This article traces the evolution of the archangel Metatron from his inception to his identification with Enoch. It argues that the name Metatron was derived from the term metator, which was used in Palestine to describe the role of the angel of the Lord in Exod 23:20-21. It was only in Babylonia that Metatron became a name of a specific angel, where, however, he was never identified with Enoch. The first attestations of Metatron in Palestinian sources are only from the beginning of the seventh century CE, and they know nothing of Enoch. The earliest evidence for Enoch-Metatron is only found in Palestinian sources from the eighth century. Enoch-Metatron is therefore neither an ancient esoteric Palestinian tradition nor a Babylonian creation, but rather a late Palestinian innovative synthesis of Babylonian Metatron and Byzantine Enoch trajectories, which resulted in a new hybrid figure
Introduction
Metatron is one of the most famous and exalted angels of late antique Judaism, who in several texts is even depicted as the divine viceregent, coming dangerously close to being regarded as a second deity. Yet everything about this archangel is shrouded in mystery and scholarly debates, including the origin of his very name. To add to the confusion, in some texts Metatron is explicitly identified with Enoch. Most notably, the book known as 3 Enoch (Sefer Hekhalot) contains a detailed description of Enoch’s angelification and transfiguration into the angel Metatron, the Prince of the Countenance, who is also named “the Lesser YHWH.” The tradition that Enoch was angelified is possibly already hinted in the Enochic Book of Similitudes where Enoch is revealed to be the Son of Man (1 En. 71:13. On this verse, see Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 330-32). Second Enoch, probably dated to the first century CE, states explicitly that Enoch had become like an angel ( 2 En. 22:1-11; cf. Ascen. Isa. 9:9). None of these texts mentions Metatron. Several of these scholars have even assumed an ancient triangular identification between Metatron-Enoch-Son of Man (See, e.g., Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 344). Boyarin: “If Enoch is the Son of Man and Enoch is Metatron, then, it follows (if not with airtight logic) that Metatron is the Son of Man.” Which has led some of them to compare the development of the tradition of Enoch-Metatron, a man-turned god, to that of Jesus (See, e.g., Stroumsa, “Polymorphie divine”; Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God,” 281-84; Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism,” 10-11; Deutsch, Guardians, 151-57; Davila, “Methodology”; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, esp. 146-48; Hayman, “Monotheism,” 14-15; Hengel, “Right Hand,” 191-92; Muñoa, “John”; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 323-24; Boyarin, “Two Powers,” 353-54; Boyarin, “Parables of Enoch).
Boyarin’s most recent clarification: “I assert categorically that I have never imagined or intimated that Metatron came before Jesus on the scene of history, rather that there was a parallel relation between the development of the Gospels out of the Son of Man traditions in Daniel and the early Enoch books, on the one hand, and the development of the eventual Metatron traditions as they developed in later rabbinic literature out of the ancient Son of Man traditions, on the other, i.e., that Christology and Metatronology shared a common ultimate source in Second Temple literature—quite a different matter from claiming that either one is the source of the other” (Boyarin, “Talmudic Apocalypse,” 547 n. 16). For an overview of scholarship connecting Metatron and Jesus, see Abrams, “Metatron and Jesus.
Other scholars, most notably Peter Schäfer, while similarly assuming that Enoch-Metatron is at the basis of all the occurrences of Metatron in rabbinic and hekhalot literature, argue that Metatron was first introduced in Babylonia (See, e.g., Ginzberg, Legends, 5:163; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 103-49; Schäfer, Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 324-26; Schäfer, “Metatron in Babylonia.” See, e.g., Schäfer, 39). Schäfer: “I would like to argue, therefore, that the traditions that developed around the angel Metatron lead us unequivocally and conspicuously into the cultural climate of Babylonian Judaism.” The idea that Christianity (and the figure of Jesus) influenced the evolution Metatron has already been suggested by scholars (although without singling out Babylonia), such as Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt, 160 and Murtonen, “Figure of ‘Meṭaṭrôn.’”
A more cautious approach forcefully argued by Gershom Scholem, and followed by such scholars as Philip Alexander, Yosef Dan and Jonas Greenfield, views Metatron himself as part of an early Palestinian tradition but the Metatron-Enoch identification as a later innovation, which took place some time between the fourth and sixth centuries CE in Babylonia, probably introduced by the author of 3 Enoch (Scholem, Major Trends, 68-69; Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 41-55; Scholem, Kabbalah, 377- 81; Greenfield, “Prolegomenon,” xvi-xxxii; Dan, Jewish Mysticism, 2:641-77; Alexander, “3 (Hebrew) Enoch”; Alexander, “Historical Setting”; Alexander, “Talmud”; Kaplan, “Adam,” esp. 84-87 and n. 27 with extensive bibliography; Reeves, Trajectories, 179-86).
Thus Scholem argued that one must “differentiate between two basic aspects of Metatron lore … One aspect identifies Metatron with Jahoel or Michael and knows nothing of his transfiguration from a human being into an angel … The other aspect identifies Metatron with the figure of Enoch as he is depicted in apocalyptic literature” (Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 50-51. Cf. Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 159). Scholem: “Metatron in 3 Enoch is a highly complex entity, but he has obviously two main components: (a) Enoch and (b) the archangel Metatron. These two figures originally had nothing to do with each other; there are texts which speak in detail of Enoch’s translation but know nothing of Metatron, while there are other texts which mention the angel Metatron without linking him with Enoch. The Metatron of 3 Enoch marks the confluence of two initially quite independent streams of tradition.
What the author is going to argue:
Metatron as a name of an angel did not exist prior to the second half of the third century in Babylonia, where he was introduced, based on the title metator accorded in Palestinian traditions to the angel of the Lord in Exod 23:20-21. Metatron then became a central angel in Babylonia. Yet throughout his centuries-long career in Babylonia he was never identified with Enoch. It was only after the migration of Metatron traditions to the west that he was first associated with Enoch in the seventh or eighth century.
Angelus Metator
The earliest references to Metatron appear in Jewish-Babylonian literature. Metatron appears three times in the Babylonian Talmud, two of which are in the editorial strata (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; b. Ḥag. 15a). The third, in b. Sanh. 38b, is most likely the earliest, as it is attributed to a named sage, R. Nachman—probably the famous third generation Babylonian Rabbi (end of third century CE). Rav Nachman refers to an otherwise unknown sage by the name of R. Idi or Idit (Kister, “Metatron,” 74-83; and Schremer, “Parvanka.” For various readings of this story see, e.g., Segal, Two Powers, 68-73; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 104-15; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 329-33; Boyarin, Border Lines, 120-23; Idel, Ben, 118-20; Ahdut, “JewishZoroastrian Polemics,” 31-34).
According to the min, the fact that the Lord does not command Moses to go up to him but rather “to the Lord,” would suggest that there are two divinities. As an answer R. Idit refers to the previous chapter in Exodus where God says he shall send his angel to guide Israel (Exod 23:20-21). The angel of the Lord described in these verses was considered a central intermediary divine figure from early on. Philo, for example, described him as God’s Right Logos (τὸν ὀρθὸν αὑτοῦ λόγον), the first-born Son (πρωτόγονον υἱόν) (see Geljon and Runia, Philo on Cultivation, 149-51. See also QE 2:13; Migr. 174. See Idel, Ben, 18); the Apocalypse of Abraham identified him with Yahoel (Apoc. Ab. 10:3, 8); the Samaritans—with the Glory (כבודה) (Ben Hayyim, Tibat Marqe, 202-5 (3:56); in several Jewish texts he is identified with Michael (See Tg. Ps.-Jon. Exod 24:1) or the Prince of the Countenance (18 .Mišp .Tanḥ S); and some Christian authors, such as Eusebius, identified him with Jesus (Eusebius, Dem. ev. 4.17).
# Etymology of Metatron
For a survey of the nine etymologies suggested see Orlov, Enoch-Metatron, 92-96; cf. Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 125-46; See also Miller, “Folk-Etymology,” for the possibility that later folk-etymologies of the name had impact on the way Metatron was portrayed.
**Hugo Odenberg and Saul Lieberman and endorsed by such scholars as Idel, Boyarin, and Schäfer, is that Metatron is derived from the Greek *μεταθρόνος or *μεταθρόνιος: that is, “he who is beside the throne” (Maius, Synopsis, 72; Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 136-42 (with comprehensive survey of early bibliography); Lieberman, “Metatron” (who, like Maius, connects metathronos to the term synthronos); Bar-Ilan, “God’s Throne,” 31; Schäfer, Manifest God, 29, n. 70; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 110-13).
However, this etymology is philologically implausible for the following reasons:
- 1. As is clear from the orthography in the bowls and most Talmudic manuscripts, Metatron was spelled as מיטטרון) Mitatron). The transliterarion of an ε (as in μεταθρόνος) to Hebrew and Aramaic is rarely /i/ (e Lieberman, “Metatron,” 296 n. 54).
- 2. Θ is usually transliterated as ת and not as ט. Indeed in Syriac θρόνος is written as ܬܪܘܢــܘܤ) tronos) (see Moore, “Intermediaries,” 68-69; Milik, Books of Enoch, 131).
- 3. Furthermore, unlike Syriac, the word θρόνος is not documented neither in Hebrew nor in Galilean or Babylonian Jewish Aramaic (Cf. Scholem, Kabbalah, 380; Scholem, Major Trends, 69).
- 4. Finally, the words μεταθρόνος or μεταθρόνιος are not once documented in the entire Greek corpus. And, as Scholem has noted: “it is extremely unlikely that Jews should have produced or invented such a Greek phrase” (Scholem, Major Trends, 69. Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 131). Scholem: “moreover, it involves the invention of a Greek compound substantive, μεταθρόνος which never existed and scarcely could exist.” It would be all the more improbable that Jews in Babylonia would have invented such a Greek compound. It is thus rather strange that Schäfer ( Jewish Jesus, 110-13), who argues for the Babylonian origins of Metatron, endorses this etymology.
The other main etymology suggested already by several medieval authors (See, e.g., Nahmanides on Exod 12:12. For R. Elazar of Worms, see Wolfson, “Metatron,” 77. See Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 127-28) & by quite a few modern scholars (most forcefully by George Moore and Józef Milik) (Moore, “Intermediaries,” 62-68 (with a bibliographical overview); Milik, Books of Enoch, 131-34. See also Urbach, Sages, 1:138-39; Hamidovič, “Identités multiples”; Alexander, “Son of Adam,” 107 n. 31; Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 163-64 n. 15. See also the survey in Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 127-31; Orlov, Enoch-Metatron, 94-95) is that Metatron is derived from the Latin mētator, probably via the Greek μιτάτωρ or μητάτωρ. This term was used mainly as a military term which denotes the person who measures out the camp and who goes ahead in front of the army preparing the route (see Auwers and Demoulin, “Metator”). This is, without doubt, the correct etymology, as we shall see presently. It has already been pointed out that the loanword metator appears several times in rabbinic literature where it designates some kind of divine guidance (Ben Yehiel and Kohut, Aruch completum, 6:118-19, see, e.g., Hamidovič, “Identités multiples”; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 111-13). So, for example, in the Sifre Deuteronomy, God’s finger is said to function as a metator (Sipre Deut. 338 (Finkelstein, 388), and in Genesis Rabbah God’s voice is said to have been like a metator on the water (Gen. Rab. 5:4; see Theodor-Albeck, 34). The term metator would thus fit well the context of Exod 23:20-21. Alexander has already suggested that the name Metatron “may first have been given to the angel of the Lord who led the Israelites through the wilderness: that angel acted like a Roman army metator, guiding the Israelites on their way” (Alexander, “Son of Adam,” 107; Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 243). Alexander also suggests that this might have also facilitated the connection to Enoch.
An important source which has not received enough attention, is the Tanḥuma, where God equates himself to a metator (Tanḥ., Ki-Tisa, 35). An almost exact parallel is found in the writings of Verecundus of Junca (midsixth century) (Verecundus de Junca, Commentarii, 29 (II:13). Auwers and Demoulin, “Metator,” 409). Both texts define God’s going ahead of the people, described in Exod 13:21, as the actions of a metator. These texts should also be compared to the following passage in Exod. Rab. 32 (which is also part of the Tanḥuma literature) (Moore, 64). The first part of the derasha in the Tanḥuma and Exodus Rabbah are very similar:
It seems clear that the later Exodus Rabbah replaces metator by שליח. In fact, the expression בדרך שליח) messenger on the route) is an exact parallel of the Latin metator itineris. In light of this, it would seem very likely that also the second appearance of שליח) messenger) in Exodus Rabbah which refers to Exod 23:20 might have originally been metator, similar to what is found in the Bavli. It is therefore most probable that a Palestinian midrash based on Exod 23:20-21, which stated that the angel sent before Israel was a metator, is the basis for R. Idit’s statement. Further conclusive evidence for the connection of the angel metioned in Exod 23:20-21 and metator could be gleaned from comparing the definition of metator in the Byzantine lexicon, Suda, with the Septuagint’s rendition of Exod 23:20:
The two texts are completely unrelated. Yet this almost identical formulation leaves little doubt as to the role of the angel. In fact the angel in Exod 23:20-21 is by definition a metator! In addition, as noted by Auwers and Demoulin as well as by Milik (Milik, Books of Enoch, 132; Auwers and Demoulin, “Metator”), the term metator was used by Christians to denote several forerunners. John the Baptist is described by Gregory of Elvira (fourth century) as metator primi auentus dominici (“the metator of the first arrival of the Lord”) (Gregory of Elvire, Tractatus Origenis, 14-15 (II:11). Auwers and Demoulin, “Metator,” 411) and by Petrus Chrysologus (first half of fifth century) as praecursor Christi, metator domini (“precursor of Christ, metator of the Lord”) (Petrus Chrysologus, Sermonum collectio, 3:782 (sermon 127); Auwers and Demoulin, “Metator,” 413. John the Baptist is referred to as a metator also in the Coptic “Investiture of the Archangel Gabriel”). Gabriel’s address to Zacharias: “For he will become great in the eyes of God and will be filled with the Holy Spirit, because he is the metator of the Lord (ⲙⲓ̈ⲧⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲙ̄ⲡ̄ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ), the king of kings, and he is the baptizer of the aeons of light.” The verse cited by Jesus seems to be based on both Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1. Especially illuminating in our context is the attribution of the title metator to Gabriel. So, for example, Milik has pointed to a Coptic text titled “Discourse on the Archangel Gabriel,” attributed to Celestinus, archbishop of Rome, which contains the following description (see Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 306). Similarly, in his sermon on the Annunciation, Petrus Chrysologus describes Gabriel as an angelus metator (Petrus Chrysologus, Sermonum collectio, 2:855).
Thus in light of the evidence brought above it is clear that the Angel of the Lord described in Exod 23:20-21 was understood as an angelus meteor.
Finally, there is corroboration for this etymology in the story itself. In his final response, R. Idit says that the Israelites did not even accept the angel as a parwanka. This is an Aramaic loanword from Parthian (cf. Middle Persian parwānag), which literally means “he who goes ahead”—that is, a guide, messenger, precursor (See Sokoloff, Dictionary, 929; MacKenzie, Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, 65). This term appears several times elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud in more mundane contexts (b. Sukkah 48b; b. Sanh. 82a (= b. Sanh. 96a; b. B. Meṣ. 83b); b. ʿAbod. Zar. 28a; b. Ned. 41a). Yet just as metator was used by Jews and Christians to describe divine forerunners, so too parwanka was used by Syriac Christians, Manichaeans, and especially Mandaeans as part of their heavenly administrative vocabulary, to designate certain angels and divine messengers (See, e.g., Ciancaglini, Iranian Loanwords, 238; Durkin-Meisterernst, Dictionary, 280; Drower and Macuch, Mandaic Dictionary, 363). Thus in the context of our story, it seems quite clear that parwanka is a synonym of metator (Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 177 n. 44; cf. Mopsic, Livre hébreu, 32; Schremer, “Parvanka,” 219-20 n. 46).
This angel obviously had nothing to do with Enoch (Pace, e.g., Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 110). Schäfer: “the identification of the biblical angel in Exodus 23 and 24 with the angel Metatron makes sense only against the backdrop of the Enoch turned-Metatron tradition in 3 Enoch.”
It is likely that it was in Babylonia that the ending “-on”—common in angelic names such as Adiriron and Sandalfon—was added to metator in order to convert it from a general title to the name of a specific angel (On the angelic ending “-on,” see Scholem, Major Trends, 69; Milik, Books of Enoch, 131). The addition of the ending might indicate that in Babylonia the term metator was no longer understood. See Moore, “Intermediaries,” 75: “In Babylonia especially, where Roman military terms were not familiar as they were in Palestine, it was naturally taken for a proper name instead of an appellative.” Another possibility is that the Babylonian rabbis did indeed understand the meaning of metator but regarded it as the distinct role of the Angel of the Lord and hypostasized it, thus converting it into a private name: “The Messenger.” In that case it is possible that Rav Idit himself had already used Metatron as a private name. Metatron as a name of an angel is therefore a Babylonian innovation and thus could not have previously been known in Palestine.
- Metatron in the Incantation Bowls
Both the Syriac and Mandaic texts display an intimate knowledge of the Metatron lore and attest to his popularity in Babylonia even outside of Jewish circles. Yet in none of the published bowls is there any indication whatsoever that Metatron was identified with Enoch or that he was considered an angelified human. Aware of this fact, Alexander (“3 [Hebrew] Enoch,” 228) notes: “The failure of the magicians to equate Enoch and Metatron does not prove that the equation had not already been made by the Merkabah mystics either in Babylonia or in Palestine.” However, as we shall see, accumulative evidence does indeed prove that the equation had not already been made by the merkabah mystics either in Babylonia or in Palestine.
Metatron in Hekhalot Literature
Even up to the ninth century, there is no Babylonian source that seems to be aware of the connection between Enoch and Metatron.
- Enoch in Babylonia
In fact, Enoch (regardless of Metatron) is never mentioned in the Bavli. Enoch is also completely absent from the published incantation bowls, as well as from the hekhalot literature (setting aside 3 Enoch). If Enoch were missing only from the Talmud one could have suggested that perhaps this silence is a result of a sustained rabbinic polemic against the angelification of Enoch. However, it is highly implausible that the authors of these corpora, which are derived from different (although at times overlapping) circles with varying agendas, all conspired to systematically suppress the figure of Enoch for six hundred years for polemical reasons, especially when some of the sources (incantation bowls, hekhalot) seem to have had no problem whatsoever exalting Metatron as almost a second deity.
# Metatron in Palestine
Metatron does not appear in any of the Palestinian Amoraic works. Metatron is mentioned in Lamentations Rabbah, Petichta 24 (Buber, Midrasch Echa Rabbati, 25).s Sefer Zerubbavel composed in the first half of the seventh century or, as Hillel Newman has suggested, around 570 (Himmelfarb, Jewish Messiahs, 13-34; Newman, “Dating Sefer Zerubavel”). In the section on the ten martyrs in Hekhalot Rabbati, the angel addressing R. Yishmael is הפנים שר סוריא (Suriya the Prince of the Countenance). However, in the (late) Midrash of the Ten Martyrs, the angel is presented as Metatron. Boustan (Martyr to Mystic) has assumed that Metatron was part of the original Byzantine composition. It seems more likely though that Metatron is a later addition, as it would be very strange to assume that Metatron, who is quite seldom attested in Palestine, would be replaced in Babylonia, where he is very well documented, with the rather obscure angel Suriya. Finally, Gideon Bohak has noted “the absence from the Greek magical texts of Metatron, so prominent in late antique Jewish mystical and magical texts.”121 This should not come as a surprise since, as we have seen, Metatron was probably not known to Jews in the west prior to the sixth or seventh century. The absence of Metatron from Greek magical texts as well as from JewishPalestinian amulets, unlike his appearance in Jewish-Babylonian, Syriac, and Mandaic magical texts, further supports Metatron’s Babylonian provenance
Date and Provenance of Enoch-Metatron
Yet the relatively late date of 3 Enoch does not necessarily mean that the identifcation of Enoch-Metatron is also late. It seems that many scholars, such as Idel, Orlov, Schäfer, and Boyarin would consider this theme to be much earlier than the actual composition of 3 Enoch.133 As to the provenance of 3 Enoch, most scholars place its redaction in Babylonia, based on the ubiquity of Metatron in Babylonia and the fact that the book utilizes the Bavli (See, e.g., Alexander, “3 (Hebrew) Enoch,” 228-29; Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 165-67. Cf. Schäfer and Herrmann, Übersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur, 1:liv-lv; Schäfer and Herrmann, liii: “darf der Abschluss des Talmud Bavli als sichere untere Datierungsgrenze gelten”).
Klaus Herrmann (“Jewish Mysticism”), on the other hand, has suggested that 3 Enoch consists of two redactions: the earlier one, which exalts Metatron, is Byzantine and is to be dated from the sixth to ninth centuries, while the final redaction, which, he argues, added sources diminishing Metatron’s status (especially the story of Aher and Metatron) took place in Babylonia between the seventh and ninth centuries. Herrmann’s main theological premise is extremely problematic. See, e.g., Herrmann, 108-10: “The ChristianByzantine cultural realm gives rise to the positive portrayal of the Metatron figure … whereas the Babylonian context gives rise to the sceptical assessment of Metatron in the Aher-episode with its open criticism of this binitarian theology.” This is a rather strange argument which seems to run against all the evidence we have concerning Metatron, as we actually have sources for the exaltation of Metatron only in Babylonia (bowls, hekhalot, polemic in the Bavli) and no such source is found early in Palestine where Metatron is equated with Michael. At the end of the article (p. 116) Herrmann opts for a pre-seventhcentury date, seemingly unaware that Metatron is not at all documented in Palestine at that period and that the earliest Palestinian sources do not display any knowledge of Enoch-Metatron. Furthermore, his description (following Schäfer) of the social and religious climate of the Jews of the Sasanian Empire (p. 108) is no longer accepted by scholars. See now Gross, Empire and Neighbors. Although the historical, literary, and theological arguments put forth by Herrmann in favor of an early Byzantine redaction and its date cannot be maintained, yet, as we shall presently see, the Byzantine provenance should indeed be considered, albeit for completely different reasons.
Leave a Reply