JUDAISM HAS A LONG TRADITION HISTORY of the antediluvian patriarch Enoch, which begins with an enigmatic passage in the Hebrew Bible, and leads via the First and Second Books of Enoch and the rabbinic exegesis of Genesis 5:21–24 ultimately to the Third Book of Enoch, where Enoch is transformed into the highest angel Metatron. Here is a summary of the main stages.1
Enoch’s sole appearance in the Hebrew Bible is limited to the two genealogies of the patriarchs in Genesis 4 and 5. In the second (priestly) genealogy in Genesis 5, Enoch is the sixth patriarch after Adam, of whom it is said:
(5:21) When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah.
(22) After the birth of Methuselah Enoch walked with God / took his path with God (wa-yithalekh Hanokh et ha-’Elohim) another three hundred years, and had (other) sons and daughters.
(23) Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years.
(24) Enoch walked with God / took his path with God (wa-yithalekh Hanokh et ha-’Elohim); then he was no more (we-’einennu), because God took him (ki-laqah oto Elohim).
This short passage provoked an avalanche of interpretations. Two questions arise immediately: What is the meaning of the odd phrasing that Enoch walked with God or took his path with God? And what is the meaning of the enigmatic sentence “he was no more because God took him”? The first question is relatively easy to answer. Enoch’s walk with God is to be understood not literally but rather metaphorically. Enoch did not take a stroll with God but instead obeyed God’s commandments and was thus a righteous one, in contrast to the directly following generation of the flood. Hence the translation “he took his path with God” is appropriate. There is clear evidence for this interpretation in Genesis 6:9, where it is said of Noah, the ninth patriarch, “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God / took his path with God.” Here, Noah’s “walking with God” is obviously the conclusion drawn from the fact that he was righteous and blameless.
The answer to the second question follows from the context. Whereas regarding all other antediluvian patriarchs, after mention of the absolute length of their lifetime, it is said “and he died,” this unequivocal statement is missing with respect to Enoch, replaced by the phrase “and he was no more, because God took him.” We can conclude from this that Enoch, at the age of 365, did not die but instead was taken by God to a different place (presumably heaven). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, interprets Genesis 5:24 precisely in this way:
And Enoch was well-pleasing to God (kai euērestēsen Enoch tō theō), and he was not found (kai ouch ēhyrisketo), because God transferred/translated him (hoti metethēken auton ho theos) (to another place).
This approach is taken further in the noncanonical Books of Enoch. The so-called Book of the Watchers of the First (Ethiopic) Book of Enoch—one of the oldest parts, which was written in the late third or early second century BCE—depicts Enoch’s rapture to heaven, and his role as mediator between God and the fallen angels of Genesis 6:2 God sends him to the fallen angels on earth to announce to them that they will never return to heaven. This fills the gap between the list of the antediluvian patriarchs (Genesis 5) and the narrative directly following about the fall of the angels (Genesis 6’s “sons of God,” who had relations with the daughters of humans, thereby provoking the flood). Some scholars even believe that material that was originally biblical, but was dropped from the Book of Genesis, survived in the apocryphal Book of the Watchers of the Ethiopic Enoch.3 The righteous Enoch, who was taken into heaven, intervenes in the fate of the corrupted angels who had fallen to earth and been condemned forever. Noah, the only other patriarch who is expressly identified as righteous, will save the no less corrupted humankind from the flood, which will destroy everything.
The Similitudes of the First Book of Enoch, written around the turn of the eras, which were discussed above, go a significant step further. Whereas the much earlier Book of the Watchers of 1 Enoch says nothing about either the condition and status of Enoch or his later fate after being “taken”—he obviously remains the human elevated to heaven, who, however, intervenes in earthly matters—Enoch in the Similitudes is explicitly transformed into an angel and learns that he is the Son of Man of Daniel 7, Israel’s redeemer, who will lead his people into a time of eternal peace. In order to carry out his mission, he cannot remain a human being but must instead become an angel—without doubt a particularly high one, close to God. The Second (Slavonic) Book of Enoch, which might have been written in the first century CE, offers no significant new perspectives on this. There as well the report culminates in the physical transformation of Enoch into an angel.4
The climax of this development is reached in the so-called Third Book of Enoch, which has nothing in common in terms of time or location with the first two Enoch books, except for the shared interest in the patriarch Enoch. The Third Book of Enoch is likely the most recent of the writings referred to as Hekhalot literature. Its final redaction is believed by most scholars today to have taken place between 600 and 900 CE, probably in Babylonia. Supporting this view is the close relationship between the Metatron traditions in 3 Enoch (as with Hekhalot literature in general) and the Babylonian Talmud,5 which I discuss later in greater detail. The crucial point now is that the Third Book of Enoch—in contrast to the two earlier Enoch books—takes the decisive step from Enoch’s angelification to his deification, and it does so with unmatched clarity.
In order to gain a sharper picture of the distinctiveness and boldness of the Enoch-Metatron tradition in 3 Enoch, it is essential to examine the Enoch tradition of classical rabbinic Judaism at the time of nascent Christianity. Proponents of “Enochic Judaism” propagate a direct thematic link between the three books of Enoch, and either forget or ignore the large time gap between the first two books and the third book, thereby also neglecting the fact that in between comes rabbinic Judaism, with its totally different ideas and preferences. Enoch is a perfect illustration of this difference, as the rabbis assess him very differently than their predecessors in the canonical and noncanonical Jewish tradition as well as their adversaries in the “mystical” Hekhalot literature.
The only classical rabbinic text that deals expressly with Enoch’s status is in the midrash Genesis Rabbah, dated to the late third or early fourth century. There one can read in an exegesis of Genesis 5:24:6
And Enoch walked with God, etc. [and he was no more, for God took him] (Gen. 5:24).
(a) Rabbi Hama ben Rabbi Hoshaya said: “[‘and he was no more’ means] that he was not inscribed in the roll (tomos) of the righteous but in the roll of the wicked.”
Rabbi Aibu said: “Enoch was a hypocrite, acting sometimes as a righteous, sometimes as a wicked man. (Therefore) the Holy One, blessed be he, said: While he is righteous I will take him away.” …
(b) The heretics (minim) asked Rabbi Abbahu and said to him: “We do not find death stated of Enoch!” “How so?” inquired he. “It is said here (with regard to Enoch) that he was ‘taken,’ and it is said in connection with Elijah that he was ‘taken,’” said they. “If you are seeking (instances of) ‘taking,’” he answered, “then it is said here (with regard to Enoch) that he was ‘taken,’ and it is said with reference to Ezekiel, ‘Behold, I take away (loqeah) from you the desire (of your eyes through a sudden death)’” (Ezek. 24:16). …
(c) A matron asked Rabbi Yose: “We do not find death stated of Enoch!” Said he to her: “If (Scripture) said, ‘And Enoch walked with God’ (Gen. 5:24) and was silent (afterwards), I would agree with you. Since, however, it says, ‘And he was no more, for (God) took him’ etc. (ibid.), (it means that) he was no more in the world, ‘for God took him’ (ibid.).”
The situation here is completely unambiguous. First Rabbi Hama ben Rabbi Hoshaya boldly proclaims that Enoch is wicked, and Rabbi Aibu declares him a hypocrite, who sometimes acts righteously and sometimes wickedly. This is followed by a discussion of the heretics and a Roman matron with the rabbis. The heretics and the matron cannot find any biblical proof that Enoch really died, thus (correctly) concluding that he ascended to heaven. The heretics skillfully refer to the parallel case of the prophet Elijah, whose ascent to heaven is undisputed. Since the same verb is used to describe his being taken and that of Enoch (laqah), a consistent conclusion would be that Enoch’s being taken also means that he ascended to heaven. The rabbi’s response to the heretics makes it clear, however, that this verb can also be used for an earthly death—namely, as used to refer to the death of the wife of the prophet Ezekiel. The response to the matron, in contrast, is an argument using the larger biblical context taken literally. In the Bible it does not just say, “And Enoch walked with God” (which can indeed be understood, as the matron did, to mean that he was with God), but this is followed directly by “and he was no more.” If this is emphasized, then it can only mean that he is dead, since it cannot be said of someone who no longer exists that he is physically with God. The conclusion of this midrash is that according to the rabbis, Enoch was anything but righteous, and he was not elevated to heaven but instead died an ordinary death.
With this harsh outcome, the rabbis questioned the entire earlier Jewish exegetic tradition. Why? Who are the heretics and who is the matron, who insist on Enoch’s ascent into heaven, thus claiming only the canonical and noncanonical Jewish tradition for themselves? The designation as heretic and matron does not bring us further, since both are collective terms for all kinds of opponents to the rabbis, denoting circles of adversaries who deviate from the rabbinic norm, both within and outside rabbinic Judaism. Hence we are not yet necessarily dealing with groups whose separation from Judaism was a well-established fact. This applies in particular also to Christianity, which was becoming more firmly established at the time of this midrash (ca. 300 CE).
If we take a closer look at the extensive Christian Enoch tradition, it becomes immediately clear that as a rule, this follows the pre-Christian Jewish tradition, thus contradicting the rabbinic interpretation. The most important evidence, which is a common thread running through all Christian literature, can be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:5) in the New Testament:7
By faith Enoch was translated (metetethē) so that he did not experience death; and “he was not found, because God had translated (metethēken) him.” For before his translation (pro gar tēs metatheseōs) he received the testimony (memartyrētai) that “he had pleased God.”
The Epistle to the Hebrews follows the classic tradition of Enoch’s translation into heaven, referring verbatim to the Septuagint,8 but it places the ascent in a completely new context. Here, namely, Enoch appears as the second person after Abel, in a long line of Old Testament figures who distinguished themselves through their faith, and for that reason belonged to the people of God. Enoch was followed by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the people of Israel, and many other biblical heroes who stood out because of their faith. And yet this faith was insufficient, since “all these, though they were commended for their faith [by God], did not receive what was promised” (Heb. 11:39), because Jesus, the “pioneer and perfecter of our faith” (12:2), had to come first and seal the promise through his death. For Enoch this means that—very much in the sense of the pre-Christian Jewish tradition—he indeed did not die but rather was taken away to heaven. This ascent, though, was only provisional as it were and could not be completed until Jesus died at the cross. Enoch’s rapture in the Old Testament thereby gains a totally new dimension, and becomes dependent on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
This New Testament interpretation of the Jewish tradition of Enoch’s rapture was consistently developed further by the early Christian theologians and church fathers. I will refer only to the most significant Christian testimonies before the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE—that is, precisely the time of the cited midrash from Genesis Rabbah. An examination of the sources yields the overwhelming impression that the Christian authors follow the Septuagint and the New Testament: because Enoch was well pleasing to God, he was transferred to another place, which means that there can be no doubt that he did not die a natural death. Clement of Rome had already seen it that way in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (9:3) in the late first century CE:
Let us take for instance Enoch, who, being found righteous (dikaios) in obedience was translated (metetethē), and death was never known to happen to him (kai ouch heurethē autou thanatos).
Justin Martyr9 and Irenaeus argue in a similar manner in the second half of the second century, as, around 200 CE, did Clement of Alexandria, who cited Clement of Rome almost verbatim.10 Irenaeus is also familiar with the pseudepigraphic Enoch tradition.11 Tertullian is the first church father who gives his perception of the Jewish Enoch tradition around 200 CE a definitively Christian tone. According to him, Enoch was “translated from this world” (de hoc mundo transtulit) and “did not yet taste death” (necdum mortem gustavit), although he was uncircumcised and did not yet keep the Sabbath (circumcision and observance of the Sabbath were of course not introduced in Judaism until later). Thus Enoch became a model Christian because he showed that Christians too “may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God” (deo posse placere).12 Following the Epistle to the Hebrews, Tertullian then goes a step further and emphasizes that the fact that Enoch as well as Elijah did not suffer death is merely a preliminary stage. True immortality, according to Tertullian, is dependent on resurrection,13 and there can be resurrection only after Jesus’s resurrection. From this it follows for him that Enoch and Elijah must also die before they can be resurrected:14
Enoch no doubt was translated (translatus est), and so was Elijah; yet they did not experience death, that is, it [death] was postponed, most certainly (dilata scilicet): they are reserved for the suffering of death (morituri reservantur), that by their blood they may extinguish Antichrist.
Hence Enoch and Elijah are in a kind of intermediate stage in which they are still alive, but have not yet been resurrected. Consequently, they can intervene in the final battle against the Anti-christ. They will die in this battle, but this death will also destroy the Antichrist and bring about the final redemption of the people of God. As such, the rapture of Enoch and Elijah takes on a completely new meaning: their death is postponed so they can intervene as decisive agents in the Christian process of salvation. Almost all other Christian authors up to the Council of Nicaea accept this Christian interpretation of the tradition of Enoch’s (and Elijah’s) translation.
Against the background of this Christian interpretation of the Enoch myth, it can be presumed that the wrath of the rabbis of Genesis Rabbah toward Enoch is directed against Christian or, to put it more cautiously, Christianizing circles. The rabbis certainly were familiar with the unanimous Jewish tradition of Enoch’s rapture, but they could not accept that this (their very own) tradition was placed in the service of a message saying that immortality and eternal life (not only of the deceased, but also of those who were spared a natural death through God’s mercy) are dependent on the death and resurrection of Jesus. This message must have seemed so unbearable to them that they were even prepared to abandon their own Jewish tradition of the rapture of Enoch and degrade Enoch categorically to a mortal human. We do not know whether—and if so, to what extent—the rabbis knew the relevant Christian authors, but chronologically (prior to 325 CE), there is absolutely no reason why such an exchange could not have taken place. At least the church father Origen is known to have had contact with rabbis in Caesarea. Also, it can hardly be a coincidence that Rabbi Abbahu, one of the two rabbis mentioned in Genesis Rabbah, stands out as a participant in discussions with Christianized heretics.15 I deliberately say “with Christianized heretics” in order to make it clear that this process of separation was by no means taking place between two already firmly established religions (Judaism versus Christianity), yet was in the gray area of (still) Jewish circles that did not want to go so far as the church fathers but nevertheless were prepared to give Enoch a prominent position in their Judaism.
As advocates of the rabbinic form of Judaism, the authors of Genesis Rabbah were able to impose their views almost completely: Enoch largely disappeared from the rabbinic literature under their control.16 And yet this is not the end of the story. Enoch would return—if not to say, be resurrected—to Judaism with force, in the form of the highest angel Metatron. Thus we are once again at the culmination and preliminary end point of binitarian ideas in Judaism, the Third Book of Enoch.
The transformation of Enoch into the highest angel Metatron and hence his deification takes place in several stages in the Third Book of Enoch. It is first depicted as a direct revelation of Metatron to Rabbi Ishmael, who himself was elevated to heaven in order to view God on his throne-chariot, the Merkavah. Then it is the angel Anafiel, one of the highest angels, who takes Enoch away from the eyes of his fellow humans and causes him to be brought to heaven in a chariot of fire with horses of fire.17 The other angels can already smell from a great distance the odor of the “one born of a woman” and complain to God about his arrival, but God calms them and praises Enoch as the only human who has not worshipped idols, the “choicest of them all.”18 God chose him to serve before the throne of glory, filling him first of all with supernatural wisdom:19
Then the Holy One, blessed be he,
bestowed upon me wisdom heaped upon wisdom,
understanding upon understanding,
prudence upon prudence,
knowledge upon knowledge,
mercy upon mercy,
Torah upon Torah,
love upon love,
grace upon grace,
beauty upon beauty,
humility upon humility,
might upon might,
strength upon strength,
power upon power,
splendor upon splendor,
loveliness upon loveliness,
comeliness upon comeliness;
and I was honored and adorned
with all these excellent, praiseworthy qualities
more than all the denizens of the heights.a
Then God blesses Enoch with an immeasurable wealth of blessings, enlarges him to infinite dimensions,20 makes seventy-two wings and 365,000 eyes grow on him,21 and enthrones him on a throne that corresponds precisely to the divine throne of glory, and which stands at the door of the seventh and highest of the heavenly palaces.b22 Directly following this, he lets a herald go out in front of him to announce:23
I have appointed Metatron, my servant,
as a prince and ruler
over all the princes of my kingdom
and over all the denizens of the heights.
With that, Enoch-Metatron becomes God’s representative in heaven, his vice-regent, who acts on his behalf and whom all angels have to obey:24
Any angel and any prince
who has anything to say in my [God’s] presence
should go before him [Metatron] and speak to him.
Whatever he says to you in my name,
you must observe and do. …
Nothing remains hidden from Metatron. Like God he knows all secrets, not only those of the angels, but also the deepest secrets of humans:25
Before a man thinks in secret,
I see (his thought);
before he acts, I see (his act).
There is nothing in heaven above or deep within the earth
that is concealed from me.
Because God loves Metatron more than all humankind and all the angels in heaven, he clothes him in a majestic robe and crowns him with a kingly crown in which forty-nine refulgent stones26 are placed, each one shining like the sun, and its brilliance illuminating the four quarters of the world. And then, after he crowned him, God calls him “the Lesser/Younger YHWH” (YHWH ha-qatan), giving him his own name, the Tetragrammaton:27
He set it [the crown] upon my head
and he called me the “Lesser/Younger YWY”28
in the presence of his whole household in the height,
as it is written:
“My name is in him.”29 (Exod. 23:21)
Metatron is placed at almost an equal level with God; he is the second, “lesser” or “younger” God in heaven, beside the omnipotent creator God. The Bible verse quoted as proof that Metatron carries the same name as God refers to the mysterious angel of the Lord in Exodus 23:20ff.; already in the Bible it is uncertain whether this refers to an angel or in reality God himself. Yet this does not conclude the elevation of Metatron. With his finger, which he uses as a pen of flame, God writes on Metatron’s crown the letters with which heaven and earth were created. This plainly means that God has revealed all the secrets of creation to him, thus making him a coruler over heaven and earth.30
Out of the abundant love and great compassion
wherewith the Holy One, blessed be he,
loved and cherished me
more than all the denizens of the heights,
he wrote with his finger,
as with a pen of flame,
upon the crown which was on my head, (the) letters by
which heaven and earth were created; (the) letters by
which seas and rivers were created; (the) letters by
which mountains and hills were created; (the) letters by
which stars and constellations,
lightning, wind, and thunder,
thunderclaps, snow, and hail,
hurricane and tempest were created;
(the) letters by which all the necessities of the world
and all the orders of creation were created.
The other angels draw from this the desired conclusion and fall down before Metatron, in fear and trembling:31
They all fell (prostrate) when they saw me
and could not look at me
because of the majesty,
splendor,
beauty,
brightness,
brilliance,
and radiance
of the glorious crown which was on my head.
Only after this does Enoch-Metatron’s ultimate transformation take place:32
When the Holy One, blessed be he,
took me to serve the throne of glory,
the wheels of the chariot
and all the needs of the Shekhinah,
at once my flesh turned to flame,
my sinews to blazing fire,
my bones to juniper coals,
the light of my eyes to lightning flashes,
my eyeballs to fiery torches,
the hairs of my head to hot flames,
all my limbs to wings of burning fire,
and the substance of my body to blazing fire.
On my right—those who cleave flames of fire;
on my left—burning brands;
round about me swept wind, tempest, and storm;
and the roar of earthquake upon earthquake (was) before and behind me.
With this, Enoch’s human existence is finally and completely extinguished; he is transformed into the angel Metatron. His manifestation, however, goes far beyond what we normally associate with angels, resembling more of an apotheosis. His first task is to judge all angels in heaven and assign them their appropriate place in the hierarchy of angels.33
At first I sat upon a great throne
at the door of the seventh palace,
and I judged all the denizens of the heights
on the authority of the Holy One, blessed be he.
I assigned greatness,
royalty,
rank,
sovereignty,
glory,
praise,
diadem,
crown, and honor
to all the princes of kingdoms,c
when I sat in the heavenly court
and the princes of kingdoms stood beside me,
to my right and to my left,
by authority of the Holy One, blessed be he.
Without a doubt, this Enoch-Metatron of the Third Book of Enoch comes closer to a second divine figure next to God than any other figure in a Jewish text of antiquity or late antiquity. Only the designation as a “Lesser God” indicates a certain gradation, but if we translate the Hebrew YHWH ha-qatan as “Younger God,” it is not all that far from the association of a God-father and God-son as is familiar in full-blown form from Christianity.
This is indisputably the culmination of the transformation and apotheosis of Enoch-Metatron in 3 Enoch. Directly following this, in the same section of text and without any recognizable break, comes an episode that turns around everything that has been said previously—the antithesis as it were to the Metatron’s elevation.
But when Aher came
to behold the vision of the chariot
and set eyes upon me [Metatron],
he was afraid and trembled before me.
His soul was alarmed (to the point of) leaving him
because of his fear, dread, and terror of me,
when he saw me seated upon a throne like a king,
with ministering angels standing beside me as servants
and all the princes of kingdoms crowned with crowns surrounding me.
Then he [Aher] opened his mouth and said,
“There are indeed two powers (rashuyyot) in heaven!”
Immediately a heavenly voice came out
from the presence of the Shekhinah and said,
“Return, backsliding children (Jer. 3:22)—except for Aher!”
Then Anafiel, the Lord,
the honored, glorified, beloved, wonderful, terrible and dreadful Prince,
came at the command of the Holy One, blessed be he,
and struck me [Metatron] with sixty lashes of fire
and made me stand to my feet.34
The protagonists here are the enthroned Metatron sitting on his throne in the seventh heaven and the mortal human Aher, who sees Metatron when ascending to heaven. Aher’s true name is Elisha ben Avuyah, a respected rabbi, who would become the arch heretic of rabbinic Judaism. His nickname, Aher (literally, “an other”), perhaps alludes to the heresy depicted here. A lot of ink has been (and continues to be) used writing about this episode and its parallels in the Babylonian Talmud (see below).35 I will not go into all the details of the controversial discussion here but instead will highlight only the elements I consider significant.
It is obvious that, as worded, the episode was not composed within the framework of the Third Book of Enoch but rather that the redactor of 3 Enoch inserted it there as a preformulated literary unit in order to counter and qualify the grandiose exaltation of Metatron, as previously described. It appears in all significant manuscripts and thus cannot be dismissed as a later addition. The redactor felt compelled to dilute the description of Metatron’s radiant appearance down to the status of a common angel after just having steadily augmented it right up to its breathtaking climax.36 Aher sees Metatron enthroned in his full grandeur in the seventh heaven37 and cannot avoid concluding that there are “two powers” in heaven, God and Metatron. The Hebrew word rashut, which is traditionally translated as “power/powers,” signifies “rule, dominion, authority.”38 Aher believes he has identified two entities with divine authority in heaven, and not just the one and only God.
Aher’s heresy as related in this episode, which has been incorporated into the Third Book of Enoch, consists in taking Metatron precisely for whom he is according to the preceding description in 3 Enoch: a second God in addition to the creator God. Because this reading by Aher, which is branded “heresy,” is consistent with the general gist of 3 Enoch, we can only conclude that the factions speaking up here disagreed with this binitarian trend. We can further assume, also in light of the parallel in the Babylonian Talmud to be discussed shortly, that the factions representing the binitarian ideas were Jewish—that is, these ideas were not an import to Babylonian Judaism from the outside.39
It is no less a figure than God himself who—through a heavenly voice—contradicts Aher’s heresy and imposes the most severe of all rabbinic penalties on him: excommunication. While the quoted Bible verse, Jeremiah 3:22, opens up the possibility of divine forgiveness to any sinner prepared to repent and return—the entire verse reads as follows: “Return, apostate sons, I will heal your faithlessness”—Aher is explicitly excluded from any chance of forgiveness. His sin is so great that God cannot forgive it. After that, Metatron too is punished.40 It is not explained why, but the reason is clear: he did not contradict Aher, who held him to be a second God, and perhaps through his magnificent appearance on the throne he had even deliberately provoked or at least accepted Aher’s misunderstanding. Metatron is therefore at least complicit in Aher’s “heresy” and is made to stand on his feet, which means he is dethroned and degraded to a regular angel. Thus the binitarian idea of two Gods in heaven is revealed to be heresy.
Let us now look at the parallel of this episode in the Babylonian Talmud.41 In the Bavli, it is connected to the famous Palestinian narrative of the four rabbis who ascend to heaven, presumably in order to see God on his throne.42 The four rabbis are Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, our Aher, and Aqiva. Only Aqiva, the eminent figure of rabbinic Judaism, comes out of this adventure unscathed. Ben Azzai dies, Ben Zoma suffers harm, and regarding Aher it is cryptically said that he “cut down the shoots.” In all four cases, the fate of the respective rabbi is mentioned only by means of a Bible verse, without any further explanation. In the case of Aher it is Ecclesiastes 5:5, and the Talmud attempts to add the following explanation:43
Aher cut down the shoots. Of him Scripture says: “Do not let your mouth lead you into sin [and do not say before the angel that it was an error]” (Eccles. 5:5). What does it refer to?
He [Aher] saw that permission was granted to Metatron to sit44 and write down the merits of Israel. He [Aher] said: “It is taught as a tradition that above (lema‘lah) [in heaven] there is no standing45 and no sitting, no jealousy46 and no rivalry, no back and no weariness. Are there perhaps—God forbid!—two powers (rashuyyot) [in heaven]!?”
[Thereupon] they led Metatron forth, and flogged him with sixty fiery lashes, saying to him [Metatron]: “Why did you not rise before him [Aher] when you saw him?” Permission was [then] given to him [Metatron] to strike out the merits of Aher.
A heavenly voice went forth and said: “Return, backsliding children (Jer. 3:14, 22)—except for Aher.”
[Thereupon] he [Aher] said: “Since I have been driven forth from that [future] world, I will go forth and enjoy this world.” So Aher fell into bad ways. He went forth, found a prostitute and demanded her. She said to him: “Are you not Elisha ben Avuyah?” [But] when he tore a radish out of its bed on Sabbath and gave it to her, she said: “He is another (aher).”
The agreement with the version in 3 Enoch as well as the deviations are obvious. I will limit myself here to the central points, without discussing and explaining all the details in each case. First of all, the context is different: whereas in 3 Enoch it is about the elevation of Metatron, the Bavli version revolves around the inner-rabbinic discourse about the four rabbis who went up into heaven. The main theme is not Metatron’s elevation but rather the explanation of Aher’s sins and heresy. This is linked to Metratron because Aher, on his journey to heaven, sees Metatron sitting. This “sitting” is not the excessive enthronization of Metatron as in 3 Enoch but instead simply results from the fact that Metatron functions in heaven as a scribe, which means that he sits primarily as a scribe and not as an enthroned king.
Nevertheless, Aher concludes from the seated Metatron that there might be two powers in heaven, but this “insight” is expressed in a much more reserved manner than in the Third Book of Enoch. Whereas in 3 Enoch Aher wholeheartedly declares, “There are indeed two powers in heaven!” in the Bavli he is by no means certain and adds the restricting captatio benevolentiae, “God forbid!” Also, his “insight” in the Talmud is justified by a sentence that is phrased in a way that makes no sense in this context: “It is taught as a tradition that above (lema‘lah) [in heaven] there is no standing and no sitting, no jealousy and no rivalry, no back and no weariness.” The mention of “standing” is completely inappropriate here. Because it is corroborated in almost all manuscripts, it must be assumed that this sentence comes from a preformed text unit that was added here by the redactor, who then neglected to delete the inappropriate word “standing.”47 For this reason, I find it pointless to speculate on the meaning of individual elements of this sentence in the context of the Aher episode.48 It is obvious that this was originally a statement not about God, but about the angels,49 who are standing in heaven50 but not sitting,51 who do not experience jealousy and rivalry among one another,52 who have no backs,53 and who do not get weary.54
In contrast to 3 Enoch, in the Bavli it is not Aher who is immediately punished after his misguided “insight,” but it is Metatron who is punished first. The reason for this is explicitly mentioned: Metatron should have instantly stood up when Aher entered the seventh heaven in order to make it absolutely clear that he is not a second God, but only an angel. By remaining seated, he deliberately or else carelessly misled Aher, provoking his reaction. Hence the degrading of Metatron is much more marked in the Bavli than it is in 3 Enoch—and this effect is not attenuated by the fact that Metatron is later permitted to strike Aher’s merits. Here too the final verdict is proclaimed by the heavenly voice—that is, God, who thereby unequivocally exercises his prerogative as the sole authority in heaven.
The relationship between the two versions, in 3 Enoch and the Bavli, is a popular stomping ground of scholars.55 There can be no doubt that they are both about the same episode. That they are so closely interrelated as is normally claimed, however—that one version is the template for the other, and either 3 Enoch is dependent on the Bavli or vice versa—is in my view too narrow an interpretation and thus a futile exercise in outmoded redaction criticism. Much more probable is that they both trace back to an unknown source or even several unknown sources, which they interpret in different ways.56 Correctly, though, there is widespread agreement that the Bavli is much more reserved than 3 Enoch, attaching great importance to Metatron’s degradation, as far as this is possible within the given framework, and therefore his disempowerment.57
The as yet most radical conclusion from the comparison was drawn by David Grossberg, who would prefer to see the Bavli version almost entirely removed from the discussion of Metatron’s elevation.58 According to Grossberg, Elisha ben Avuyah’s59 exclamation “Are there perhaps—God forbid!—two powers [in heaven]!?” is not meant as an affirmation, but on the contrary as an implicit rejection of the false impression that Metatron gave him. The true guilty party is therefore Metatron, which is why he is punished first. The subsequent permission to strike Elisha’s merits is not a divine directive but instead a demand of Metatron (which is, however, satisfied—apparently by God). What Gross-berg concedes as the main problem with this interpretation is the heavenly voice that follows, expressly condemning Elisha, and excluding him from any return or forgiveness. Grossberg would like to avoid this problem by referring to the famous episode in the Bavli, according to which the rabbis deny the heavenly voice any authority over their rabbinic doctrine.60 For Grossberg this neutralizes the weight of the heavenly voice, especially since Elisha is forgiven within the course of the Bavli narrative, albeit only after his death. The actual climax of the Bavli version is in Gross-berg’s view the encounter with the prostitute: after Elisha attempts to start an affair with the prostitute and after he pulls a radish out of the ground on Sabbath, she is the first to identify him as “Aher”—that is, as a heretic. Hence Aher’s heresy, as Gross-berg concludes, is not a “failure in orthodoxy” (as it is in 3 Enoch) but rather a “failure in orthopraxy”—that is, a failure in practicing the Torah as prescribed by the rabbis, and not a failure in some theological disputes.
Grossberg takes the inner-rabbinic discourse in the Bavli more seriously than anyone before him, but he takes it to an extreme. It is certainly correct to read the Bavli version consistently within its context, and here Grossberg offers many details that have been neglected or overlooked up to now. But these too cannot be as radically freed from any connection to the elevation of Metatron as Grossberg attempts to do. To do that he has to brush them all too much against the grain. I think the most plausible explanation remains that the Third Book of Enoch and the Bavli take up an existing tradition of the elevation of Metatron and interpret them in different ways—one rabbinizing and greatly weakening his template, and the other driving it literally to unimagined heights.
There is yet another version of the ascent of Elisha ben Avuyah in the Hekhalot literature, this time not the Third Book of Enoch, but as an independent literary unit titled “The Mystery of Sandalfon.” It is not known where or when it was written, but in its present form it can be found only in Hekhalot literature:61
Elisha ben Avuyah said: “When I ascended to the pardes62 I beheld Akatriel YH, the Lord of Hosts, who sits at the entrance to the pardes, and 120 myriads of ministering angels surround him, as it is said: ‘Thousands upon thousands served him and myriads upon myriads, etc. [stood attending him]’ (Dan. 7:10). When I saw them I was alarmed and startled, regained my composure and entered before the Holy One, blessed be he.”
I said before him: “Lord of the world, you wrote in your Torah: ‘Behold, to the Lord, your God, belong heaven and the heavens of heavens, etc.’ (Deut. 10:14). And it is written: ‘[The heavens are telling the glory of God,] and the firmament declares the work of his hands’ (Ps. 19:2)—one alone!”
He said to me: “Elisha, my son, have you perhaps come in order to reflect upon my mysteries? Have you not heard the parable that human beings apply?”63
The text breaks off here, and the continuation with the parable is missing in both manuscripts. In MS Oxford, a colophon follows, and in MS New York, the scribe adds “I found no parable” and then continues with the work Harba de-Moshe (The Sword of Moses).
There is no doubt that this is yet another version of the narrative on Elisha ben Avuyah’s ascent to heaven and his encounter with Metatron. Here, however, Elisha is not called Aher and, as we will see, also is not a heretic. Metatron is referred to here as Akatriel64 and assumes the same function as Metatron does in 3 Enoch and in the Bavli, and consequently, his throne stands at the entrance to the seventh heaven and not at its center. Akatriel is therefore not God.65 But he is nevertheless served by the myriads of angels from Daniel 7:10 standing around his throne. Because the Daniel verse refers to the “Ancient of Days” and thus clearly to God, other qualities of God in addition to sitting are attributed to the angel Akatriel. It is thus not surprising that in view of this presumed second God, Elisha becomes alarmed and startled. In contrast to the version in 3 Enoch and the Bavli discussed earlier, here Elisha does not draw the heretical conclusion that there are two Gods in heaven, for which he would have been punished. On the contrary, he enters the seventh heaven and, evidently at the center, steps before the throne of God, who is clearly identified as such through the epithet “the Holy One, blessed be he.”
Here something unexpected happens.66 Elisha is transformed from the protagonist of the idea of two Gods in heaven—and thus the arch heretic—into an opponent of this idea, of which he accuses none other than God himself. He does this with two Bible verses that clarify that the heavens of heavens (that is, all seven heavens) belong to God alone (Deut. 10:14), and for that reason, the heavens praise the glory of God, and the firmament—the Hebrew word for firmament (raqia‘) in the Hekhalot literature is also the technical name for one of the seven heavens—announces the work of his hands. In other words, he accuses God of violating his own Torah by enthroning Akatriel, surrounded by his ministering angels, at the entrance to the seventh heaven, although the Torah clearly states that there can only be one God alone. According to this version the heretic is God himself. And how does God respond? He gruffly reproaches Elisha and rather haughtily lets him know that it is not Elisha’s responsibility to speculate about God’s mysteries.
I do not think there is any other plausible interpretation of this episode as it has been recorded here. The fact that it breaks off at this point and we do not know the continuation does nothing to change this. Menahem Kister’s attempts to argue against my interpretation are unconvincing.67 He is not willing to even consider the substance of my interpretation but instead simply declares that the absence of a continuation means, or rather must mean, that also in this version Elisha is portrayed as a heretic: “In all traditions we know of, Elisha is declared a heretic and punished (as such), and it does not at all appear that this tradition [in ‘The Mystery of Sandalfon’] stands contrary to all the others. … It is entirely plausible that this tradition also describes Elisha’s heresy, but the medieval scribe did not have the continuation at hand, and (that is why) it was not passed on to us.”68 It is hard to discuss such “arguments.”69
The Babylonian Talmud too transmits a narrative about Akatriel, which again in comparison with the text from the Hekhalot literature is instructive. There the text reads:70
What does he [God] pray?—Rav Zutra bar Tuvyah said in the name of Rav: “May it be my will that my mercy may suppress my anger, and that my mercy may prevail over my (other) attributes, so that I may deal with my children according to the attribute of mercy and, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice.”71
It is taught: Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha said: “I once entered into the innermost part [of the Sanctuary]d to offer incense and saw Akatriel YH, the Lord of Hosts, seated upon a high and exalted throne.”
He said to me: “Ishmael, my son, bless me!”
I replied: “May it be your will that your mercy may suppress your anger and your mercy may prevail over your (other) attributes, so that you may deal with your children according to the attribute of mercy and may, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice!
And he nodded to me with his head.
The point of departure of this short text is the question of whether or not God prays. After this question is answered affirmatively comes the question about the content of God’s prayer. Rav Zutra bar Tuvyah72 answers, in the name of Rav, a well-known Babylonian Amora of the first generation:e God wishes that the attribute of mercy might always prevail in the competition of his attributes. This alludes to the fact that among the different attributes of God, especially the attributes of mercy and strict justice are in constant conflict with each other as regards his people, Israel. If God prays, this means that he prays as it were to himself—namely, that his attribute of mercy will prevail in the end.
This is followed by a baraita attributed to Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, the no less well-known second-generation Tanna of priestly descent,f who would become a hero of the Hekhalot literature. In an obviously imagined scene, Rabbi Ishmael as a high priest enters the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem and sees Akatriel sitting there on his throne. Most probably the author is actually thinking of the heavenly sanctuary and describes Rabbi Ishmael in his later role as a journeyer to heaven. The fact that his full name is Ishmael ben Elisha might not be by chance, suggesting the association with Elisha ben Avuyah, whose ascent ended so tragically. When Akatriel asks Ishmael to praise him,73 the rabbi or high priest miraculously repeats precisely the prayer that God himself chooses to say, and Akatriel accepts this prayer immediately.
Yet there is no danger here of Rabbi Ishmael falling victim to the same error as Elisha ben Avuyah/Aher did, because in this Bavli episode Akatriel is clearly God and not an angel with the attributes of a second God as in “The Mysteries of Sandelfon.”74 This definitely follows not only from the fact that Akatriel is referred to as “Lord of the Hosts”—an attribute that in classical rabbinic literature is used only for God75—but also because he is sitting on a high and exalted throne, an allusion to Isaiah 6:1: “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted.” Furthermore, the attributes of mercy and strict justice are reserved for God alone.
Here too, therefore, as previously in the case of the ascent of Elisha ben Avuyah, the Bavli represents the strictly “orthodox” position of the one and only God, against all temptation to introduce a second God in the Jewish heaven. God addresses his prayer not to a second God beside him; instead, in his prayer he finds himself in a discourse with himself, with his qualities or attributes, which in the Kabbalah would later become powers within the Godhead. It is certainly no coincidence that the dictum of Rav Zutra in the name of Rav on God’s “inner” prayer is operating at precisely the same level as Rabbi Yose’s harsh response to Rabbi Aqiva: that the two thrones of Daniel 7:9 are intended for the two divine attributes of justice and mercy, and not for God and the Son of Man. The Bavli’s intention is consistently and fundamentally to downplay the unwelcome possibility of two Gods in heaven.
Directly following Rabbi Aqiva’s interpretation of the two thrones in Daniel 7:9 as referring to God and the Messiah or Son of Man, and the enraged protest of his colleagues, there is another Metatron-critical text in the Bavli that deserves a detailed assessment:76
Rabbi Nahman said: He who is as skilled in refuting the heretics (minim) as is Rav Idith, let him do so; but not otherwise.
A certain heretic (mina) said (namely) to Rav Idith: “It is written, ‘And to Moses he [God] said, Come up to the Lord (YHWH)’ (Exod. 24:1). But surely it should have stated, ‘Come up to me’!”
“This is Metatron,”77 he [Rav Idith] replied, “whose name is like the name of his Master, as it is written, ‘For my name is in him’ (Exod. 23:21).”
“But if so,” [the heretic retorted,] “we should worship him (too)!”
“It is written (in the same passage), however,” [replied Rav Idith]: “‘Do not rebel against him (al tamer bo)’ (Exod. 23:21), [that is,] do not mistake me for him.”78
“But if so,” [answered the heretic,] “why is it stated: ‘He will not pardon your transgression’ (Exod. 23:21)?”
He [Rav Idith] answered [the heretic]: “By our troth we would not accept him [Metatron] even as a guide/messenger (parwanqa),79 for it is written, ‘And he [Moses] said to him [God]: If your [personal] presence goes not,80 etc., [do not bring us up from here]’ (Exod. 33:15).”
This complex text works with important implicit premises. The protagonists are Rav Idith or Idi, probably Rav Idi/th bar Abin I, a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora (ca. 350 CE), and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, his contemporary, as well as an anonymous heretic. The point of departure of the discussion between Rav Idith and the heretic is the verse Exodus 24:1, in which an unidentified speaker says, “And to Moses he said, ‘Come up to the Lord (YHWH).’” Who is “he” and who is the Lord (YHWH)? One would think, as I have also added in the above translation, that “he” is God, who tells Moses—together with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders—to climb onto Mount Sinai in order to approach the “Lord.” If “he” is God, however, why does God say so awkwardly “Come up to the Lord” instead of “Come up to me,” and why does he use the Tetragrammaton YHWH for “Lord”? The heretic addresses precisely this problem, thus obviously setting a trap for his rabbinic adversary, because—as the continued debate shows—the heretic is of the opinion that the “Lord” refers not to God but rather a second godlike figure in heaven, the angel Metatron: He [God] says to Moses, “Come up to Metatron (YHWH).”
Immediately following this text, another verse—Genesis 19:24—is discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, further elucidating the stylistic and at the same time highly charged theological problem at its root: “Then the Lord (YHWH) rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord (YHWH) out of heaven.”81 This too is a discussion between a heretic and a rabbi (Rabbi Ishmael ben Yose), but the answer does not allow for a theological dispute, simply indicating that this is the linguistic style of the Bible. The strong theological repercussions, not explicitly mentioned here, result from the preceding discussion between the heretic and Rav Idith, and also from the interpretation of Genesis 19:24 by the Christian church father Justin Martyr in his dialogue with the Jew Trypho (middle of the second century CE), where Justin says that one “Lord” refers to God the father, the creator of the world, and the other “Lord” refers to the Logos, Jesus Christ, the son of God: “He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord [who remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah that which the Logos describes in these terms: ‘The Lord [Logos] rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven [God].’”82
Rav Idith immediately falls for the heretic’s provocation, admitting that the “Lord” (YHWH) is Metatron and even offering an explanation for it: Metatron is the angel with the same name as God—namely, YHWH. The proof text for this (Exod. 23:21) tones it down only marginally by proving “only” that God’s name is contained “in” Metatron, which presumably means “in his name.” With that the heretic’s trap snaps shut, and he immediately retorts, if God and Metatron have the same name (that is, YHWH), and hence the two are interchangeable, then it is only logical for us also to revere Metatron, which in plain language means that we worship him as a second God. The heretic does not even need to refer explicitly to the context of the Bible verse Exodus 23:21, which the rabbi so carelessly cited—which is unmistakably about an angel whom God will send in front of Israel and Israel must obey: “Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him (al tamer bo).”83 The rabbi tries hurriedly to refute the heretic’s implicit argument with a philological trick, saying that the Hebrew al tamer bo can also mean “do not mistake me [God] for him [the angel],” and for that reason must be understood as God’s warning specifically not to misconstrue the Bible text in a binitarian sense. This somewhat shrewd argument is countered instantly by the heretic with the continuation of the Bible verse Exodus 23:21: if this is just about an ordinary angel, then why does it say of him, “For he will not pardon your transgression”? Forgiving sins is, after all, a prerogative of God, and so the angel Metatron spoken of here must be a second God! Somewhat cornered, the poor rabbi can offer only a rather weak defense: we (the rabbis) would not accept him (Metatron) even as a divine messenger (that is, the usual responsibility of angels), much less as a wannabe God! We want God himself to go with us and lead us out of Egypt, not one of his angels.84
The controversy between the heretic and the rabbi works with two premises. First, the Bible text Exodus 23:20ff. leads to the exegetic problem of differentiating between God and his angel. The text begins with a clear distinction when it states, “I [God] am going to send an angel in front of you, to guard you on the way. … Be attentive to him,” and so on, but it then becomes more ambiguous: “But if you listen attentively to his [the angel’s] voice and do all that I [God] say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes” (v. 22). It then continues in the same manner (v. 23ff.): “When my angel goes in front of you, and brings you to the Amorites, the Hittites, etc. … and I blot them out … and he85 will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from among you. …” This is followed by numerous I’s, up to the disputed verse Exodus 24:1. By the time readers reach this verse they must be completely confused, ultimately no longer knowing who is speaking. And precisely this is the basis for the discussion between the heretic and the rabbi.
The second premise is the claim that Metatron’s name is like the name of his Master (God), because his (God’s) name (YHWH) is in him. The Tetragrammaton is obviously not contained in the name “Metatron.”86 It can therefore be assumed—correctly, in my opinion—that this claim traces back to an older tradition that is corroborated in the Apocalypse of Abraham. There the angel Iaoel/Iahoel is characterized as the one who carries within himself the power of the ineffable name, the Tetragrammaton.87 This means that his name consists of the Tetragrammaton,88 combined with the theophoric ending –el. Iaoel/Iahoel is also one of the numerous names of Metatron and thus there is some evidence that Metatron absorbed the Iaoel/Iahoel tradition, which is why he can be referred to as the angel endowed with the power of the divine name.89
With his exegesis of Exodus 23:21, Rav Idith opened a Pandora’s box, saying exactly what the heretic wanted to hear—namely, that Metatron is a second divine figure next to God, as the author of the Third Book of Enoch also claimed. Of course, this is neither his personal opinion nor that of his rabbinic colleagues, but he lets himself be cornered by the heretic, who consistently has the better arguments and well-nigh imposes this conclusion on him. Rav Idith obviously rejects the heretic so vehemently because the heretic’s opinion was not merely a side issue that the rabbis could simply disregard. On the contrary, it was a view that had found a place in the heart of rabbinic—or more precisely, Babylonian rabbinic—Judaism.90 The notion of two Gods in heaven was attractive and had become, in influential rabbinic circles, even acceptable. This is the only way to explain the rabbi’s harsh and yet awkward reply. There is reason to assume that here too the direct opponents of the rabbi can be found among those circles that stand behind the Hekhalot literature and especially the Third Book of Enoch.
Kister must be credited in this context for having referred to two texts among the Hekhalot literature that I edited long ago, but whose relevance for our subject here I had not recognized up to now.91 The first text is a Metatron fragment that was previously unknown, followed by a Shi‘ur Qomah piece and a description of the heavenly court. I have translated the portion that is relevant for our context:92
The earth shines from hisg glory, and the sun, moon, and stars glow from his light and shine. God appointed this angel as lord over all creation and made him the ruler over the forces above and below,h to guide them and lead them in their devotion.93 All [angels] praise, sanctify, and worship [God] and say: “Holy, holy, holy [is the Lord of hosts]” (Isa. 6:3) and “Praised be the glory of the Lord from its place” (Ezek. 3:12). And this angel praises [God] together with them. He is [the angel] that God appointed over Israel and [with reference to this] he said to Moses: “I am going to send an angel in front of you,” etc. (Exod. 23:20). “Be attentive to him94 and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him,” etc. (Exod. 23:21). “But if you listen attentively to his voice and do all that I say, [then I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes]” (Exod. 23:22).95
He named the name of the angel after the name of his creator, as it is said, “For my name is in him” (Exod. 23:21). He declared his [the angel’s] authority (rashut) like his [God’s] authority, and his [the angel’s] command is deemed a command. And everyone who believes that Rabbi Ishmael intended this is wicked and a heretic,96 and has no part in the future world. And it is proof of our words that he [God] gave him [the angel] (the) authority to issue a decree that the Holy One, blessed be he, carries out, because the Bible verse says “But if you listen attentively to his voice and do all that I say,” etc. (Exod. 23:22), and not “all that he says”—from this we learn that he [the angel] issues a decree, and his creator carries it out!
It is not known where or when this was written. Again, we can only say that it is related to the Hekhalot literature. At most it is interesting that the manuscript might have come from the Iraq region—that is, belonging to the cultural sphere of Babylonian Judaism.97 Its content, however, takes your breath away.98 An unnamed angel is appointed the omnipotent ruler over heaven and earth, precisely in the style of Metatron in 3 Enoch. For this reason, and because directly following the translated passage Metatron is called the Angel of the Presence, there can hardly be any doubt that Metatron is the protagonist of our text. After this virtually unsurpassable elevation of Metatron, though, the mood changes: all angels in heaven praise God with the Qedushah, the Trisagion, and Metatron is one of them; in his relationship to God, he is like any other angel.
But the story does not end there. Metatron is the angel of Exodus 23:20ff., whom Israel is to obey and who carries the name of God (obviously the Tetragrammaton YHWH), just as in 3 Enoch and the Bavli. And now Metatron’s bold elevation is repeated: God gives him the same authority as his own; his command is God’s command. Once again the verse Exodus 23:22 serves as a proof text, in that the verse’s inherent tension between the angel and God (“if you [Israel] listen attentively to his [the angel’s] voice and do all that I [God] say”) is explicitly thematized: what God says are actually the words of the angel, who utters them and that are then carried out by God. The identities of God and the angel are blurred; they remain two separate figures, but get so close to each other that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other, as is already laid out in the Bible verse. In view of the final sentence, one even gets the impression that God with his authority subordinates himself to the authority of the angel.
This is the most extreme statement thus far on the dominion and authority of two Gods in heaven. For this reason it does not come as a surprise that the unknown author of this unprecedented move contradicts himself already in the course of his text, as did the redactor of the Third Book of Enoch by having the elevation of Metatron be followed by his degradation in the episode on Elisha ben Avuyah/Aher’s journey to heaven, asserting that whoever attributes such a view to Rabbi Ishmael is a heretic. Of course it is no coincidence that it is precisely Rabbi Ishmael who is to be protected from any accusation of heresy, as next to Rabbi Aqiva he is the most significant protagonist of Hekhalot literature. He is also the one who learns everything about Enoch-Metatron on his journey to heaven in the Third Book of Enoch. The fragment from the Cairo Geniza also reflects circles in which binitarian ideas were developed and openly advocated, and here too, as in 3 Enoch and the Bavli, we are dealing with circles within Babylonian rabbinic Judaism that are contradicted with varying degrees of vehemence. Yet the contradiction and polemics cannot belie the fact that the opposed “heresy” is to be found at the heart of rabbinic Judaism; that is the only explanation for the severity of the polemics.
Also the second Geniza text from the realm of the Hekhalot literature discusses Bible verses that allow a reading involving the idea of two powers in heaven:99
Then came the Ruah Pisqon, standing between them, and all the angelic princes trembled before him. He said to him [Moses]:
Moses, Moses, I am the one who revealed himself to you on that day when your creator spoke to you, as it is said: “There the angel of the Lord, etc. [appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush]” (Exod. 3:2).
And I am the one who said to you: “Remove the sandals from your feet,” etc. (Exod. 3:5).
And I am Sanegoron, Pisqon, Itmon. …100
From here101 said Rabbi Yehoshua:
This is the [angel], of whom Scripture says: “See, my angel shall go in front of you,”102 etc. (Exod. 32:34), “And the Lord (YHWH)103 said to Satan, [the Lord (YHWH) rebukes you, O Satan!]” (Zech. 3:2).
And this is the [angel], of whom Scripture says: “Then the Lord (YHWH) rained [sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah], etc. [from the Lord (YHWH)]” (Gen. 19:24).
Are there perhaps two powers (rashuyyot) in heaven?! [No,] but this is the [angel],104 whose name is in the name of the Holy One, blessed be he.
The cited text is part of an extensive and relatively old Geniza fragment about a revelation to Moses in the style of the Hekhalot literature.105 The Ruah Pisqon,106 who is abruptly introduced here, is once again very likely Metatron. In any case, this name as well as the names Sanegoron, Pisqon, and Itmon a few lines further down are also attested in the Hekhalot literature as names of Metatron.107 As in 3 Enoch, here he stands at the top of the celestial hierarchy; all angelic princes are subordinate to him. He reveals himself to Moses as the biblical angel of the Lord, and this identification is then documented by means of various Bible verses.
The first two proof texts refer to the revelation to Moses in the burning bush. Similar to Exodus 23:20ff., this is yet another text in which the fine line between God and his angel is blurred or intentionally kept vague. The initial statement that God (Elohim) heard his people Israel groaning and crying out in Egypt (Exod. 2:24) is followed by the revelation to Moses (Exod. 3:1ff.). At Horeb, God’s mountain, the “angel of the Lord” (mal’akh YHWH) appears to Moses in a flame of fire out of a bush. This is the cited verse, Exodus 3:2. When God (YHWH) sees Moses approach the bush, God (Elohim) calls to him out of the bush (v. 4) and commands him to remove his sandals (v. 5, the second verse cited). Then he reveals himself to Moses as “the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and Moses is afraid to look at God (Elohim) (v. 6). The confusion of the identities could hardly be more extreme: God first reveals himself as the angel of the Lord and then as God, and this God is alternately called Elohim and YHWH, whereas his angel carries the epithet YHWH.
Following mention of Metatron’s other names, Rabbi Yehoshua cites additional relevant Bible verses. In the first verse quoted (Exod. 32:34), God clearly distinguishes between himself and his angel, but this is obviously the same angel as in the much-discussed verse Exodus 23:20, where the distinction was more ambiguous. A perfect example is then the next verse cited, Zechariah 3:2.108 The impact only becomes obvious if we also consider the preceding verse, Zechariah 3:1: “Then he showed me the high priest Yehoshua109 standing before the angel of the Lord (mal’akh YHWH), and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.” Thus we again have the ambiguous situation that at first God’s angel (Zech. 3:1) is mentioned and then God himself (Zech. 3:2: “And the Lord said to Satan”); hence the distinction is once again blurred. Making the confusion complete, this God (YHWH) again speaks of himself as God (YHWH). The critical apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica shows that the Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the Bible, renders the Hebrew YHWH in verse 2 as mal’akh YHWH in order to avoid just this problem and harmonize the text.110 There it is not God who is talking to Satan but rather the angel of the Lord (as in v. 1), who then announces God’s rebuke of Satan.
The last verse cited, Genesis 19:24, is the well-known verse from the Babylonian Talmud, which also gives the impression that there are two Gods. This is followed by the appalled outcry, whether, God forbid, there might perhaps be two powers in heaven—similar to the perplexed outcry of Aher in the Bavli version of Elisha ben Avuyah’s journey to heaven.111 As in the Talmud, this suspicion is immediately rejected: in all the cited Bible verses, it turns out that we are not dealing with a second God but with an angel who carries God’s name in his name, as we know from Exodus 23:21—that is, Metatron. Yet the verse is not explicitly cited here, which gives the author an opportunity to turn it around in a strange way: it is not the name of God that is contained in Metatron’s name but vice versa, the name Metatron is in the name of God. I do not consider this a coincidence but instead—despite or even because of Metatron’s degradation (Metatron is not a second divine power but merely an angel)—as an indirect, if not begrudging, valorization of Metatron.
All in all it is certainly correct, as Kister never tires of emphasizing, that this Geniza fragment as well as the other texts from the Hekhalot literature and the Bavli that we have discussed reject and oppose the idea of two Gods in heaven. But it is equally correct that this idea is part of Judaism and cannot simply be shunted off to Christianity. Kister’s virtually desperate attempts to draw boundaries between a clearly defined rabbinic Judaism (which resisted binitarian temptations of any kind) and opponents outside this rabbinic Judaism, especially Christians,112 ultimately paint a clear-cut, black-and-white picture that does justice neither to the relevant texts nor to the historical reality.113
a These are the angels.
b The seven heavenly palaces can be understood to mean the seven heavens.
c This refers to the domains of the angels in heaven.
d The Holy of Holies.
e First half of the third century CE.
f First half of the second century CE.
g Of the angel named in the following.
h Angels and human beings.