portents [. . .] 4 [. . . Adam,] our [fat]her, you fashioned in the likeness of [your] glory ([‫[ )יצרתה בדמות כבוד]כה‬. . . ] 5 [. . . the breath of life] you [b]lew into his nostril, and intelligence and knowledge ( ‫ובינה‬ ‫[ )ודעת‬. . .] 6 [. . . in the gard]en of Eden, which you had planted. You made [him] govern ([‫[ )המשלת]ה אותו‬. . .] 7 [. . .] and so that he would walk in a glorious land. . . .5 1

Baillet, the editor of the text, notes that the expression ‫ובינה ודעת‬ parallels the phrase of Sirach 17:7 ἐπιστήµη συνέσεως.6 Yet, traditions about Adam’s omniscience are also connected to the protoplast’s enormous size. The association (as well as the speculations related to Adam’s enormous body) receives early formulations in Philo’s QG 1.32 and Eph 4:10-13, both quoted above. In Philo’s text that which affords Adam his extraordinary knowledge is his size. In Eph 4:10-13 “the knowledge of the Son” (ἡ ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ υἱοῦ) to which the enlargement to Christ’s stature attains is best seen not as an objective genitive, but objective and subjective at once: christification means both to know Christ and to acquire the knowledge which Christ himself has. Furthermore, the text of Ephesians uses for this size-knowledge connection a

Habel, The Book of Job, 253. Hartley, The Book of Job, 245. 5 Text from Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 162. Translation from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1008-1009. 6 Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III, 162-163. 3 4

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

261

vocabulary over which we have already passed in several rabbinic texts and in Exagoge, but which now deserves full attention for its pervasiveness: “breadth,” “length,” “height,” and “depth.” The imagery of Eph 4:10-13 is introduced with these terms in 3:1419. The paragraph is long, but I will focus here only on the relevant phrases: 14

κάµπτω τὰ γόνατά µου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. . . 16 ἵνα δῷ ὑµῖν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. . . 17 κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐρριζωµένοι καὶ τεθεµελιωµένοι, 18 ἵνα ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσθαι σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις τί τὸ πλάτος καὶ µῆκος καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος, 19 . . . ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωµα τοῦ θεοῦ. I bend my knees to the Father… 16 so that he give you according to the multitude of his Glory. . . 17 that through faith Christ dwell in your hearts rooted and founded in love, 18 so that you have the strength to comprehend, with all the holy ones, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth 19 … so that you be filled into all the fullness of God. 14

The parallelism to 4:10-13 is evident even at the level of word correspondence: Eph 3:17-19 ἐρριζωµένοι καὶ τεθεµελιωµένοι σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἵνα ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσθαι τί τὸ πλάτος καὶ µῆκος καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωµα τοῦ θεοῦ

Eph 4:13 εἰς οἰκοδοµὴν τοῦ σώµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ οἱ πάντες τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς µέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ

The theme is the same in both texts—christification. What is significant for my investigation is that the attained “measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” is defined here as a knowledge of the “breath, length, height, and depth” of Christ. The language has been interpreted in many ways, but, with others, I am convinced it refers to the divine body.7 It is significant that this See thus Morray-Jones, “The Temple Within,” 426-30; Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God. Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 588-590. 7

262

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

enlargement is presented as knowledge, which is therefore not so much a metaphysical accomplishment, but a physical transformation. The same transformation is at play in what is, to my knowledge, the earliest expression of knowledge in similar terms, namely lines 77-78 and 87-89 of Exagoge: Moses knows by enlargement to a divine body size. The closest equivalent to the Exagoge vocabulary—several scholars have noted—is the restriction on inquiring about “what is above, what is below, what before, what after” in m. Hagigah 2:1 and b. Hagigah 11b.8 I have already introduced m. Hagigah 2:1 in chapter thirteen. b. Hagigah 11b reads: For the Rabbis taught: For ask thou now of the days past; one may inquire, but two may not inquire. One might have thought that one may inquire concerning the pre-creation period, therefore Scripture teaches: Since the day that God created man upon the earth. One might have thought that one may [also] not inquire concerning the six days of creation, therefore Scripture teaches: The days past which were before thee. One might have thought one may [also] inquire concerning what is above and what is below, what before and what after, therefore the text teaches: And from one end of heaven unto the other. [Concerning the things that are] from one end of heaven unto the other thou mayest inquire, but thou mayest not inquire what is above (‫)למעלה‬, what is below (‫)למטה‬, what before (‫)לפנים‬, what after (‫)לאחור‬.9

Christopher Morray-Jones remarks that, while the warning on speculations on the merkabah is straightforward, the restriction on speculations on “what is above, what is below, what before, what after” could be understood in both spatial and temporal terms.10 He and Christopher Rowland argue that the terms refer to the subjects of apocalyptic (esoteric) revelation: the heavenly Meeks, Prophet-King, 208; van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” 28 n.45; Holladay, Fragments II, 449; Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 179; idem, “4Q374: A Discourse,” 246. 9 The interdiction is also attested in Genesis Rabbah 1:10 and b. Tamid 32a. 10 “Paradise Revisited,” 189. 8

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

263

and infernal worlds, the pre-creation and the after-creation.11 This proposal opens the intriguing possibility that the prohibition specifically targets Jewish traditions with which the rabbis are evidently uncomfortable. However, the compilation of rabbinic ideas in chapter 2 of b. Hagigah, which is dedicated entirely to the mishnaic saying, paints a more complicated picture. At a first reading of the chapter, the rabbinic voices seem to identify the four prohibited spaces of inquiry as Rowland and Morray-Jones indicate: there is a clear distinction between the space and time within the world and the spaces and times without. Also—both point out— this seems to be confirmed by Exagoge. In view of Eph 4:10-13 and 3:14-19, and of the proposal I made in chapter nine that the temporal understanding of Moses’ knowledge in Exagoge is too simplistic, this proposal needs revisiting. Goshen-Gottstein has already submitted that the terms refer to the dimensions of the divine body and this, it seems to me, is closer to the central and veiled meaning of the rabbinic prohibition.12 An expectation for a veiled and central meaning is given not only by the general hermeneutics of the rabbis (which I introduced in chapter thirteen), but also by the second chapter of b. Hagigah itself. I have already argued in chapter thirteen that, as a general principle of life and interpretation, m. Hagigah 2:1 itself prohibits premature looks at the most sensitive topics by unrefined persons. The second chapter of b. Hagigah, by dwelling precisely on the topics which itself prohibits, elicits from its readers the understanding that it itself veils just as it unveils. To be true to itself, this rabbinic text must treat its readers with suspicion. In other words, we the readers are being given Rabbi Simlai’s first answer, or at most a veiled second answer; access to the unveiled second answer, to the conversation with the disciples, must be earned. In this light, to say that one “may not inquire what is above, below, before, what after” is to prevent inquisitive exploration of these space and call instead for an experiential “knowledge” of them, or, in one word, for enlargement. Fundamentally, the point

Rowland, Open Heaven, 75; Rowland and Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God, 223-227, 587-590. 12 “‫מה למעלה‬,” 61-68. 11

264

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

is not metaphysical, but physical, as Goshen-Gottstein intuited and as Ephesians and Philo’s QG 1.32 indicate. But, pace GoshenGottstein, we are not only speaking here of the divine physique, but also of the human, specifically of the body of the ascetic seer. In the interpretation of b. Hagigah 11b the mishnaic prohibition maps the (four) spaces where the deified body goes or rather spaces which the deified body fills. Many of the rabbinic texts analyzed thus far lead precisely to this conclusion. In further support of it I adduce the many other texts in which the language of “above,” “below,” “before,” and “after” is used in reference to the knowledge of bodily enlargement. The above introductory text in b. Hagigah 11b is itself immediately followed by a speculation on Adam’s size and knowledge. To revisit only the tradition on which I already focused, attributed to R. Eleazar: But now that this is inferred from [the expression] From one end of heaven unto the other, wherefore do I need [the expression], Since the day that God created man upon the earth? — To intimate that which R. Eleazar taught. For R. Eleazar said: The first man [extended] from the earth to the firmament, as it is said: Since the day that God created man upon the earth; but as soon as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, for it is said: Thou hast fashioned me after (‫ )אחור‬and before (‫)קדם‬, and laid Thine hand upon me. Rab Judah said that Rab said: The first man [extended] from one end of the world to the other, for it is said: Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other; as soon as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, for it is said: And laid Thine hand upon me. If so, the verses contradict one another! — They both [have] the same dimensions. . . R. Eleazar said: The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day ‫ אדם‬could see thereby from one end of the world to the other. . . . Now Tannaim [differ on this point]: The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day ‫ אדם‬could see and look thereby from one end of the world to the other; this is the view of R. Jacob. But the Sages say: It is identical with the luminaries; for they were created on the first day, but

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

265

they were not hung up [in the firmament] till the fourth day. (b. Hagigah 12a)13

While it is not immediately evident in this text that Eleazar’s view is that Adam was able to see the world in his own light and due to his size, the evidence I already provided on the other texts attributed to Eleazar (e.g., Leviticus Rabbah 14:1) and the attestation in other sources of the speculation that Adam was able to see the world in his own light (such as in the Romanian Testament of Abraham 11:9) lead precisely to this conclusion. This is further supported by the opposition of the sages. Their insistence that the light of the first day comes from the luminaries takes issue with the (unvoiced) attribution of the light to Adam’s enormous body, although Adam’s light is itself received from the body (or garments) of God. In the larger context of the passage, this opposition is precisely the veiling of the unveiled. The tradition receives this opposition from all the sages (and this unanimity is significant). Despite this, the opposition is offered only once the tradition is traced back to the Tannaim and thus legitimated (rather than being dismissed summarily). In chapter fifteen I explored several sources also linked to Eleazar and his colleague Rabbi Judah which add another element to this tradition: this primordial and divine luminosity is set aside for the sharing of the righteous. In light of that element of the tradition, b. Hagigah 11b does not make simply a point about Adam and God, but about its own authoritative voices and its readers. In both texts— b. Hagigah 11b and 12a—‫אדם‬, which I decided to leave untranslated for this purpose, stands both for Adam and for humanity, at least as humanity ought to be or could be—refined.

See also parallels in b. Sanhedrin 38b; Genesis Rabbah 8:1, 21:3, 24:2; Leviticus Rabbah 14:1, 18:2. 13

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN. THE ANGELIC VENERATION OF ADAM In this final chapter my attention will turn to a tradition already witnessed in Exagoge and Daniel 2, as well as many later texts, rabbinic and non-rabbinic: the veneration of deified humanity. This cult, I have already argued, has distant roots in the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel, in which humanity serves as the cult statue of YHWH.1 Yet, in this early anthropology, developed in polemics to both idol worship and the inclusion of humanity in divinity, the iconic value of humanity does not translate into worship. When worship language emerges, as it does in Exagoge and in Dan 2:46, it is not a product of theomorphic anthropologies, but rather of deification: humans are worshipped as gods. It is only late Second Temple sources that attest to a tradition according to which the

For this connection, although in different interpretations, see Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St Andrew’s Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (ed. C. Newman et al.; SJSJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 112-128, here pp. 125-128; idem, All the Glory of Adam, 101-102; P. J. Kerney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exodus 25-40,” in ZaW 89 (1977): 375-387; Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord,” 501-511; Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil; M. Vervenne, “Genesis 1,1-2,4,” 35-79; Bauks, “Genesis 1,” 333-345. 1

267

268

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

angels worship Adam at his creation.2 One of the earliest expressions of the tradition occurs in 4Q381 1,10-11: all his hosts and [his] ange[ls . . .] 11 [. . .] to serve man (‫ )לעבד לאדם‬and to minister to him (‫)ולשרתו‬3 10

The text is in Hebrew. It was written in the first half of the first century B.C.E.,4 but it is itself a copy of an earlier autograph.5 The text, Fletcher-Louis argues, bears witness “to a widespread belief that when Adam was originally created the angels were made to serve and even worship Adam.”6 Indeed, the expression ‫עבד לאדם‬ closely parallels the use of the verb for statue worship in the Bible.7 Moreover, in the Bible ‫ שרת‬is almost exclusively used in reference to the worship of YHWH in the Temple. A notable exception is ‫ שרת עץ ואבן‬in Ezek 20:32, which closely parallels ‫עבד אלהים‬ ‫עץ ואבן‬... in Deut 4:28. To an audience thoroughly immersed in biblical language, the Qumranic text readily suggested connotations of idolatry.

On this tradition, see G. Anderson, “The Exaltation of Adam and the Fall of Satan,” in Anderson et al., Literature on Adam and Eve, 83-110; Schäfer, Rivalität; Schultz, “Angelic Opposition,” 282-307; A. Marmorstein, “Controversies Between the Angels and the Creator,” Melilah 3-4 (1950): 93-102 (in Hebrew); Altmann, “The Gnostic Background.” 3 The Hebrew text can be found in E. M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (HSS 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 71; Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, 2:754-755. The English translation is from Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran, 76. Schuller’s text and translation are reprinted in “4QNon-Canonical Psalms,” in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (ed. E. Eshel et al.; DJD XI; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 75-172. 4 Schuller, “4QNon-Canonical Psalms,” 88. 5 Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran, 21-52. 6 All the Glory of Adam, 98. He further notes that “both the verbs and nouns which are used in 4Q381 have a strongly cultic orientation for the community that used the text” (All the Glory of Adam, 99-100). 7 Exod 23:24, 33; Deut 4:28; 7:4, 16; 8:19; 11:16; 12:30; 13:2, 6, 13; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:18; 30:17; 31:20; Josh 23:7, 16; 24:16, 20; 1 Sam 16:19; 1 Kgs 9:6; 2 Kgs 17:35; Jer 5:19; 11:10; 13:10; 16:13; 25:6; 35:15; 44:3; 2 Chr 7:19. 2

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

269

The tradition is even clearer in the Latin, Georgian, and Armenian versions8 of the Life of Adam and Eve. Fletcher-Louis submitted the literary and conceptual affinities between Life of Adam and Eve 12-14 and Daniel 3 (affinities which we, in view of the arguments made in chapter ten, can now extend to Daniel 2 and 4). It is therefore apparent that, in his words, the pseudepigraphic text “owes its genius to the early Hellenistic period when Daniel 3 was written.”9 The Georgian version reads: 13:1 The Devil replied to him [i.e., Adam] and told him, “You did nothing to me, but it is because of you that I have fallen upon the earth. 13:2 The very day when you were created, on that day I fell from before the face of God, because when God breathed a spirit onto your face, you had the image and likeness of divinity. And Michael came; he presented you and made you bow down before God. And God told Michael, ‘I have created Adam according to (my) image and my divinity.’ 14:1 Then Michael came; he summoned all the troops of angels and told them, ‘Bow down before the likeness and the image of the divinity.’ 14:2 And then, when Michael summoned them and all had bowed down to you, he summoned me also. 14:3 And I told him, ‘Go away from me, for I shall not bow down to him who is younger than me; indeed, I was master before him and it is proper for him to bow down to me.’ 15:1 When the six classes of other angels heard that, then my speech pleased them and they did not bow down to you. 16:1 Then God became angry with us and ordered us, them and me, to be cast down from our dwellings to the earth. As for you, he ordered you to dwell in the Garden.10

The opposition of the fallen angels to the worship of the iconic Adam is also recorded in many Jewish-Christian and Christian sources of the first centuries.11 The presence of the tradition in M. Stone argues that, even if the Greek version lacks the passages, it implicitly assumes the tradition in the development of its story (“The Fall of Satan and Adam’s Penance: Three Notes on The Books of Adam and Eve,” JTS 44 [1993] 153-156). 9 All the Glory of Adam, 103. 10 Translation from Anderson and Stone, Synopsis, 15E-17E. 11 Gospel of Bartholomew 4:52-56, a Coptic text attributed to Peter of Alexandria, a Coptic Encomium on Michael, a Coptic Enthronement of 8

270

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Gospel of Bartholomew, Origen, and Tertullian suggests its widespread circulation in second century Jewish circles, a circulation that occasioned transmission to Christian circles.12 The pseudepigraphic text bases the angelic worship theologically upon Adam’s identity as the image of God, as a cultic statue

Michael, the Syriac Cave of Treasures, Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-2, Origen’s On First Principles 1.5.4-5, and Tertullian’s On Patience 5. See these sources in Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:500; W. E. Crum, “Texts Attributed to Peter of Alexandria,” JTS 4 (1903): 387-97, here 396-397; E. W. Budge, Miscellaneous Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London, 1915), 904-905; C. D. G. Müller, Die Buchër der Einsetzung der Erzengel Michael und Gabriel (CSCO 225/226; Louvain: Peeters, 1962), 14-15; Su-Min Ri, La Caverne de Trésors. Les deux recensions syriaques (CSCO 486-487; Louvain: Peeters, 1987); S. Agourides, “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:605-613; Origen. On First Principles (ed. and trans. John Behr; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 1:96-105; Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 3:709-711. 12 Among the vast bibliography on Origen’s contact with Judaism, see G. Dorival and R. Naiweld, “Les interlocuteurs hébreux et juifs d’Origène à Alexandrie et à Césarée,” in Caesarea Maritima e la scuola origeniana. Multiculturalità, forme di competizione culturale e identità cristiana. Atti dell’XI Convegno del Gruppo di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (2223 settembre 2011) (ed. O. Andrei; Brescia: Morcelliana, 2013), 121-138; Anna Tzvetkova-Glaser, Pentateuchauslegung bei Origenes und den frühen Rabbinen (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010); John A. McGuckin, “Origen on the Jews,” Studies in Church History 29 (1992): 1-13; C. Kannengiesser and W. L. Petersen, eds., Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988); N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976); idem, “Jewish Influence on Origen,” in Origeniana (Bari: Istituto di Letteratura Christiana Antica, 1975), 225-242; Dominique Barthélemy, “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba”; R. Kimelman, “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen”. Tertullian’s indebtedness to Judaism is masked by his negative attitude toward Judaism: A. G. Stroumsa, “Tertullian on Idolatry and the Limits of Tolerance,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 173-184; W. Horbury, “Tertullian on the Jews in the Light of De Spectaculis XXX. 56,” JTS ns (1972): 455-459; W. H. C. Frend, “A Note on Tertullian and the Jews,” in Studia Patristica, vol. 10 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970), 291-296.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

271

of God.13 This identity is first and foremost a matter of physical resemblance. The language in which Michael’s commands Satan suggests as much: “Prosternez vous devant le semblable et l’image de la divinité.” Or in the Latin version: adorate imaginem domini dei. Yet, Adam also possesses the image of God through the insufflation of divine spirit.14 Even deeper aspects of the theology warranting this worship are hidden in the sharp contrast between the two angelic attitudes toward Adam, Michael’s and the Devil’s (and their angelic cohorts).15 First, this contrast emphasizes the twofold nature of the protoplast: he is both the living cultic statue of God and, as Satan stresses derisively, a “youth.” In the light of the biblical creation account (which this pseudepigraphic text wishes to complete), this chronology marks not only a difference of time, but also one of physical substance; unlike angels, Adam is clay. The Latin version expresses this double connotation by translating “youth” with two words: Adam is both posterior and deterior, qualitatively worse. This dual character as earthly

John R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism (JSPSS1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 178. 14 The Armenian version reads: “when God breathed his spirit into you, you received the likeness of his image” (Anderson and Stone, Synopsis, 11). The Latin records: quando insufflavit deus spiritum vitae in te et factus est vultus et similitudo tua ad imaginem dei. The tradition reflects an exegetical combination of Gen 1:26 with Gen 2:7. This combination has deep roots in the exilic and early postexilic periods, when, as Herbert Niehr notes, the ancient near Eastern ritual of vivification of the cultic statues of gods14 was transferred in the Priestly theology to the living statue of YHWH, Adam, in the act of inspiriting Adam with divine breath in Gen 2:7 (“YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 93). 15 In rabbinic literature this opposition is extended beyond the category of the fallen angels. An example is in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan A: “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, He formed him (with two faces), front and back, as it is said, “Thou hast fashioned me back and in front, and laid Thy hand upon me” (Ps 139:5). Then the ministering angels came down to destroy him, but the Holy One, blessed be He, took him up and put him under his wings, as it is said, ‘And Thou hast laid Thy hand upon me.’ “ (Judah Goldin, trans., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan [2nd ed.; New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1983], 15). For the motif of angelic opposition against Adam, see also Genesis Rabbah 8:4-6; b. Sanhedrin 38b; 3 Enoch 4:6. 13

272

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

material, on the one hand, and heavenly image and indwelling, on the other, lies entirely within Adam’s body.16 Second and more importantly, the contrast between the two angelic reactions to Adam also points to a quality which Adam bears in more than his body and in which Satan does not find reproach. According to the Georgian version quoted above Adam is made “in God’s divinity.” According to the Armenian version God himself summons the angels as follows: “Come, bow down to god (astowac)17 whom I made.”18 In other words, Adam is created as a god, as deified. This worship element of Adamic traditions is also present, veiled and unveiled, in many rabbinic texts. My investigation thus far has uncovered two rabbinic texts, Genesis Rabbah 8:10 and Pirqe DeRabbi Eliezer 11, which disapprove of the angelic veneration of Adam for its inability to distinguish between the protoplast and God. The resemblance, I already argued, goes beyond Adam’s physique, to his deification. Also, I have already introduced other texts which, in different ways, describe Adam as the first in the line of human deification (such as b. Bava Batra 58a and Genesis Rabbah 42:3). Here I will focus on another particular motif which

This bodily duality escapes the otherwise attentive analysis of Stefan Schreiber, “Der Mensch im Tod nach der Apokalypse des Mose: eine frühjüdische Anthropologie in der Zeit des Paulus,” JSJ 35 (2004): 49-69. His conclusion, however, that the Life of Adam and Eve departs from the dichotomic anthropology of σῶµα versus ψυχή is in agreement with my proposal that the document focuses on the duality heavenly likeness versus earthly matter. Steenburg notes the presence of a similar duality in Sibylline Oracles 8:442-445, yet, without discerning the connection of the paragraph with the motif of the angelic opposition to Adam, he is baffled by it (“The Worship of Adam,” 97). 17 On astowac, which translates the biblical ‫אלהים‬, see Birgit A. Olsen, The Noun in Biblical Armenian (Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 545-546. 18 Translation from Anderson and Stone, Synopsis, 16E. The translation is from Michael Stone, The Penitence of Adam (2 vols.; CSCO 429-430; Leuven: Peeters, 1981). The Armenian text was first printed in idem, Texts and Concordances of the Armenian Adam Literature. Vol.I (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 70-81. Stone notes that manuscript no. 3461 from Erevan, Matenadaran, replaces astowac with Adam (The Penitence of Adam, 2:4, n.1 on ch.14). 16

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

273

ties these two elements, veneration and deification: the oft-repeated description of Adam as the image of a king.19 The manuscript variants of Genesis Rabbah 8:8, which makes the important point that God did not take (equal) council with the angels in the creation of Adam,20 do not offer any consensus about the attribution of the following parable: R. Laya21 said: There is no taking counsel here [e.g., in Gen 1:26], but it may be compared to a king who was strolling at the door of his palace when he saw a clod (‫)בולרין‬22 lying about. Said he, What shall we do with it? Some answered: [Use it in building] public baths; others answered: private baths. I will make a statue (‫ )אדריינטיס‬of it, declared the king. Who then can hinder him?23

The application of the parable to Adam implies that the king makes out of the clod a statue of himself. ‫ אדריינטיס‬and its variant spellings ‫ אנדרטא‬and ‫ אנדריאנטוס‬are appropriations of ἀνδριάς24 (probably through its late demotic spelling ἀνδριάντας), which

I had a first look at this imagery in Silviu N. Bunta, “The Likeness of the Image: Adamic Motifs and tselem Anthropology in Rabbinic Traditions About Jacob’s Image Enthroned in Heaven,” JSJ 37 (2006): 55-84. My argument here sharpens the one advanced there. 20 On the disputes on the issue of partners of God in creation in rabbinic Judaism, see Segal, Two Powers, esp. 121-134; Jarl Fossum, “Gen 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,” JSJ 16 (1985): 202239. 21 Theodor proposes that ‫ליה‬/Laya stands for Hila (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 62). He also records the variant Levi (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 62). Levi seems to be a secondary lectio facilior. 22 ‫ בולרין‬is most probably a transliteration of βωλάριον, clod. See also Clemens Thoma and Simon Lauer, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Parallelen, Kommentar, Texte (2 vols.; Judaica et Christiana 10, 13; Bern, New York: Peter Lang, 1986, 1991), 2:109-110. 23 Freedman and Simon, Midrash Rabbah, vol. Genesis, 59; critical text at Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 62. 24 Thus Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: The Judaica Press, 1996), 18; Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 62. 19

274

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

denotes a statue of a male. In rabbinic literature the Aramaic transliterations generally indicate royal statues.25 The parable sheds light on both angels and Adam. On the one hand, the text subtly marks the unidentified “some” who answer the king’s ultimately rhetorical question (that is, the angels) with radical inequality or even dissimilarity with the king. On the other, the clod (the body of Adam) is introduced as potential material for public baths (here a markedly worse use in comparison to statue) or private baths (only slightly better than the previous).26 Yet, it is precisely these possibilities which, by contrast, set its actual use in a statue in the highest regard. The loftiness of the eventual use or, in other words, the theology of the statue is not explained in this text, but, to the audience of the parable, who lived in a world dotted with (imperial) statues (including in public baths), it would have been easy to imagine. In view of chapter eight, this intimate and unconflicted knowledge and effortless appropriation of (certain) Roman mores should not be surprising. Exodus Rabbah 15:17 attests to this familiarity of rabbinic circles with Roman cultic practices, and it does so in a language which supports my understanding of the clod simile: It is as if a beautiful tree was erected in the bath-house, and when the chief of the army with his suite came to bathe, they trampled upon the tree, and all the villagers and everyone else were eager to tread upon it. Some time later, the king sent his bust to that province that they should put up a statue of him, but they could find no wood except that from the tree in that See Jastrow, Dictionary, 81-82. On public baths in rabbinic literature and the Jewish life of late antiquity, see particularly Yaron Z. Eliav, “The Roman Bath as a Jewish Institution: Another Look At the Encounter Between Judaism and the GrecoRoman Culture,” JSJ 31 (2000): 416-454; Azzan Yadin, “Rabban Gamliel, Aphrodite’s Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 96/2 (2006): 149-179; Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 162-176. In the analysis of this midrash and the next, my point is not a general one, such as that rabbinic literature does not allow the use of public baths (which is not the case), but rather a particular one. In relation to this midrash my point is that of all uses of clay, the use for public baths is decisively (and probably markedly) lower than the use for statue. 25 26

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

275

bath-house. The artisans said to the ruler: “If you wish to set up the statue, you must bring the tree which is in the bathhouse, for that is the best there is.” They brought it and prepared it thoroughly, and placed it in the hands of a carver, who fashioned the bust on it and placed it within the palace. Then came the ruler and bowed before it; and the general, the prefect, the imperial officers, the legionaries, the people and everybody else did likewise. Then did the artisans say unto them: “Yesterday, you were trampling on this tree in the bathhouse, and now you are bowing to it.” They replied: “It is not to the tree that we are bowing, but to the bust of the king engraved thereon.” (Exodus Rabbah 15:17)

The clarity which this simile brings to Genesis Rabbah 8:8 is the language of transformation: the clod is no longer just the possible material of public baths, but comes from a public bath. The contrast between the origin of the wood and its statuesque veneration is dramatized in a remarkable manner. The theology implicit in Genesis Rabbah 8:8 and Exodus Rabbah 15:17 can be glimpsed from another midrashic text using the same imagery—Leviticus Rabbah 34:3: Another explanation of the text: “If thy brother be waxen poor” (Lev 25:25). It bears on what is written in Scripture: “The merciful man doeth good to his own soul” (Prov 11:17). Hillel the Elder once, when he concluded his studies with his disciples, walked along with them. His disciples asked him: “Master, whither are you bound?” He answered them: “To perform a religious duty.” “What, they asked, is this religious duty?” He said to them: “To wash in the bath-house.” Said they: “Is this a religious duty?” “Yes,” he replied; “if the statues (‫ )איקונין‬of kings, which are erected in theatres and circuses, are scoured and washed by the man who is appointed to look after them, and who thereby obtains his maintenance through them—nay more, he is exalted in the company of the great of the kingdom—how much more I, who have been created in the image and likeness; as it is written, ‘For in the

276

THE LORD GOD OF GODS image of God made He man’ (Gen 9:6).” (Leviticus Rabbah 34:3)27

Unlike Genesis Rabbah 8:8, this text wraps the strikingly similar parable (with the same references to public bath, king, and king’s statue) in a deeply meaningful story of human behavior. The manner in which the parable and story enforce each other is complex and uneven, because it is the story which gives more meaning to the parable than the parable to the story. The parable is explicitly offered as an interpretation of two biblical texts, Lev 25:25 and Prov 11:17. The interpretation finds in them the theology of bloodshed as an offense against the deity in its image, which reaches back to the text which Hillel quotes— Gen 9:6.28 It is significant for my investigation that through this Freedman and Simon, Midrash Rabbah, vol. Leviticus, 428. The story is retold slightly differently in The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan B 30. 28 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 705; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 72. John F. Kutsko has also noted that Ezekiel’s connection between the shedding of human blood and God’s withdrawal from the Temple could have the same rationale as Gen 9:6 (Between Heaven and Earth, 70-74). Similarly, in Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael (Bahodesh 8), a collection of Tannaitic midrashim most probably gathered sometime in the third century, murderers are found guilty of diminishing the image of God and are compared to those who destroy cultic images of kings: 27

How were the ten Commandments arranged? Five on the one tablet and five on the other. On the one tablet was written: “I am the Lord thy God.” On the other tablet was written: “Thou shalt not murder.” This tells that if one sheds blood it is accounted to him as though he diminished the divine image. To give a parable: A king of flesh and blood entered a province and the people set up portraits of him, made images of him, and struck coins in his honor. Later on they upset his portraits, broke his images, and defaced his coins, thus diminishing the likeness of the king. So also if one sheds blood it is accounted to him as though he had diminished the divine image. For it is written: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood . . . for in the image of God made He man” (Gen 9:6). (translation from Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael [ed. and trans. Jacob Z. Lauterbach; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933], 2:262)

Exodus Rabbah 30:16 contains a different form of the tradition. The source of the heavenly likeness of humanity is not God, but the angels,

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

277

parable Hillel presents himself as another Adam. Also, while the parable does not refer explicitly to the veneration of the divine statue, several elements anticipate it, particularly the attention on its care. Moreover, the reference to the keeper entrusted with its care, his actual care for it, and his public recognition, marks him as its ultimate worshipper—a value which the parable transfers to Rabbi Hillel. Thus, although the worship of the statue is never mentioned, it undergirds the entire parable. The congruence of the parable and the story highlight Hillel, particularly his ability to dissociate from his own identity as a divine image, to see it as someone else. This element is central to both the parable and the story and it is offered as the ultimate meaning of the two biblical texts. This dissociation marks Hillel as a greater instantiation of humanity than Adam, as a human who not only is the image of God, but also recognizes and venerates that image of God. In the terms of b. Yoma 35b, he is at once both his younger self who embodies the kabod, and his teachers (Shemayah and Avtalyon) who recognize this embodiment in him. Thus, he is the subject of Prov 11:17 and Lev 25:25, the

and the likeness is limited to Israel. Similarly, Exodus Rabbah 60:5 attributes to R. Hiyya a saying according to which the whole Israel is the icon of God. The same imagery appears in the Clementine Homilies 3.17.2 and in both recensions of 2 Enoch (with insignificant manuscript variations): The LORD with his own two hands created mankind; and in a facsimile of his own face. Small and great the LORD created. Whoever insults a person’s face insults the face of the LORD; whoever treats a person’s face with repugnance treats the face of the LORD with repugnance. Whoever treats with contempt the face of any person treats the face of the LORD with contempt. (2 En. 44:1-2 shorter recension; Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 171)

The text does not acknowledge the concept of partial transmission of divine resemblance from Adam to the rest of humankind. The creation of Adam “in the facsimile of God’s own face” bears direct and undifferentiated consequence to the treatment of every human face. Mk 12:16-17 (and parallels: Mt 22:20-21, Lk 20:24-25) might provide evidence that the association between the connection of humanity with the deity and the relation of the imperial images with the emperor circulates in the first half of the first century C.E.

278

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

“merciful man” who sees himself as “waxen poor” and “does good to his own soul.” There is even more veiled meaning in the story. The sage presents the cultic act of washing in a public house as a halakhic principle. The claim is immediately debunked by his disciples.29 And yet, it is precisely this egregious claim which sets Hillel apart from the disciples. It is again useful to recall b. Yoma 35b as a point of comparison. There Shemayah and Avtalyon act as the kabod and recognize Hillel the Elder as the kabod through the desecration of the Sabbath. In this text Hillel is marked as a deified rabbinic authority by his false claim on the Torah. There is something more here than meets the eye. What both texts are doing is rather to place these rabbinic authorities on the other side of the Torah, so to speak; from receivers they become givers. Hillel’s false claim on the Torah produces Torah, a new halakhah, just as Shemayah and Avtalyon enact a new Sabbath regulation. The disciples of Hillel, in holding to the Torah epistemologically, fall short of this ideal of embodiment. It is also useful to recall Genesis Rabbah 8:10, which I already introduced in chapter thirteen and which is attributed to the famous third-century Caesarean Amora Rabbi Hoshaya: R. Hoshaya said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, the ministering angels mistook him and wished to exclaim ‘Holy’ before him. What does this resemble? A king and a governor who sat in a chariot, and his subjects wished to say to the king, “Domine!” (Sovereign!) but they did not know which it was. What did the king do? He pushed the governor out of the chariot, and so they knew who was the king. Similarly, when the Lord created Adam, the angels mistook him. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He caused sleep to fall upon him, and so all knew that he was man (‫ ;)אדם‬thus it is written, Cease ye from man, in whose nostrils is a breath,

Again, my point is not that one ought to read in texts such as this one a condemnation of the use of public baths. Rather, my point here is that in this particular text the use, although permitted, cannot be deemed halakhic. 29

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

279

for how little is he to be accounted (Isa 2:22)! (Genesis Rabbah 8:10)30

I have already argued in chapter thirteen that the parable cannot be subjected to questions about “monotheism” and that it shows Adam as a partaker of God’s own divinity. The point which needs to be made now is that, as such instantiation of divinity, the worship of Adam is expected. It is called for by God, as it is in the Life of Adam and Eve 12-14. The angels’ mistake is to worship Adam as God.31 The text also does not imply that the angelic adoration of Adam as God resides in the recital of the qedusha (i.e., Isa 6:3) toward Adam. Such recital is accepted for human beings in some rabbinic circles, even, reputedly, in Rabbi Hoshaya’s circle (cf. b. Bava Batra 75b). The issue is rather that the angels do not know how to differentiate between Adam-god and God. The emphasis of the text is that divinity or imperium is absolutely God’s, while Adam shares in it at God’s discretion. As much as God shares his divinity to the extent that there is no discernable difference between him and the deified, he does not share the manner in which he possesses divinity. As chapter four has submitted, this distinction has roots in biblical theology: God uniquely possesses divinity in and of himself, while the deified possess God’s divinity at God’s discretion, in an absolute dependence on him. Therefore, even in this rabbinic passage the correction need not amount to the removal of deification, but only points to this essential distinction between God and his god. In other words, all along Adam is at once both the sleeping, vulnerable human and the honored charioteer. Ultimately the proper veneration of Adam is a story of deification.

The tradition of Genesis Rabbah 8:10 reappears without attribution in Ecclesiastes Rabbah 6:9. 31 The negation of such worship does not occur in all of rabbinic literature, since the worship of Adam as the image of God is not an infringement on the YHWH-only divine fluidity. 30

CHAPTER NINETEEN. CONCLUSIONS I have begun my investigation with decrying certain preconceptions about the mysticism and theology of early Judaism, particularly the relegation of its mysticism to certain texts, themes, and genres, and the molding of its theology in the image of medieval and post-medieval Jewish and Christian monotheism. What I hope to have accomplished is first and foremost a demonstration of the inapplicability of these preconceptions to early Judaism. Even more fundamentally, I hope my investigation evidenced the anachronism of categorical and definitional approaches. Once these were abandoned, the clarity of the theological lines of these texts appeared in the symbolic language of an informal theology, a theology in which God and divinity were more subjects of recognition than of propositions. In other words, early Judaism recognized divinity through God (as circular as this sounds) and expressed this recognition in the inherited symbolic language of divinity, of the descriptors or features of God. This symbolic language of the analyzed texts led me to the argument that early Judaism was thoroughly mystical and experienced a theology in which God and humanity were not discrete objects of thought, but rather aspects of a blended reality. In the terms I advanced here, early Judaism was deificational, if I am allowed to coin this adjective. In this broad scope, I proceeded in a largely chronological fashion. A close analysis of the theologies of the earliest biblical texts led to the conclusion that preexilic Israel described the divine in the same manner as its neighbors. The features of these descrip281

282

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

tions—such as enthronement, enormity, and luminosity—served throughout Jewish antiquity as the primary markers and recognition points of divinity. Yet, unlike their neighbors (both from without and from within Israel), the biblical writers had a conception of the divine which was neither polytheistic, nor monotheistic. Rather, throughout the Bible’s complex yet homogenous theological world, we have a radical YHWH-only divine fluidity. What I meant by this is first and foremost that in the biblical world and in early Judaism overall there is only one divine selfhood, YHWH’s. Second, this means that YHWH shares his divine selfhood with other beings who are thus deified in him. Third, this means that, even within this sharing, YHWH remains unshared in the absolute manner in which he possesses his divinity: YHWH uniquely possesses divinity in and of himself, while the deified possess his divinity at his discretion and to varying degrees, in an absolute dependence on him. Therefore, the Bible speaks of YHWH as both shared and unshared at once. He is in a class of his own while sharing his divinity with other beings. In preexilic sources several human institutions (such as the monarchy) were allowed unhindered access to the divinity of YHWH. Later on, in Ezekiel and the Priestly source, this exceptional human access to divinity was appropriated into a new anthropology which attributed humanity overall a special relationship with the divine: humanity functions as YHWH’s statue. Yet, in a redefinition of iconicity itself, this new anthropology found that the human being is theomorphic, but no longer divine. The same solidification of the divine selfhood generated a second and parallel phenomenon: the emergence of angelologies, veiled in the language of creatureliness. And yet, despite all these developments, different sources from approximately the second century B.C.E. were found to have broken through this exclusion of humanity from the godhead and to have eventually concluded that different holy persons of their past became deified. A detailed analysis of Ezekiel the Tragedian’s throne scene, the Aramaic chapters of Daniel, and Pseudo-Orpheus, led to the argument that these texts mark an important intermediary stage in the development of deification theology. On the one hand, there is nothing in their scenes to preclude the

CHAPTER NINETEEN

283

conclusion that Moses and respectively Daniel are deified (in the sense that they become gods, not simply godlike), and in this aspect these texts revive the preexilic traditions which allowed certain human institutions unhindered access to divinity. On the other hand, this inclusion into the godhead is juxtaposed to the exclusionary language of the theomorphic anthropology prominent in Ezekiel: these holy persons are emphatically creaturely. As contrasting as these traditions were in their matrices, there is nothing in these Second Temple texts to indicate that they held these traditions in tension. Rather, I argued here that these traditions served together a new model of deification: the human being is deified without the dissolution of its distinctness from God. In this new deification merged with theomorphic anthropology, the boundaries between God and gods became at once clearer and less rigid. On closer inspection this proved not to be a paradox: greater clarity afforded greater fluidity. Thus in this new paradigm of deification there is nothing which one would naturally direct to God and God does not also allow—and even prescribe—to be directed to his gods. The only limit is confusion. The participatory gods can receive the entire treatment of God, even worship, but as gods and not as God. And indeed in these texts confusions are rare, so lessons in ontology are rarely given. On the contrary, my historical analysis suggested that the connection between deification and creatureliness developed with reverse emphases: to be created meant to be deified. The early Second Temple emphasis on the creatureliness of humans (and angels) became another stage in the history of deification theology and came to clarify further God’s uniqueness within his sharedness: creatureliness means the relative possession of divinity, but a possession of divinity it is. It was subsequently argued that this deification theology is dominant throughout the so-called “transformational mysticism” of Jewish late antiquity, including rabbinic literature. In the texts analyzed, Adam, as a case in point, is comfortably described as bearing all the divine markers, as being the kabod, luminous, enormous, and worshipped. Yet, in all these divine symbols he is never shedding his humanness. When the texts insisted on the latter, they did not speak a new language, nor abandoned the

284

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

inherited sense of deification (that humans participate in God’s selfhood), but rather clarified and defended it. And, tellingly, the opportunities to make these clarifications and defenses were not the attributions to humanity of any particular divine feature, but the manner in which the divine features were perceived in the deified (by themselves or others). There is nothing in the texts analyzed to suggest that the threat to God’s uniqueness was ever substantial, but only aesthetic. When, in front of this threat, rabbinic theology appealed to modalism, it created not so much a new gravitational center for an invented orthodoxy, as a new border around the deification tradition inherited from its holy texts. The large space of rabbinic theology, all the way up to modalism, was filled with a spectrum of options, all of which still fell under the YHWH-only fluidity inherited from the Bible itself. The rabbis were deified, became the kabod, generated more Torah, and were worshipped. This valued inheritance (which they concomitantly veiled and unveiled, to varying degrees), the rabbis encircled within modalism so that any temptations to cross over to other theologies must first step into this outlying territory of ultimate divine uniqueness. As I noted in the introduction, this study was also meant to make a contribution to the research on Jewish “transformational mysticism,” namely to connect this remarkable phenomenon present in apocalyptic and Hekhalot literatures to the Bible. Once I discarded the categories of mysticism and monotheism, their view on transformed humanity was found to go back to the earliest texts of Israel. Obviously, many changes occurred over this long period of time and I tried to attend to the most significant of them, but fundamentally what undergirds these two bodies of literature (and the vast collection of literary corpora at which I looked in this book) is the YHWH-only fluidity already present in the earliest texts of the Bible. It seems to me that their shared connection to the Bible in general, and to the biblical theology of deification in particular, is one of the primary reasons for which these two unconnected bodies of literature—apocalyptic and Hekhalot—often use strikingly similar language and hold similar views about humanity. In other words, the contribution which I am submitting to the study of transformational mysticism is that human

CHAPTER NINETEEN

285

transformation and “mysticism” in general are ultimately aspects of theology. The transformation of humans, the human possession of divine secrets, the veiling of meanings, the apocalyptic reading of texts, the recognition of another (and of the self) as the kabod, etc., are all aspects of the shareability of God. The biblical character of Jewish “transformational mysticism” has been tied all along to the occasional remarks—such as Peter Hayman’s—that, in terms of exclusion from divinity, there is no observable progress between the texts of Deuteronomy and the midrashim of the classical rabbis. The connection lies in this widely fluid and integrative theology which I called deification. If I may make with my own intuitive statement, I would submit that, mutatis mutandis, the same remarks may be made in regard to early Christian transformational “mysticism” (at least the one not living in the wake of Augustine).

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Aaron, David H. “Shedding Light on God’s Body in Rabbinic Midrashim: Reflections on the Theory of a Luminous Adam.” Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 299-314. Abrams, Daniel. “The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead.” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 291-321. Adam, Klaus-Peter. Der königliche Held: Die Entsprechung von kämpfendem Gott und kämpfendem König in Psalm 18. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 2001. Aland, B., et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Allison, Jr, Dale C. Testament of Abraham. CEJL. Berlin: New York, 2003. Altmann, A. “A Note on the Rabbinic Doctrine of Creation.” Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1956): 195-206. Andersen, F. I. and A. D. Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Andersen, F. I. “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 91-221 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Anderson, Gary A. “The Exaltation of Adam and the Fall of Satan.” Pages 83-110 in Literature on Adam and Eve. Edited by G. Anderson, Michael E. Stone, Johannes Tromp. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000.

287

288

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

———. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance. Harvard Semitic Monographs 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Anderson, Gary A., Michael E. Stone, Johannes Tromp. Literature on Adam and Eve. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000. Anderson, Gary A. and Michael E. Stone, eds. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. 2nd ed. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1999. Aster, Shawn Zelig. The Unbeatable Light: Melammu and Its Biblical Parallels. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 384; Muenster: Ugarit Verlag, 2012. Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Baillet, Maurice. Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520). Discoveries in the Judean Desert VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Balberg, Mira. Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Bar-Asher Siegal, Michal. Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Barc, B. “La Taille cosmique d’Adam dans la littérature juive rabbinique des trois premières siècles après J.C.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 49 (1975): 173-185. Bar-Ilan, M. “The Hand of God: A Chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism.” Pages 321-335 in Rashi 1040-1990: Hommage a Ephraim E. Urbach, Congres europeen des Etudes juives. Edited by G. Sed-Rajna. Paris: Cerf, 1993. Barr, James. “ ‘Thou art the Cherub’: Ezekiel 28.14 and the Postexilic Understanding of Genesis 2-3.” Pages 213-223 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes. Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Caroll, and Philip R. Davies. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 149. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1992.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

———. The Variable Spelling of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. ———. “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum Supplements 7 (1960): 31-8. Barstad, H. M. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le ‘Commentaire Allegorique’?” Pages 140-173 in Etudes D’Histoire du Texte de l’Ancien Testament. Fribourg: Editions Universitaire; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, Ruprecht, 1978. Basser, Herbert W. “B. Yoma 35b: Some Observations Concerning Divine Mediators and Rabbis.” The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 22 (2019): 133-151. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: “God Crucified” and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2008. Bauks, M. “Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (Pg).” Pages 333-345 in Studies in the Book of Genesis. Edited by A. Wénin. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Baumgarten, A. I. “Were the Greeks Different? If so, How and Why?” Pages 1-10 in Shem in the Tents of Japhet. Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism. Edited by James L. Kugel. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “Yahwistic Names in Light of Late Babylonian Onomastics.” Pages 245-266 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. ———. “The Babylonian Background of the Motif of the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 273-290. Becking, Bob. “Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Some Introductory Remarks.” Pages 1-8 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion. Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and PostExilic Times. Edited by Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

290

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

———. “Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in Ancient Israel?” Pages 157-171 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. Leuven: Peters, 1997. Becking, Bob, and Marjo C. A. Korpel, eds. The Crisis of Israelite Religion. Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Behr, John. John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Berlejung, A. Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik. Göttingen; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. ———. “Washing the Mouth: The Consecration of Divine Images in Mesopotamia.” Pages 45-72 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. Leuven: Peters, 1997. Black, Matthew. “The Origin of the Name Metatron.” Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951): 217-219. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, 1998. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition: The Origin and the Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Boda, Mark J., and P. Redditt, eds. Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008. Bodi, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. Orbus biblicus et orientalis 104. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. ———. “Le Livre d’Ézéchiel et le Poeme d’Erra.” Etudes théologiques et religieuses 68 (1993): 1-23. Botterweck, G. J. and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 16 volumes. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, 1974-2018.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

Böttrich, Christfried. Adam als Mikrokosmos: beine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Lang, 1995. ———. Das slavische Henochbuch. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1995. Bowley, James E. “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Living in the Shadow of God’s Anointed.” Pages 159-181 in The Bible at Qumran. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Box, G. H., The Testament of Abraham: Translated from the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1927. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. ———. “Two Powers in Heaven; Or, The making of a Heresy.” Pages 331-370 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 243-284. Brettler, M. God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1989. Brock, Sebastian P. “Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition.” Pages 11-40 in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter. Regensburg, 1982. Bucur, Bogdan G. Scripture Re-envisioned. Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2019. ———. Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Bunta, Silviu N. “Tradition: Generated by or Generating Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. ———. “The Voices of the ‘Triumphant Hymn’: The Orthodox Sanctus as a Christian Merkabah Text,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 64/1-2 (2020): 93-127. ———. “Driven Away with a Stick: The Femininity of the Godhead in y. Ber. 12d, the Emergence of Rabbinic Modalist

292

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Orthodoxy, and the Christian Binitarian Complex.” Pages 6684 in Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism. Studies in Honor of Alexander Golitzin. Edited by Andrei Orlov. Vigiliae Christianae Supplements. Leiden: Brill, 2020. ———. “YHWH’s Cultic Statue after 597/586 B.C.E.: A Linguistic and Theological Reinterpretation of Ezek 28:12.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2007): 212-232. ———. “The Mēsu-Tree and the Animal Inside: Theomorphism and Theriomorphism in Daniel 4.” Scrinium 3 (2007): 364384. ———. “The Likeness of the Image: Adamic Motifs and ‫ צלם‬Anthropology in Rabbinic Traditions about Jacob’s Image Enthroned in Heaven.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 37 (2006): 55-84. ———. “One Man (φως) in Heaven: Adam-Moses Polemics in the Romanian Versions of Testament of Abraham and Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16 (2006): 139-165. ———. “Too Vast to Fit in the World: Moses, Adam, and ‫צלם אלהים‬ in Testament of Moses 11:8.” Henoch 26 (2004): 188-204. Cagni, Luigi. The Poem of Erra. Malibu: Undena, 1977. Callender, Dexter E. Jr. Adam in Myth and History. Harvard Semitic Studies 48. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. ———. “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God.” Pages 175-193 in The Book of Ezekiel. Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Caquot, A., and M. Sznycer. Ugaritic Religion. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Cartojan, Nicolae. Cărțile populare în literatura românească. 2 vols.; București: Editura Enciclopedică Română, 1929. Cassin, Elena. La Splendeur Divine: Introduction à l’Étude de la Mentalité Mésopotamienne. Paris: Mouton, 1968. Cerbelaux, Dominique. “Le nom d’Adam et les points cardinaux.” Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 285-301. Charles, R. H. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Charlesworth, James H. ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. ———. “The Portrayal of the Righteous as an Angel.” Pages 135151 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and G. Nickelsburg. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Chazon, E. G. “Is Divrei Ha-me’rot a Sectarian Prayer?.” Pages 117 in The Dead Sea Scrolls; Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. 3rd ed. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1976. Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Clifford, Richard J. “Creation ex nihilo in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.” Pages 66-76 in Creation “ex nihilo”: Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges. Ed. Gary A. Anderson, Markus Bockmuehl. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2018. ———. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994. Coats, G. W. Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 57. Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1988. Cohen, M. S. The Sh’iur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism. Washington: University Press of America, 1983. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2000. ———. “4QPrayer of Nabonidus.” Pages 83-93 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by G. J. Brooke et al. Discoveries in the Judean Desert XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. ———. The Scepter and the Star. The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York, London: Doubleday, 1995. ———. “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism.” Pages 41-58 in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys. Edited by John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.

294

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

———. Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. ———. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 13. Missoula, Mont.; Scholars Press, 1974. Collins, John J. and Devorah Dimant. “A Thrice-Told Hymn: A Response to Eileen Schuller.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 85/1 (1994): 151-155. Collins, John J. and Michael Fishbane, eds. Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Collins, John J. and Peter W. Flint, eds. The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Colson, Francis H., and George H. Whitaker. Philo. 10 vols (and 2 supplements). Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. Coxon, P. W. “Another Look at Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.” Pages 211-222 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Louvain: Leuven University Press; Louvain: Peeters, 1993. ———. “The Great Tree of Daniel.” Pages 91-111 in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane. Edited by James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 42. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1986. Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Curtis, E. M. “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study.” Pages 31-56 in Scripture in Context III: The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature. Edited by W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones, G. L. Mattingly. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1990. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia. Revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Dan, Joseph “The Concept of Knowledge in the Shi`ur Qomah.” Pages 67-73 in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History, Presented to Alexander Altman. Edited by S. Stein and R. Lowewe. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1979.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Davies, Philip R. In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 148. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 3-18 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St Andrew’s Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by C. Newman et al. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———. “New Light on the Mythological Background of the Allusion to Rephesh in Habakkuk III 5.” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979): 143-151. DeConick, April D. “What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?” Pp. 1-24 in Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism. Ed. April DeConick; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ———. Voices of the Mystics. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 157. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ———. Seek to See Him. Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1996. Delcor, M. Le Testament d’Abraham. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 2. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Denis, A. M. Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1970. de Moor, Johannes C. The Rise of Yahwism. Leuven: Brill, 1990. Second edition 1997. ———. The Seasonal Pattern in the Myth of Ba’lu According to the Version of Ilimilku. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 16. Kevalaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971.

296

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Deutsch, Nathaniel. Guardians of the Gate. Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003. Diamond, Eliezer. Holy Men and Hunger Artists. Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Dick, M. B. and C. B. Walker. “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 55-121 in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Creation of the Cult Images. Edited by M. B. Dick. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Dietrich, Walter, and Martin A. Klopfenstein, eds. Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 1994. Dion, P. E. “Yhwh as Storm God and Sun God: The Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 143-171. Christoph Dohmen, “‫מסכה‬.” Pages 8:431-437 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 16 volumes. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, 1974-2018. Driver, G. R. “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems.” Biblica 35 (1954): 145-159, 299-312. Edelman, D. V., ed. The Triumph of Elohim; From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995 Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1997. Epstein, I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud. 31 vols. Translated by M. Simon. London: Soncino Press, 1935-1952. Ernout, A. and F. Thomas. Syntaxe Latine. 2nd ed. Paris: Klincksieck, 1953. Falk, D. K. “Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple.” Pages 106126 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

Organization of Qumran Studies Oslo 1998. Edited by D. K. Falk, F. G. Martinez and E. M. Schuller. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Faust, Avraham. “Deportation and Demography in Sixth-Century B.C.E. Judah.” Pages 91-101 in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Ed. Brad E. Kelle and Jacob L. Wright. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2011. Fauth, W. “Tatrosjah-totrosjah und Metatron in der juedischen Merkabah-Mystik.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 22 (1991): 40-87. Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press, 2000. Reedited New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002. Fishbane, M. “The ‘Measures’ of God’s Glory in Ancient Midrash.” Pages 53-74 in Messiah and Christos. Edited by I. Gruenwald. Tübingen: 1992. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T. Jesus Monotheism. Volume 1. Christological Origins. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2015. ———. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 42. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2002.’ ———. “Some Reflections on Angelomorphic Humanity Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7/3 (2000): 292-312. ———. “The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 112-128 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St Andrew’s Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by C. Newman et al. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “Ascent to Heaven and the Embodiment of Heaven: A Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Pages 367-399 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1998. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1998. ———. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

298

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

———. “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 236-52. Forger, Deborah. “Divine Embodiment in Philo of Alexandria,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 49/2 (2018): 223-262. Fossum, Jarl. The Image of the Invisible God. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 30. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. ———. “Colossians 1.15-18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 183-201. ———. “Gen 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 16 (1985): 202-239. ———. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 36. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985. ———. “Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism.” Vigiliae Christianae 37 (1983): 260-287. Fraade, Steven D. “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism.” Pages 253-283 in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages. Edited by Arthur Green. New York: Crossroad, 1986. Freedman, David N., ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York, 1992. ———. Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Freedman, H., and M. Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah. 3rd ed. 10 vols. London: Soncino, 1983. Friedlander, G., ed. Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. New York: Hermon Press, 1965. Friedman, Shamma. “Graven Images.” Graven Images 1 (1994): 233-238. García Martínez, Florentino. Qumranica Minora I. Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. Qumran and Apocalyptic. Leiden: Brill, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden, Boston, New York: Brill; Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1997-1998.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology. Antecedents and Early Evidence. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998. Gifford, E. H., ed. Eusebii Pamphili, Evangelicae Praeparationis. Oxfod: The University Press, 1903. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Translated by Henrietta Szold and P. Radin. 7 vols. Baltimore, London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Golitzin, A. Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Chariot that Prophet Ezekiel Saw. Piscataway, NJ : Gorgias Press, 2016. ———. “‘The Demons Suggest an Illusion of God’s Glory in a Form’: Controversy over the Divine Body and Vision of Glory in Some Late Fourth, Early Fifth Century Monastic Literature.” Studia Monastica 44 (2002): 13-43. Goodenough, E. R. By Light, Light; The Mystic Gospels of Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935. Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature.” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 171-95. Grabbe, Lester. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. 3 vols. London/New York: T & T Clark International, 2004-2020. ———. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2nd edition. London: SCM, 1994. Gray, Alison R. Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 2 volumes. Anchor Bible Commentary 22, 23. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1997. Greenfield, J. C. “Ba’al’s Thone and Isa 6:1.” Pages 193-198 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215. Kevalaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. Grelot, Pierre. “Nabuchodonosor changé en bête.” Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 10-17. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 14. Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1980. Gutman, Y. The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958-1963. [in Hebrew]

300

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985. Hafemann, Scott J. “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Survey.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 7 (1990) 79-104. Hallo, W. W. “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study.” Pages 11-14 in Scripture in Context III: The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature. Edited by W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones, G. L. Mattingly. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1990. Halperin, David J. The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1988. ———. “Ascension or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly Journey in Ancient Judaism.” Religion 18 (1988): 47-67. ———. “Heavenly Ascension in Ancient Judaism: The Nature of the Experience.” Pages 218-232 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1987. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1987. ———. The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature. American Oriental Society 62. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980. ———. “The Exegetical Character of Ezek 10:9-17.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 129-141. Handy, Lowell K. “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels: Divine Hierarchies in Ugarit and the Bible.” Biblical Research 35 (1990): 18-35. ———. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Haran, Menahem. “The Ark and the Cherubim.” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959): 30-38, 89-98. ———. “The Complex of Ritual Acts Performed Inside the Tabernacle.” Scripta hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 272-302. ———. “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography.” Pages 159-173 in In the Shelter of Elyon. Edited by W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Hayman, Peter. “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 1-15. Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Hennecke, Edgar. New Testament Apocrypha. Reedited by Wilhelm Scheemelcher. 2 vols. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965. Henze, Matthias. “Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness (Daniel 4) in Syriac Literature.” Pages 2:550-571 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Herbener, Jens-André P. “On the Term ‘Monotheism.’” Numen 60/5-6 (2013): 616-648. Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. ———. “Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple.” Pages 210-217 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1987. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1987. ———. “Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature.” Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988): 73-100. ———. “From Prophecy to Apocalypse: The Book of Watchers and Tours of Heaven.” Pages 145-165 in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible to the Middle Ages. Edited by A. Green. World Spirituality 13. New York: Crossroad, 1986. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors IV. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. ———. “The Textual Tradition of Pseudo-Orpheus: Walter or Riedweg?” Pages 159-180 in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion:

302

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Festschrift für Martin Hengel sum 70. Geburstag. 1. Judentum. Edited by P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. ———. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume II: Poets. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. ———. “The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian.” Pages 447-452 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1976. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 10. Chico: Calif.: Scholars Press, 1976. Hurowitz, V. A. “What Goes In Is What Comes Out—Materials for Creating Cult Statues.” Pages 3-23 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Gary M. Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. Brown Judaic Studies 346. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. ———. “The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123/1 (2003): 147157. ———. ‘I Have Built You an Exalted House.’ Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth did Jesus Become God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Idel, Moshe. “Enoch Is Metatron.” Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 220240. ———. Kabbalah: New Perspectives. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1988. Jackson, Howard M., ed. and trans. Zosimus of Panopolis On the Letter Omega. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. Jacobson, Howard. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Janowitz, Naomi. “God’s Body: Theological and Ritual Roles of Shiu’r Komah.” Pages 183-201 in People of the Body. Edited by H. Eilberg-Schwartz. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: The Judaica Press, 1996. Jervell, J. Imago Dei: Gen 1:26f. in Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Johnson, M. D. “Life of Adam and Eve.” Pages 249-295 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Joüon, Paul, S. J., and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion of Israel from the Beginning to the Babylonian Exile. Translated by Moshe Greenberg. New York: Schoken, 1960. Keel, Othmar. Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4. Stuttgart, 1977. ———. The Symbolism of the Biblical World. Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. New York: Crossroad, 1985. ———. Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh. Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 261; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Keel, Othmar, and Christopher Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. Kimelman, R. “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-century Jewish-Christian Disputation.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 567-595. Knoppers, Gary and J. Gordon McConville, eds. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Koester, H. Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. Korpel, M. C. A. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Münster: UGARIT-Verlag, 1990. Kratz, Reinhard G. Translatio Imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danieler-zählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen

304

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Umfeld. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 63. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms. A Commentary. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988, 1989. Kuiper, K. “Le poète juif Ezékiel.” Revue des études juives 46 (1903): 48-73, 161-177. ———. “De Ezekiele Poeta Iudaeo.” Mnemosyne 28 (1900): 237280. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Kvanvig, H. Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2011. ———. Roots of Apocalyptic. The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man. Wissenschaftlische Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 61. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Lachs, Samuel T. “Some Textual Observations on the Apocalypsis of Moses and the Vita Adae et Evae.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 13 (1982): 172-176. LaFargue, M. “Orphica.” Pages 795-801 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996. ———. “The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sofisticated Polytheism.” Pages 191-200 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Edited by H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. Lanfranchi, Pierluigi. L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire. Leiden: Brill, 2009. ———. “Il sogno di Mosé nell’Exagoge di Ezechiele il Tragico.” Materia guidaica 8 (2003): 105-111. Lang, Bernhard. The Hebrew God. Portrait of an Ancient Deity. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2002.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

———. Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology. Social World of Biblical Antiquity 1. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Launderville, Dale, O.S.B. “Ezekiel’s Cherub: A Promising Symbol or a Dangerous Idol?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (2004): 165-183. Legaspi, Michael. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Lehoux. Daryn. What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry Into Science and Worldmaking. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2014. Lemche, N. P. The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 110. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil. San Francisco: Harper&Row, 1988. ———. Sinai and Zion. An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985. Levison, John R. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Lieberman, S. “Metatron, the Meaning of His Name and His Functions.” Pages 235-241 (appendix) in Ithamar Gruenwald. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 14. Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1980. Lipinski, E. “El’s Abode: Mythological Traditions related to Mt. Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia.” Orientalia loveniensia periodica 2 (1971): 13-69. Litwa, M. David. “The Deification of Moses in Philo of Alexandria.” Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014): 1-27. ———. “Transformation through a Mirror: Moses in 2 Cor. 3.18,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (2012): 286297. ———. We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology. BZNW 187. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’. FAT 2/1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

306

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Mach, M. Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinicher Zeit. Tübingen, 1992. MacRae, G. “The Coptic Testament of Abraham.” Pages 327-340 in Studies in the Testament of Abraham. Edited by George W. Nickelsburg. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 6. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Mandelbaum, B., ed. Pesikta de Rav Kahana. 2 vols. Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Matsushima, Eiko. “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: Their Fashioning and Clothing and Their Interaction with the Society.” Pages 209-219 in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East. Edited by E. Matsushima. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1993. McDowell, Catherine L. The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5-3:24 in Light of mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Meeks, Wayne A. “Moses as God and King.” Pages 334-371 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. ———. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Meier, S. A. The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 42. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. ———. The Dethronement of Sabaoth. Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 18. Lund: Wallin & Dalholm, 1982. ———. “Yhwh SABAOTH- The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne.” Pages 109-138 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays; Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979. Edited by T. Ishida. Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982. ———. King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. Lund: Gleerup, 1976.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

307

Metzger, M. Königsthron und Gottesthron. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. ———. “Himmlische und irdischeWohnstatt Jahwes.” Ugarit-Forschungen 2 (1970): 139-158. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1-16. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Milik, J. T. “‘Prière de Nabonide’ at autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel.” Revue biblique 63 (1956): 407-415. Miller, J. M. “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 289-304. Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Miller, Patrick D. and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the ‘Ark Narrative’ of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Montanari, Franco. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015. Morray-Jones, Christopher R. A. “The Temple Within. The Embodied Divine Image and Its Worship in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish and Christian Sources.” Pages 400431 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1998. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1998. ———. “Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate.” Harvard Theological Review 86 (1993): 177-217, 265-292. ———. “Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkabah Tradition.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 1-31. ———. “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition: Alexander’s Three Test Cases.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 22 (1991): 1-39. Mullen, E. Theodore. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Munoa, P. Four Powers in Heaven. The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Testament of Abraham. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

308

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Newman, Carey C. Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric. Novum Testamentum Supplements 69. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Newsom, Carol A. “Why Nabonidus? Excavating Traditions From Qumran, The Hebrew Bible, And Neo-Babylonian Sources.” Pages 57-79 in The Dead Sea Scrolls.Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso et al. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. “Shirot ‘Olat Hashabbat.” Pages 173-401 in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. Eshel et al. Discoveries in the Judean Desert XI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. ———. “4Q374: A Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition.” Pages 40-52 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ———. “Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot.” Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987): 11-30. ———. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 27. Atlanta, GA.: Scholars Press, 1985. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. London: SCM, 1981. ———. “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 383-405. ———, ed. Studies in the Testament of Abraham. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 6. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. ———, ed. Studies on the Testament of Moses. Cambridge, MA.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Niditch, Susan. “The Cosmic Man: Man as Mediator in Rabbinic Literature.” Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 137-146. Niehr, Herbert. “God of Heaven.” Pages 370-372 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “Host of Heaven,” Pages 428-430 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn,

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “In Search of Yhwh’s Cult Statue in the First Temple.” Pages 73-96 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. Leuven: Peters, 1997. ———. “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspect.” Pages 45-72 in The Triumph of Elohim; From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by D. V. Edelman. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995. ———. Der höchste Gott; Alttestamenticher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-kannanäischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 190. Berlin, 1990. Odeberg, Hugo. 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch. New York: Ktav, 1973. Olyan, Saul M. A Thousand Thousands Served Him. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993. Oppenheim, A. L. Ancient Mesopotamia. 2nd revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. ———. “The Golden Garments of the Gods.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8 (1949): 172-193. ———. “Akkadian puluẖtu and melammu.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 63 (1943): 31-34. Orlov, Andrei. The Glory of the Invisible God: Two Powers in Heaven Traditions and Early Christology. London: Bloomsbury, 2019. ———. The Greatest Mirror: Heavenly Counterparts in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Albany: The State University of New York Press, 2017. ———. Yahoel and Metatron: Aural Apocalypticism and the Origins of Early Jewish Mysticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. ———. “Unveiling the Face: The Heavenly Counterpart Traditions in Joseph and Aseneth.” Pages 771-808 in The Embroidered Bible. Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Lorenzo DiTommaso, Matthias Hinze, and William Adler. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

310

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

———. “Moses’ Heavenly Counterpart in the ‘Book of Jubilees’ and the ‘Exagoge’ of Ezekiel the Tragedian.” Biblica 88/2 (2007): 153-73. ———. “The Origin of the Name ‘Metatron’ and the Text of 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 21 (2000): 19-26. ———. “Ex 33 on God’s Face: A Lesson from the Enochic Tradition.” Pages 130-147 in SBL Seminar Papers, 2000. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 2000. ———. “Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18 (1998): 71-86. ———. “Noah’s Younger Brother Revisited: Anti-Noachic Polemics and the Date of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch.” Forthcoming in Henoch 26 (2004). ———. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005. Patmore, Hector M. Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Patton, Corrine L. “Adam as the Image of God: An Exploration of the Fall of Satan in the Life of Adam and Eve.” Pages 294-300 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1994. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 33. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1994. Paulsen, David. “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses.” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 105-116. Podella, Thomas. Das Lichtkleid JHWHs. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1996. Pope, M. H. El in Ugaritic Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Pritchard. James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Puech, Émile. “‘La prière de Nabonide (4Q242).” Pages 208-227 in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara. Edited by K. J. Cathcart and M. Maher. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1996.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

311

Quispel, Gilles. “Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis.” Vigiliae Christianae 34 (1980): 1-13. ———. “The Origin of the Gnostic Demiurge.” Pages 271-276 in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Edited by P. Granfield and J.A. Jungmann. Münster: Ascendorff, 1970. ———. “Gnosticism and the New Testament.” Vigiliae Christianae 19 (1965): 65-85. Rahlfs, A., Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta. Editio Altera. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rendtorff, R. “El, Ba’al und Jahwe.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 78 (1966): 277-292. Riedweg, Christoph. Jüdisch-hellenistische Imitation eines orphischen Hieros Logos. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1993. Robertson, R. G. “Ezekiel the Tragedian.” Pages 803-819 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Robinson, Maurice A. and William G. Pierpont, eds. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform. Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005. Roddy, Nicolae. The Romanian Version of the Testament of Abraham. Text, Translation, and Cultural Context. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Rowland, Christopher C. “Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 170-189 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. ———. “The Visions of God in Apocalyptic literature.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 10 (1979): 137-154. Rowland, Christopher and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. The Mystery of God. Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Rubinkiewiecz, R. “Apocalypse of Abraham.” Pages 681-705 in vol. 1. of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC-AD100. London: SCM, 1964.

312

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Sanders, E. P. “Testament of Abraham.” Pages 871-902 in vol.1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Sanders, Paul. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Sarna, M. “Psalm XIX and the Near Eastern Sun-God Literature.” Pages 171-175 in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, vol.1. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967. Schäfer, Peter. The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism. Albany N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1992. ———. Hekhalot-Studien. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 19. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1988. ———. “Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Literature.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 14 (1983): 172-181. ———. “Merkavah Mysticism and Rabbinic Literature.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984): 537-554. ———. Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen. Untersuchungen zur Rabbinichen Engelvorstellung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Schmidt, F. Le Testament grec d’Abraham. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986. Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken Books, 1995. ———, Origins of the Kabbalah. Translated by Allan Arkush. Princeton University Press, 1990. ———. Kabbalah. New York, Scarborough: Meridian, 1978. ———. On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead. New York: Schocken Books, 1976. ———. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition. 2nd ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965. Schreiber, Stefan. “Der Mensch im Tod nach der Apokalypse des Mose: eine frühjüdische Anthropologie in der Zeit des Paulus.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 35 (2004): 49-69. Schuller, E. M. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection. Harvard Semitic Studies 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

313

———. “4QNon-Canonical Psalms.” Pages 75-172 in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Edited by E. Eshel, H. Eshel, C. Newsom, B. Nitzan, E. Schuller, A. Yardeni, J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady. Discoveries in the Judean Desert XI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. ———. “Hodayot.” Pages 69-254 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Esther Cazon et al. Discoveries in the Judean Desert XIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Schultz, Joseph P. “Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and the Revelation of the Law.” Jewish Quarterly Review 61 (1970-71): 282-307. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Scopello, M. “The Apocalypse of Zostrianos (Nag Hammadi VIII.1) and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch.” Vigiliae Christianae 34 (1980): 367-385. Segal, Alan. “Two Powers in Heaven and Early Christian Trinitarian Thinking.” Pages 73-95 in The Trinity: an Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity. Edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins; New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ———. “Paul and the beginnings of Jewish mysticism.” Pages 95122 in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. ———. “The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran.” Pages 302-328 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. Paul the Convert: the Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. ———. “Paul and ecstasy.” Pages 555-580 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1986. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1986. ———. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

314

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Smith, Ethan D. The Crucified Lord of Glory: Apophatic Theology as Transformational Mysticism. Dayton: Cherubim Press, forthcoming. Smith, Mark S. “The Three Bodies of God in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015): 471-488. ———. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. ———. The Early History of God. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids Mich., Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford, New York: Oxford, 2001. ———. “Yhwh and other Deities in Ancient Israel: Observations on Problems and Recent Trends.” Pages 197-234 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 1994. ———. “The Near Eastern Background of Solar Language for Yahweh.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 29-39. ———. “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Preexilic Israelite Religion.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 100 (1988): 424-427. Smith, Morton. “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of the Gentiles.” Pages 315-326 in Religions in Antiquity. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1970. ———. “The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism with Special Reference to Goodenough’s Work on Jewish Symbols.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 40 (1958): 473-512. Smallwood, E. Mary. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Sommerfeld, W. Der Aufstieg Marduks. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 213. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Snell, B. Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta I. Göttingen, 1971.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

315

Stähli, H.-P. Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments. Freiburg: Universitätsvelag, 1985; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Steenburg, D. “The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39 (1990): 95-109. Stone, Michael E. Texts and Concordances of the Armenian Adam Literature. Vol.I. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. ———. “The Fall of Satan and Adam’s Penance: Three Notes on The Books of Adam and Eve.” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993): 153-156. ———. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. ———. The Penitence of Adam. 2 vols. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 429-430, Scriptores Armeniaci 13-14. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. ———. Testament of Abraham. The Greek Recensions. Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Series 2. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Strack, Hermann L. and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. 2nd ed. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Stroumsa, G. “Jewish and Gnostic Traditions among the Audians.” Pages 345-358 in Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land. Edited by A. Kofsky and G.G. Stroumsa. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1998. ———. “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ.” Harvard Theological Review 76 (1983): 269-288. ———. “The Incorporeality of God: Context and Implications of Origen’s Position.” Religion 13 (1983): 345-358. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology. A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 270. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995. Sullivan, Kevin P. Wrestling with Angels. A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Literature and the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

316

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Tabor, James. “Returning to the Divinity: Josephus’ Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah and Moses” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 225-238. Terrien, Samuel. The Psalms. Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Theodor, Julius and Chanock Albeck, eds. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary. 3 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1903-1928. Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near Eeast 4. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Tigay, J. H. “You Shall Have No Other Gods”: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Tromp, Johannes. “Cain and Abel in the Greek and Armenian/Georgian Recensions of the Life of Adam and Eve.” Pages 277-296 in Literature on Adam and Eve. Edited by G. Anderson, M. Stone, and J. Tromp. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000. ———. The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 10. Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1993. Turdeanu, Émile. Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ———. “Dieu créa l’homme de huit éléments et tira son nom des quatre coins du monde.” Revue des Études Roumaines 13-14 (1974): 163-194. Turner, N. “The Testament of Abraham.” Pages 393-421 in The Apocryphal Old Testament. Edited by H. D. Sparks. Oxford, 1984. Ulmer, Rivka. A Bilingual Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati: Volume 1, chapters 1-22. Studia Judaica 86. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. Ulrich, Eugene, ed. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Urbach, Ephraim E. “Ha-Masorot ‘al Torat-HaSod.” Pages 1-28 in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

317

Scholem on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by idem et al. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. (in Hebrew) Vajda, G. “Pour le Dossier de Metatron.” Pages 345-354 in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History Presented to A. Altmann. Edited by S. Stein, R. Loewe. University of Alabama Press, 1979. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. ———. “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71.” Pages 169-91 in The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. Charlesworth. Minneapolis, Min.: Fortress, 1992. VanderKam, James C. and M. Brady, “4Qapocryphal Pentateuch B.” Pages 205-217 in Qumran Cave 4. Miscellanea, Part 2. Edited by Moshe Bernstein et al. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 28. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. van der Horst, Pieter W. “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist.” Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 21-29. ———. “Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel.” Mnemosyne 37 (1984): 354-375. van der Toorn, K. “The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah.” Pages 229-248 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. Leuven: Peters, 1997. ———. “David and the Ark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 209-231. van der Toorn, K., ed. The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: Peters, 1997. van der Toorn, K., Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. van Dijk, H. J. Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1-28,19): A New Approach. Biblica et orientalia. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1968. Vervenne, M. “Genesis 1,1-2,4. The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch.” Pages 35-79 in Studies

318

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

in the Book of Genesis. Edited by A. Wénin. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Vesco, J.-L. “Le Psaume 18, lecture davidique.” Revue Biblique 94 (1987): 5-62. Wagner, Andreas. Gottes Körper: Zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung des Menschengestaltigkeit Gottes. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2010. Walker, Christopher, and Michael Dick. The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual. The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Finland: University of Helsinki, 2001. Walter, N. Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos. Texte und Untersuchungen 86. Berlin: Akademie, 1964. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1-11. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord, The Problem of the Sitz-im-Leben of Gen 1:1-2:3.” Pages 501-511 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Wildberger, H. “Das Abbild Gottes Gen 1:26-30.” Theologische Zeitschrift 21 (1965): 245-259, 481-501. Wilson, Robert R. “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28.” Pages 211-218 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987. Wolfson, Elliot R. Through a Speculum that Shines. Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. ———. “Metatron and Shi`ur Qomah in the Writings of Haside Ashkenaz.” Pages 60-92 in Mysticism, Magic and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism. Edited by Karl E. Groezinger and J. Dan. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

———. “Mysticism and the Poetic-liturgical Compositions from Qumran. A Response to Bilhah Nitzan.” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 185-202. Wood, Alice. Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 385. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Wyatt, Nicolas. Religious Texts from Ugarit. 2nd edition. London, New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Yaron, Kalmon. “The Dirge over the King of Tyre.” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 3 (1964): 28-57. Yoshiko Reed, Annette. Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. ———. “Categorization, Collection, and the Construction of Continuity: 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch in and beyond ‘Apocalypticism’ and ‘Mysticism’.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 29 (2017): 268-311. Zenger, E. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. Zevit, Ziony. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London, New York: Continuum, 2001). Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel. 2 vols. Translated by R. E. Clemens. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1982.

INDICES I NDEX OF A NCIENT SOURCES The Bible (including the Deuterocanon) Genesis 1 1:1-2:4a 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:26-28 1:26

1:27 2:7 2:24 3:21 3:22-24 3:24 4:1 6:1-4 8:20-21 9:6 18-19 18:1-19:22

154 n. 67 89 214, 230 230 230, 236-237 214 n. 43 88-89, 93, 214-217, 220, 236, 248, 271n.14 215 n. 46 116 n. 22, 236, 257 217 227-228 100 99, 112 216 n. 50 116 n. 24 33 n. 14 276 137 113

321

18:2 18:16 19:1-22 24:7 24:40 28:12-13 28:16-17 32:25-29 32:25-31 32:31 34:31 35:14 37 49:24

137 137 113 113 113 140 140 113 113 81 n. 6 168 n. 40 33 n. 13 147, 149 30 n. 3

Exodus 2:3-10 3:1-6 3:6 3:17 4:16 7:1 12:23 13:17 13:21 13:21-22 14:19

178 153 81 n. 6 82 n. 12 143 143 178 82 n. 12 83 82 83, 113

322 14:24 15:11 15:17 16:13 19 20:3 20:5 23:20-23 23:24 23:33 24 24:9-11 24:10 24:16-17 24:17 25:6 25:8 25:9 25:10-22 25:18-22 25:22 25:29-30 25:40 26:36 27:9 27:11 27:16 27:18 28:17-20 29:18 29:25 29:38-41 29:41 30:7-9 30:20

THE LORD GOD OF GODS 82-83 60 n. 8, 64 32 n. 10, 35 n. 22 239 142 n. 31 64 168 n. 40 113 101, 168 n.40, 268 n. 7 268 n. 7 141 n. 31 61 n. 9, 80 n. 6 33 n. 12, 141 n. 31 82, 241 43 n. 42 33 n. 14 32 n. 10 93 44 n. 42 251 44 n. 42 33 n. 13 93 96 246 246 96 246 97 n. 29 33 n. 14 33 n. 14 33 n. 13 33 n. 14 33 n. 14 81 n. 6

30:34-38 31:3 31:4-5 31:5 32:20 32:34 33:2 33:17-23 33:20-23 34:13 34:23-24 34:30 35:13 35:15 35:17 35:21 35:29-35 35:32-35 36:35 36:37 37:1-15 37:16 38:9 38:11 38:24 39:10-13 39:36 39:38 39:43 40:5 40:8 40:28 40:34 40:34-35 40:34-38

33 n. 14 97 n. 31 251 97 n. 31 101, 162 113 113 153 81 n. 6 162 43 n. 42 151 33 n. 13 96 96 251 97 n. 31 251 99 97 44 n. 42 33 n. 13 246 246 97 n. 31 97 n. 29 33 n. 13 97 97 n. 31 97 97 97 85 38 n. 28 82

Leviticus 3:11

33 n. 13

INDICES 3:16 9:23-24 16:12 21:6 21:8 21:17 21:21-22 22:25 23:13

23:37 25:25 26:30 26:34-35 26:43

33 n. 13 241 99 33 n. 13 33 n. 13 33 n. 13 33 n. 13 33 n. 13 33 n. 13, 33 n. 14 33 n. 13, 33 n. 14 33 n. 13 276-277 101 78 n. 2 78 n. 2

Numbers 4:7 4:43 7:89 9:15 11:15 12:6 17:7 24:8 25:5 28:2 28:4 33:52

33 n. 13 251 44 n. 42 82 98 140 241 30 n. 3 168 n. 40 33 n. 13 33 n. 13 88 n. 5

Deuteronomy 3:29 4-5 4:1-39 4:12 4:16-18

168 n. 40 30 80 n. 5 82 93

23:18

323 4:19 4:19-20 4:28 4:32 4:35 4:36 4:39 5:4-7 5:4 5:9 5:22-23 5:24 6:4 7:4 7:5 7:16 7:25 8:19 10:1-5 10:17 11:6 11:16 12:2 12:3 12:30 13:2 13:6 13:13 16:16 17:2-3 17:3 26:10 26:15 28:14 28:36

147 n. 49, 148, 168 n. 40 65, 67 262, 268 n. 7 82 64-65 82 64 239 82 168 n. 40 82 98 69 n. 36, 168 n. 40 268 n. 7 101, 162 268 n. 7 162 268 n. 7 43 n. 42 61 168 n. 40 268 n. 7 163 101, 162 168 n. 40, 268 n. 7 268 n. 7 268 n. 7 268 n. 7 43 n. 42 67 147 n. 49, 148 168 n. 40 82 268 n. 7 268 n. 7

324

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

28:64 29:18 29:29 30:17 31:11 31:20 32:8 32:8-9 32:17 33:10 33:26

268 n. 7 268 n. 7 6 268 n. 7 43 n. 42 268 n. 7 65 113, 116 n. 24 67 33 n. 14 82

Joshua 5:13-15 22:22 22:28 23:7 23:16 24:16 24:20

148 61 93 268 n. 7 268 n. 7 268 n. 7 268 n. 7

Judges 1:6 5:20 6:20-21 6:25 6:28 6:30-32 13:22

162 147 33 n. 13 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 81 n. 6

1 Samuel 1:22 2:2 2:28 4-6 4:3-8 4:4

43 n. 42 64 33 n. 14 43-44 n. 42 43 n. 42 35 n. 22, 36, 44 n. 42, 112

4:21-22 5:1-4 5:3 5:4 6:5 16:9 21:6 2 Samuel 4:12 6:2 7:1-6 7:5-7 7:13 7:14 7:22 14:17 14:20 22:10 22:11 22:13 24:15-17 1 Kings 6:1-2 6:20-28 6:23-28 6:28 6:29-35 7:14 7:48 8:6 8:6-7 8:10-11 8:11 8:12-13

43 n. 42 43 n. 42 101 101, 162 88 n. 5 268 n. 7 33 n. 13

162 35 n. 22, 36, 44 n. 42 35 n. 22 32 n. 10 81 n. 9 62 64 62 n. 15, 63 62 n. 15, 63 145 n. 37 99 99 178

32 n. 10 99 37 223 112 97 n. 31 33 n. 13 64 37, 99 82 38 n. 28 32 n. 10, 35 n. 22

INDICES 8:14-66 8:16-20 8:23 8:27-30 8:27-49 8:29 8:44 8:48 9:6 14:23 15:13 16:32 18:21 18:26 22:19 22:19b-22 22:44 2 Kings 6:17 7:6 10:19-20 10:21 10:23 10:25-27 10:28 11:18 12:10-11 16:10 16:17 17:10 17:35 18:16 19:14-19 19:15

30 81 n. 9 64 79 n. 5 82 81 n. 9 81 n. 9 81 n. 9 268 n. 7 163 39 n. 33, 101, 162 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 55, 148 34-37, 59, 63 33 n. 15

148 148 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 48 n. 14 48 n. 14, 88 n. 5 43 n. 42 93 162 163 268 n. 7 162 79 n. 5 35 n. 22, 36, 114 n. 16

325 19:18 21:3 21:7 22:17 23:4-5 23:5

25:8-17 25:12

101, 162 48 n. 14 39 n. 33 33 n. 15 147 n. 49 50, 147 n. 49, 148 39 n. 33, 101, 162 50, 101 101 77 77 n. 1, 162 78 n. 2, 162 n. 22 77 78 n. 2

1 Chronicles 12:23 13:6 14:12 21:14-16 22:15 28:2 28:18 28:21 29:1-5 29:5

149 36, 44 n. 42 162 179 97 n. 31 36 n. 23 85 97 n. 31 186 97 n. 31

2 Chronicles 3:8-13 3:10-13 4:19 6:40 7:15 7:19 16:9

99 37 33 n. 13 79 n. 5 79 n. 5 268 n. 7 146

23:6 23:11 23:12 24:1-7 24:13 24:14

326 28:24 36:21 Nehemiah 9:6

Job 1:6 2:1 4:18 9:8 11:11 15:7-8 19:9 28:20-21 28:23-27 28:24 31:4 31:26-28 34:21 38:4-6 38:7 Psalms 2 2:7 8:6 11:4 11:17 14:2 14:7 17:15 18 18:7 18:10

THE LORD GOD OF GODS 162 n. 22 78 n. 2

80 n. 5, 114115, 117-118, 120, 149

116 n. 24 116 n. 24 142 n. 32 145 n. 37 146 259-260 94, 241 n. 52 6 146 146 146 50 146 146 116 n. 24

62 n. 14 61-62 95, 241 n. 52 55, 146 43 n. 42 35 35 43 n. 42 85 n. 21 179 85, 99, 145 n. 37

18:11 18:13 18:16 20:3 20:7 24:7-10 27:4 29 29:1 31:19-20 35:10 42:3 43:3 45:6-7 46:4-5 46:5 47 47:2 47:9 48:9 49:1 50:2

50:8-15 52:10 58 63:3 68:5 68:16-18 68:18 68:24-25 69:6 71:19 74:6-7 76:3

112 99 99 35 35 41 95 61, 115 116 n. 24 7 n. 6 64 43 n. 42 36 n. 22 62, 91 n. 11 32 n. 10 36 n. 22 42 41 41, 55 32 n. 10, 36 n. 22 2, 61, 65 32 n. 10, 36 n. 22, 95-96 33 n. 13 163 60 83 85 142 n. 31 148 42 146 64 77 n. 1, 162 n. 22 32 n. 10, 35,

INDICES

76:9 78:2 78:49 80:1 80:2 81:1 81:6 82 82:6 83:8 84:10-12 85:8 86:10 89:5-8 89:6 89:7 89:8 89:26 90:2 91:11-12 93 93:2 94:3 95 95:3 95:4 96 96:9 97 97:5 98 99 99:1 99:5 103:20 104

36 n. 22 35 6 113 36 35 n. 22 65 65 59-60, 65 21-23 n. 48, 116 n. 24 65 30 n. 3 65 41 60 64 116 n. 24 64 62 260 113 42, 61 55 65 42 41 65 42 65 42, 61 179 42 42, 61 36 36 n. 23 61 85 n. 21

327 104:1b-2a 104:2 104:3 104:32 106:20 110 110:1 110:3 113:5 115:2-8 119:18 132:2 132:5 132:7 132:13-14 134:5 135:2 139 139:5 144:5 147:4 148:1-4 148:2-3

40 145 n. 37, 231 85, 112 179 83, 93 62 n. 14 62 62 64 79 n. 5, 85 6 30 n. 3 30 n. 3 36 n. 23 32 n. 10, 36 n. 22 65 65 245 246 145 n. 37, 179 146 61 147

Proverbs 2:7 5:21 8:25 11:17 25:2

7 n. 6 146 260 276-277 6

Isaiah 1:12 1:13 1:24 6 6:1

43 n. 42 33 n. 14 30 n. 3 37-40, 59, 63 33 n. 11, 55,

328

6:1-3 6:2-3 6:3 6:5 6:6-7 6:9-10 8:18 9:5 9:6 10:33 11:2 11:22 13:4-5 19:1 21:9 22:8 24:21 34:4 37:14-20 37:16 37:19 40:1-8 40:12 40:18 40:18-19 40:19-20 40:22 40:25 40:26 41:6-7 41:7 42:5 42:8 42:8-9 42:17-20 43:10-13

THE LORD GOD OF GODS 145 61 113 142 n. 31, 279 81 n. 6 80 n. 5 79 n. 5, 80 n. 5 32 n. 10 62 63, 146 162 63, 146 230 148 85 101 97 148 145 n. 37 79 n. 5 36, 112, 114 n. 16 64, 101, 162 63 146 31, 64, 108 85 54 n. 44 145 n. 37 108 148 117 54 n. 44 145 n. 37 83 85 80 n. 5 116-117

44:6-8 44:8 44:9-20 44:12-17 44:13 44:24 45:5-6 45:12 45:14 45:15 45:18 45:21 46:5 46:5-6 46:6 46:9 48:11 49:26 51:13 57:5 60:16 63:1-3 63:18 64:4 66:1

Jeremiah 1:16 2:11 2:20 2:26-27 3:16-17 5:19 7:9 8:2 10:1-9

117 64, 69 n. 36 54 n. 44 117 93 145 n. 37 64 145 n. 37 64 6 64 64 108 85 54 n. 44 64 83 30 n. 3 145 n. 37 163 30 n. 3 33 n. 11 145 n. 37 7 n. 6 36 n. 23, 55, 178

33 n. 15, 33 n. 16 64, 83 163 85 85 268 n. 7 33 n. 15 147 n. 49, 148 54 n. 44

INDICES 10:6-7 10:9 10:10-16 10:11-16 10:12 10:14-16 11:10 11:13 11:17 13:10 16:13 16:20 17:12 19:4 20:9 23:18 23:22 23:24 25:6 25:11 32:17 32:17-23 32:29 35:15 39:10 44:3 44:5 44:8 44:15 44:17 49:19 50:4 52:15-16 52:17-23

64 40 114 n. 16 80 n. 5 145 n. 37 85 268 n. 7 33 n. 15 33 n. 15 268 n. 7 268 n. 7 64 83 33 n. 15 240 63 63 85, 146 268 n. 7 11 n. 15 80 n. 5 114 n. 16 33 n. 15 268 n. 7 78 n. 2 33 n. 15, 268 n. 7 33 n. 15 33 n. 15, 33 n. 16 33 n. 15 33 n. 15 64 64 78 n. 2 77, 85

329 Lamentations 2:1 2:15 Ezekiel 1

1:1-3:15 1:4 1:13 1:16 1:22 1:26

1:27-28 1:27 1:28 3:12 6:3-6 6:13 7:20 8:1-11:25 8:2 8:3 8:10 8:16 9:2 9:3 10 10:1 10:2 10:4

36 n. 23 95

6-7, 37 n. 26, 83, 136, 138 n. 25, 140141, 141-142 n. 31, 149, 163, 186-187 83 83 99 31 33 n. 12 33 n. 12, 55, 89, 141 n. 31, 240 83 241 223, 240-241 142 n. 31 102, 108 163 88 n. 5 83 240 93, 241 93 50 93 n. 15 93 n. 15, 99 83, 163 33 n. 12, 141 n. 31 99 38 n. 28, 84,

330

10:6-7 10:8 10:20 16:8 16:14 16:17 16:18 20:32 20:41 23:24 28

28:2 28:3 28:6 28:7 28:8 28:9 28:11-19 28:11-15 28:12 28:12-14 28:13 28:14 28:16 28:17-20 28:17 31

31:2 31:3 31:8

THE LORD GOD OF GODS 99 99 93 112 33 n. 11 95 88 n. 5 40 268 33 n. 14 88 n. 5 90-102, 146, 154, 163, 170171, 186, 206, 232 62 n. 15, 91, 107 107 107 96, 107 107 62 n. 15, 91, 107 93 n. 16, n. 18 259 n. 1 107, 167 91-100 240 112 99, 112 240-241 96 102-108, 154, 159, 162-163, 171, 206 108 107 107, 162

31:8-9 31:8-10 31:10 31:12 31:14 31:18 40:19 40:23 40:27 40:47 41:13-15 41:18-25 42:2-8 43:2 43:2-6 43:5 44:4 44:7 Daniel 2-6 2-5 2-4

2 2:1 2:2 2:10-11 2:16 2:20-23 2:24 2:31 2:38 2:44 2:44-45

107 107 107 107 107 107-108 246 246 246 246 246 112 246 142 n. 31, 149 84-85 38 n. 28 38 n. 28 33 n. 13

157-158 158 2-3, 125, 157159, 169, 171, 180-181, 187188, 193, 206 158, 168, 170, 247, 267, 269 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 171 159 n. 9 159 n. 9, 168 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 159 n. 9

INDICES 2:46-47 2:46 2:47 3 3:1 3:12 3:14 3:17-18 3:18 3:28 4

4:1 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:10 4:13 4:17 4:19 4:22 4:23 4:34 4:34-35 4:35-36 4:35 4:36 5 5:1-4 5:4 6:1 6:28 7 7:9

171 169-170, 267 2 n. 1, 61, 159 n. 9, 170-171 168, 243, 269 168 168 168 170 168 168, 170-171 103, 136, 140, 159-168, 243, 269 163 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 171 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 163 171 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 159 n. 9 171 159 n. 9 171 159 n. 9, 171 171 169 n. 41 169 n. 41 169 n. 41 158 158 7, 136 55

331 8:10 8:11 9:1 9:3 10:2-3 10:5-6 10:9

148 148 11 n. 15 12 n. 18 12 n. 18 186 12 n. 19

Hosea 2:9-10 2:10 11:2 13:2 14:9

40 54 n. 44 33 n. 16 93 163

Joel 2:27 4:11

64 148

Amos 4:13 5:26

41 88 n. 5

Micah 1:7

101, 162

Habakkuk 2:18-19 3:4 3:8

54 n. 44, 79 n. 5 30 n. 3 85, 148

Zechariah 1 4:10 12:1 12:8 14:9

63 146 145 n. 37 62 n. 15 69 n. 36

332

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Wisdom of Solomon 2:21-22 7 n. 6 5:5 142 n. 32 11:20 146 18:15-16 179 n. 21 Wisdom of Ben Sirach 17 260 17:7 260 Bel 7

2 n. 1, 61, 65

2 Maccabees in toto

128

3 Maccabees 3:10

6

The New Testament Matthew 11:27 22:20-21 28:19

15 277 n. 28 23

Mark 12:16-17

277 n. 28

Luke 10:22 20:24-25

15 277 n. 28

John in toto 1:1-18 1:16

15, 20-23 154 n. 67 15

3:13 3:35 5:18 5:19-44 5:26 6:46 10:33 10:34-36 10:37-38 12:48-50 14:6-9 14:8

188 n. 32 21 20 21 21 15 20 21-23 n. 48 21 21 15 15

Acts 2:3-4 7:55-56

142 n. 31 138 n. 24

1 Corinthians 1:23

18

2 Corinthians 3:18 4:4 5:1-10 13:5

138 n. 24 15 142 n. 32 17

Ephesians 2:14 2:15 3:5 3:14-19 3:16 4:10-13 4:13 4:14 4:22

24 252 n. 20 252 n. 20 261-263 252 n. 20 250-252, 260-263 252 n. 20, 252 n. 22 252 n. 20 252 n. 20

INDICES 4:24 5:22-33 6:7

138 n. 24, 252 n. 20 252 n. 20 252 n. 20

Colossians 1:15 1:27 3:10

15 16-17 138 n. 24

Hebrews 1-2 12:2

188 n. 32 24

Revelation 1:17

12 n. 19

Septuagint

Peshitta

Targums

Vulgate Symmachus

2, 6, 32 n. 10, 36-37, 60-62, 65, 89, 90 n. 10, 92-98, 100, 101 n. 45, 113, 131, 142 n. 32, 148-149, 153, 154 n. 67, 223, 240, 251 93-94, 97 n. 30, 98, 100, 101 n. 45 93, 98, 101 n. 45, 141 n. 31, 166-167, 168 n. 40, 227 93, 97 n. 32, 98-99 98

333 Texts from the Judean Desert 1QH 25:34-27:3 1QHa V 19-24 1QHa IX 21-23 1QHa XX 12-13 1QpHab VII 4-8 1QM I 8-12 4Q37 4Q44 4Q242 1 4Q374 2.II, 6-7, 9 4Q377 4Q381 1,10-11 4Q400 2 2 4Q405 20 ii-22 13 4Q405 23 II 9-10 4Q427 7 I 4Q431 1 4Q413 2 4Q471b 4Q491c 4Q504 8 4Q511 35 2-4

183 6 7 n. 6 7 n. 6 7 n. 6 142 n. 32 113 113 164-167 151 n. 58 239-240 268 149 149 186 181-188 183 183 183 181-188 187, 219-220, 260 142 n. 32

Philo De Abrahamo 115

118

De aeternitate mundi 46 118 112 118 De confusione linguarum 146 236

334 De decalogo 41 64-65

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

119 66 n. 24, 117118, 120, 149

Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 160-162 119 n. 30, 154 n. 67 162 119 De gigantibus 8

118

Legatio ad Gaium 114-118 21, 119 Legum allegoriae 1.49 1.169 1.171 3.1 3.8 3.169-178

21 238 238 7 n. 6 7 n. 6 238-239

De migratione Abrahami 68-69 66 n. 24 De opificio mundi 27 69 73 84 136-139 140 143-144 148 171

118 248-249 118 118 255 n. 29 255 n. 29 118 255 n. 29 66 n. 24

De posteritate Caini 28 119 De praemiis et poenis 162 66 n. 24 Quod omnis probus liber sit 43 119 De providential 2.50

118

Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 2.2 66 n. 24 2.29 119-120 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.32 249, 260, 264 2.42 118 4.100 120 4.157 118 4.188 118 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 169 66 n. 24 De somniis 1.25 1.75 1.105-111 1.111 1.112-114 2.44 2.228

178 119 n. 30, 236-237, 259 237 237-238 237-238, 259 178 119

De specialibus legibus 1.19 118

INDICES 1.20 1.307

119 119

De virtutibus 79 214 218

119 66 n. 24 119

De vita Mosis 1.2 1.155 1.155-159 2.288

177 119 144 119

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 2.313 179 n. 21 11.297-347 133 13.275-276 133

Pseudepigraphic Literature 1 Enoch 1:4 14 14-36 14:13-14 14:20 14:21-22 14:21-25 18:14 37-71 39:7 50:1

148 153 140 12 n. 19 55 81 n. 6 12 n. 19 148 136 142 n. 32 142 n. 32

335 53:3 56:1 66:1 71:10-11 71:11 81:1 103:2 104:2 104:2-4 104:4 104:6 106:19 108:11-13

179 n. 21 179 n. 21 179 n. 21 143 n. 32 12 n. 19 13 n. 23 13 n. 23 148 142 n. 32 148 148 7 n. 6, 13 n. 23 142 n. 32

2 Enoch 2:2 20:1 22:6 24-36 30:8 30:10 30:13-14 33:4 33:10 39 39:8 44:1-2 72:5

255 67 n. 28 12 n. 19 148 n. 53 136 255 n. 29 255 n. 29 255-256 67 n. 28 148 n. 53 151 81 n. 6 277 n. 28 148 n. 53

3 Enoch 1:6-7 4:6 15 16:5 18:19-22 19:1

12 n. 19 271 n. 15 142 n. 32 179 n. 21 179 n. 21 179 n. 21

4 Ezra 6:38

11 n. 15

336

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

7:97 9:23-24 12:11, 14 14:3-6 14:38-39

142 n. 32 12 n. 18 11 n. 15 13 n. 23 12 n. 18

2 Baruch 9:2 12:5 21:2 47:2 51:1-10 54:21

12 n. 18 12 n. 18 12 n. 18 12 n. 18 142 n. 32 142 n. 32

3 Baruch 4:13 11:4 11:6-8 13:3

233 148 n. 53 148 n. 53 148 n. 53

Apocalypse of Abraham in toto 248 9:7 12 n. 18 10:2 12 n. 19 10:9 179 n. 21 17:1-3 12 n. 19 18:8-10 179 n. 21 23:4-6 248 Apocalypse of Adam 7:52-54 142 n. 32 Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:4 148 n. 53 4:24 148 n. 53 Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-2 270 n. 11

Apocalypse of Zephaniah 8:3 142 n. 32 8:4 143 n. 32 Ascension of Isaiah 2:11 12 n. 18 9:27-29 143 n. 32 Ascension of Moses 1:1-2 13 n. 23 10:11 13 n. 23 11:1 13 n. 23 Ezekiel the Tragedian Exagoge in toto 129, 170, 174, 178, 206, 225, 239, 261-263, 267 68-89 133-152 77-78 262 87-89 262 100-105 152-155 159 179 n. 21 187 179 n. 21 Joseph and Aseneth 14:8 148 n. 53 18:9 138 n. 24 Jubilees prol. 1:1-5

13 n. 23

Ladder of Jacob 1

138 n. 24

INDICES Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (pseudo-Philo) 12.1 151 n. 58 19:10 13 n. 23 Life of Adam and Eve in toto 232, 272 n. 16 1 232-233 12-14 269-272, 279 21:3 233 57 257 Odes of Solomon 13 138 n. 24 36:3-5 143 n. 32 Pseudo-Orpheus in toto 26-43 Sibylline Oracles in toto 3:24-26 8:442-445

173-180, 206 175-180

253 253-254, 256-257 272 n. 16

Testament of Abraham in toto 220-222 1:4 148 n. 53 2:1-10 148 n. 53 7:4 235 7:10-12 235 11 222-223 11:4 233-235 11:8 233 11:8-9 234 11:9 265 12:9 235

337 13:1 13:10 14:8 16:6 16:10

235 235 235 235 235

Testament of Isaac 14:7 148 n. 53 Testament of Job 47:11 143 n. 32 Testament of Judah 18:1 11 n. 15 Testament of Levi 2:10 7 n. 6 8 136 14:1 11 n. 15 Testament of Moses 11:8 252 n. 22, 254 n. 28 Testament of Naphtali 4:1 11 n. 15

New Testament Apocrypha Gospel of Bartholomew 4:52-56 269 n. 11 21-23 248 Hymn of the Pearl in toto 138 n. 24

338

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Rabbinic Literature m. Hagigah 2:1

6-7, 202-203, 206, 217, 228, 262-263

b. Bava Batra 14b 58a 75b

245 n. 4 231-232, 272 279

b. Bava Metzi’a 86b

179 n. 21

b. Berakhot 5b, 10b, 17b, 19b, 25a, 27a, 29a 244 n. 3 b. Eruvin 18b b. Hagigah 2 11b 12a 13a 14a

14b-15b 15a

b. Hullin 27b

226 n. 5

263 262-265 243-244, 264-265 229 n. 16 200-201, 210212, 216 n. 50, 217, 229 226 n. 5 197-199, 207, 210-213, 217, 226 n. 5, 228

214 n. 44

b. Megillah 31a 84a 87a b. Sanhedrin 14a 23b 38b

b. Tamid 32a b. Yoma 35b

142 n. 31 231 n. 19 233

229 n. 17 243 214-215, 243, 265 n. 13, 271 n. 15

262 n. 9

203-205, 210, 218, 277-278

y. Berakhot 12d 12d-13a

213-217 214 n. 45

y. Hagigah 77b

226 n. 5

y. Sanhedrin 19b

214 n. 44

t. Hagigah 2:3-4

226 n. 5

Genesis Rabbah 1:6 1:10 3:2 3:4 3:6

230 262 n. 9 230 228, 230-231 230

INDICES 4 8:1 8:4-6 8:8 8:9

8:10 20:12 21:3 22:2 24:2 40:5 42:3 42:5 43:5 44:1 50:2 61:3 68:12 76:1 78:1 96:5 94:9

Exodus Rabbah 3:17 15:17 29:1 30:16

257 n. 35 244-245, 253, 257, 265 n. 13 271 n. 15 273-276 213 n. 42, 214 n. 43, 216 n. 49 207-209, 272, 278-279 226-228, 230-231 244, 253, 257, 265 n. 13 216 n. 50 244, 253, 257, 265 n. 13 232 229-231, 244 n. 3, 272 229 n. 17 229 n. 17 205, 212 179 n. 21 226 n. 5 138 n. 24 229 n. 17 229 n. 17 169-170 227 n. 5

339 35:1 38:8 50:1 60:5

Leviticus Rabbah 4:6 214 n. 44 6:5 229 n. 17 11:7 230 n. 18, 244 n. 3 13:5 229 n. 17 14:1 229 n. 17, 245, 253, 257, 265 18:2 245, 253, 257, 265 n. 13 20:2 233 20:4 95 n. 24 31:7 228 n. 14 34:3 275-278 Numbers Rabbah 4:13 7:10 9:7 9:24 9:48 10:10 13:5 19:8

214 n. 44 274-275 214 n. 44 276 n. 28

229 n. 17, 230 n. 18, 244 n. 3 97 n. 29 228 n. 14 277 n. 28

95 n. 24 229 n. 17 229 n. 17 244 n. 3 214 n. 44 229 n. 17 230 n. 18, 244 n. 3 214 n. 44

Deuteronomy Rabbah in toto 207 2:13 213 n. 42, 214 n. 43, 216 n. 49

340 2:31 7:2

THE LORD GOD OF GODS 244 n. 3 229 n. 17

3 11

Lamentations Rabbah 2 179 n. 21 2:9 229 n. 17 3:15 229 n. 17

12

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:12 244 n. 3 6:9 208 n. 29, 279 n. 30 7:16 214 n. 44, 226 n. 5 8:2 94 n. 18

The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan A 271 n. 15 B 30 276 n. 27

Esther Rabbah prologue 11

230 n. 18, 244 n. 3

Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva 59 247 Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael Bahodesh 8 276 n. 28 Pesiqta de Rav Kahana in toto 226 n. 5, 245246 1 246 4 214 n. 44 Pesiqta Rabbati 3:6 14

205-206 214 n. 44

Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer in toto 246

228 n. 14 208 n. 29, 246-247, 272 257 n. 35

Tanhuma Huqat 26 214 n. 44

Ancient Christian Literature AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO De civitate Dei 22:15 252 n. 22 BASIL OF CAESAREA Letter 2 Letter 189 Letter 210 Letter 226 Letter 263

17 n. 36 201 n. 15 201 n. 15 201 n. 15 201 n. 15

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA Pedagogue 3.1 17 n. 36 Stromata in toto 1.23.155

173 131 n. 2

Protrepticus in toto

173

INDICES Clementine Homilies 3.17.2 277 n. 28 13.16 138 n. 24 16.19 93 n. 18 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA Preparatio evangelica in toto 174 9.28.1 131 n. 1 9.28.7-8 153 n. 63 9.28.29 131 9.28.56 133 n. 12 GREGORY OF NYSSA Concerning those who have died in toto 17 n. 36

341 68.1

19

NOVATIAN On the Trinity VIII

142 n. 31

ORIGEN Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.2 6 On First Principles 1.54-5 270 n. 11 1.8.1 179 n. 21 PROCOPIUS On Buildings

209

GREGORY OF NAZIANZ Oration 38.11 155 n. 68

TERTULLIAN On Patience 5

270 n. 11

IRENAEUS Against Heresies I.30.6

248

THEODORET OF CYRRHUS Graecarum Affectionum Curatio in toto 174

JEROME On Ezekiel 13

142 n. 31

TÜBINGEN THEOSOPHY in toto 174

JUSTIN MARTYR Dialogue with Trypho in toto 18-21 32.1 19 36.1 19 38.1 18-19 39.7 19 46.1 19 48.3 19 49.1 19 63.1 19

Nag Hammadi Codices Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth 59.27-61.1 138 n. 24 Eugnostos 76.14-24

235 n. 34

Gospel of Philip 61.20-35

138 n. 24

342

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

Gospel of Thomas 84 138 n. 24 On the Origin of the World 103.19-22 235 n. 34 108.2-9, 20-24 235 n. 34

Ancient Near Eastern Literature Ugaritic KTU 1.1 iii-iv KTU 1.1 iii:23 KTU 1.1 iv:24-25 KTU 1.2 i KTU 1.2 i:27 KTU 1.2 i:36-38 KTU 1.2 iii KTU 1.2 iii:4 KTU 1.2 iii:5 KTU 1.2 iii:18 KTU 1.2 iv:7 KTU 1.2 iv:12 KTU 1.2 iv:10 KTU 1.2 iv:32 KTU 1.2 v:8 KTU 1.3 ii:40 KTU 1.3 iv:2-3 KTU 1.3 v:2 KTU 1.3 v:4 KTU 1.3 v:5-19 KTU 1.3 v:6 KTU 1.3 v:30 KTU 1.3 v:32 KTU 1.3 v:32-34 KTU 1.3 vi:15 KTU 1.4 i:5

47 47 49 47 41 47 47 47 n. 6 47 53 53, 85 n. 20 53 49 49 47 85 n. 20 49, 53 47 47 47 47 n. 6 47 49 49 53 47

KTU 1.4 iii:11 85 n. 20 KTU 1.4 iii:14-22 54 n. 41 KTU 1.4 iv:20-22 47 n. 6 KTU 1.4 iv:24 47 KTU 1.4 iv:25-v:8 47 KTU 1.4 iv:38 47 KTU 1.4 iv:41 47 KTU 1.4 iv:43-44 49 KTU 1.4 iv:43-46 49 KTU 1.4 iv:48 47 KTU 1.4 v:3-4 47 KTU 1.4 v:14 53 KTU 1.4 v:19 80 n. 6 KTU 1.4 v:34-35 80 n. 6 KTU 1.4 v:52 53 KTU 1.4 v:57 53 KTU 1.4 vi:56-57 50 KTU 1.4 vii:44 49 KTU 1.4 vii:49-50 49 KTU 1.4 viii:12 53 KTU 1.5 iii:10 53 KTU 1.5 v:2-4 53 KTU 1.6 i:36 47 KTU 1.6 i:43-55 47 KTU 1.6 i:56-65 50 KTU 1.6 v:5-6 49 KTU 1.6 v:6 53 KTU 1.6 v:34 53 KTU 1.6 vi:29 53 KTU 1.6 vi:34-35 49 KTU 1.7 v:47-48 47 n. 6 KTU 1.10 i:7 85 n. 20 KTU 1.10 iii:13-14 49 KTU 1.14 iii:7-8 47 KTU 1.15 ii:12-28 47 n. 10 KTU 1.17 i:16-26 47 n. 10 KTU 1.17 i:33-43 47 n. 10 KTU 1.17 vi:49 47

INDICES KTU 1.18 i KTU 1.19 i:43 KTU 1.23:8 KTU 1.41:20-21 KTU 1.101 KTU 1.114:2 KTU 1.117:2-3

47 85 n. 20 53 54 n. 43 49-50 53 47

Babylonian Enuma Elish I:67-68 I:81-82 I:87-104 I:95, 98-100 IV:1-30 IV:58

96 n. 26 51 51 145-146 51 96 n. 26

343 Greek Literature AESCHYLUS Persians 749

154 n. 66

ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR Concerning the Jews in toto 131-132 CORPUS HERMETICUM 13 138 n. 24 DIODORUS OF SICILY History 1.46-49, 2.9 243 n. 1

Nabonidus Chronicle in toto 164

EURIPIDES Phoenician Women 84 145 n. 37

Verse Account of Nabonidus in toto 164

Helen 44, 605

145 n. 37

Mesopotamian Great Hymn to Shamash in toto 50

Orestes 1631, 1636

145 n. 37

Poem of Erra in toto I 125-128 I 127-128 I 140-153 I 148-153

104 104-105 96 n. 26 105 107

Assyrian Rassam Cylinder v.119-120 101 n. 47 vi.62-64 101 n. 47

HERODOTUS Histories 1.183, 2.210, 143, 153, 172, 175 243 n. 1 HOMER Iliad 22.9

154 n. 66

PLATO Cratylus 398d

154 n. 66

344 Symposium 202e

THE LORD GOD OF GODS

154 n. 66

ZOSIMUS OF PENTAPOLIS On the Letter Omega 9 235 n. 35, 257 10, 11, 15 235 n. 35

Other Sources Death of Moses in toto

179 n. 21

Memar Marqah 2:9

179 n. 21

I NDEX OF SUBJECTS Aaron, 18, 143 Abraham, 17, 24, 137, 153, 222223, 234-235 Adam, 88-89, 94, 96-100, 150, 155, 187, 207-210, 214-228, 231-236, 240-241, 243-248, 250, 252-255, 257, 259-260, 264-265, 268-274, 277-279, 283 Anachronisms, 6-14, 281 angels, 109-121 aniconism, 31-33, 38-39, 42 n. 42 anthropomorphism, see “divine corporeality” apocalypse, 6-7, 18, 139-140 ark of the covenant, 36 n. 23, 4244 n. 42, 99 asceticism, 12, 16, 120, 141, 171, 188, 202-206, 212, 215-217, 230-231 Augustine of Hippo, 18, 25 n. 53, 252 n. 22, 285

chariot, see merkabah charioteer, divine 85, 178, 180, 278-279 Christology, 14-25, 250-252, 260-261 confusion between God and gods, 3, 118, 189, 193, 197, 206, 218, 283 deification, 2-3, 19-21, 57-71, 115-121, 141-155, 168-171, 180-181, 187-189, 204-219, 272-279, 281-285 divine corporeality, 29-34 enormity, 37-38, 41-44, 49-51, 55-56, 106-107, 145-146, 162, 168, 178, 187, 243-257, 260 enthronement, 36-37, 42, 4756, 83-85, 141-146, 178180, 204, 211-212, 219-223

INDICES features of divinity, 29-56; see also “luminosity,” “enthronement,” “enormity” fluid divinity, see “YHWH-only fluid divinity” “gods” statements, 57-64 iconism, 32-34, 38-40, 79 n. 5, 85-90 kabod, 3, 9 n. 9, 43 n. 42, 8285, 89, 94-95, 102, 108, 141 n. 31, 163, 186-187, 203205, 218-220, 222-223, 240-241, 251, 277-278, 283-285 luminosity, 40, 50-51, 55-56, 225-241, 265 Maimonides, 66 n. 25, 210 maaseh merkabah, see “merkabah mysticism” merkabah, 9 n. 9, 37 n. 26, 83, 142 n. 31 merkabah mysticism, 4-14, 84 monotheism, 14-26, 64-70, 78, 109-110, 279-282 Moses, 2-3, 13 n. 23, 16-18, 24, 129, 133-155, 170, 177178, 180, 188, 225, 239240, 262-263, 283 mouth-opening ritual, 79 n. 5, 116 mouth-washing ritual, 79 n. 5, 116

345 mysticism, 4-14, 138-143, 151152, 202-204, 281-285 polytheism, 33, 57-58, 66-70, 118-120 propositional theology, 4-5, 18, 25, 120, 194-195 n. 1; see also “recognition theology” rabbinic modalism, 206-218 rabbinic theological orthodoxy, 199-201, 206, 211-213, 217-218 recognition theology, 25 n. 53, 56, 121, 194-195, 281-282; see also “propositional theology” self-deification, 20-21, 119 statue of YHWH, 32-33, 38-42, 54, 77-78, 81, 85-86 symbolic language, 8, 25-26, 112, 121, 194-195, 212, 218, 281 theomorphism, 2-3, 87-108, 154-155, 167-168, 170, 173, 188, 193, 206, 210, 267, 282-283 theomorphic anthropology, see “theomorphism” throne, see “enthronement” transformational mysticism, 34, 142, 202, 204, 283-285 “YHWH-only” statements, 64-65 YHWH-only fluid divinity, 6569, 115, 121, 171, 282-285