In recent decades there has been an increased scholarly interest in rabbinic and Hekhalot testimonies pertaining to the so-called two powers in heaven controversy. On the two powers in heaven controversy see:
D. Boyarin, “Two Powers in Heaven; or, the Making of a Heresy,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, eds. H. Najman and J. H. Newman, JSJSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 331–70; idem, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religions (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); idem, “Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 41 (2010): 323–65; N. Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate. Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity, BSJS 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); A. Goshen-Gottstein, “Jewish- Christian Relations and Rabbinic Literature—Shifting Scholarly and Relational Paradigms: The Case of Two Powers,” in Interaction Between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art, and Literature, eds. M. Poorthuis, J. Schwartz, and J. Turner (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 15–44; P. Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, SJLA 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1977).
Ocular and Aural Paradigms of the Divine Presence
In the Hebrew Bible the deity often appears in an anthropomorphic shape. Such anthropomorphic symbolism comes to its most forceful expression in the Israelite priestly ideology, known to us as the Priestly source, wherein God is depicted in “the most tangible corporeal similitudes” (M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 191). Elliot Wolfson remarks that “a critical factor in determining the biblical (and, by extension, subsequent Jewish) attitude toward the visualization of God concerns the question of the morphological resemblance between the human body and the divine” (E. R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 20). Indeed, in the biblical priestly traditions the deity is understood to have created humanity in his own image (Gen 1:27) and is therefore frequently described as possessing a humanlike form.
Scholars observe that the priestly understanding of the corporeal representation of the deity finds its clearest expression in the conception of the “Glory of God” (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 200–01). This conception is always expressed in the Priestly tradition in the symbolism grounded in mythological corporeal imagery. The visible manifestation of the deity establishes a peculiar “visual” or “ocularcentric” theophanic mode that becomes influential in some biblical and apocalyptic depictions of God. One paradigmatic account of the portrayal of the divine Kavod is found in the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel, where the Kavod is portrayed as enthroned in human form enveloped by fire. The Kavod thus becomes an emblematic symbol of the theophanic ideology that postulates visual apprehension of the divine presence. While containing forceful anthropomorphic ideologies, the Hebrew Bible also attests to polemical narratives contesting the corporeal depictions of the deity and offers a different conception of the divine presence.
Scholars have long noted a sharp opposition of the book of Deuteronomy and the so-called Deuteronomic school to early anthropomorphic developments. Ian Wilson discerns that scholars usually trace the introduction of such an ideology to particular historical events such as “the centralization of the cult, the loss of the ark from the northern kingdom, or the destruction of the temple” (I. Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy, SBLDS 151 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 6–7). The Deuteronomic school is widely thought to have initiated the polemic against the ocularcentric anthropomorphic conceptions of the deity, which were subsequently adopted by the prophets Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 198). Seeking to dislodge ancient anthropomorphism, the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic school promulgated an anticorporeal aural ideology of the divine Name with its conception of the earthly sanctuary as the exclusive dwelling abode of God’s Name. For the reconstruction of the ideology of the divine Name in Deuteronomy and other biblical materials see: S. Richter, The Deuteronomic History and the Name Theology: lesakken semo sam in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, BZAW 318 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 26–39. Tryggve Mettinger observes that, in the Shem theology, “God himself is no longer present in the Temple, but only in heaven. However, he is represented in the Temple by his Name.…” (T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth. Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Wallin & Dalholm, 1982), 124. See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 193).
In the Deuteronomic ideology, apparitions of the deity are often depicted through nonvisual, aural symbolism of the divine Voice. Tryggve Mettinger asserts that “by way of contrast, the Deuteronomic theology is programmatically abstract: during the Sinai theophany, Israel perceived no form (temuna); she only heard the voice of her God (Deut 4:12, 15). The Deuteronomistic preoccupation with God’s voice and words represents an auditive, non-visual theme (Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 46). It appears that this polemical stand between aural and ocular modes of apprehension and expression of the divine presence continued to exercise its influence in later rabbinic and Hekhalot accounts, including materials connected with the two powers in heaven controversy, wherein one can detect a peculiar tension between the visual and audial renderings of the “second power” and God.
Aher’s Vision of Metatron
One of the crucial testimonies pertaining to the two powers in heaven controversy is a passage found in the treatise Hagigah of the Babylonian Talmud, in which a rabbinic seer, Elisha ben Abuya or Aher, became misled by the appearance of the great angel Metatron. B. Hag. 15a. On various manuscript versions of b. Hag. 15a, see: P. Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” JSJ 18 (1987): 40–68; C. R. A. Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition: Alexander’s Three Test Cases,” JSJ 22 (1991): 1–39.
Numerous interpretations of this enigmatic passage have been previously offered. But what has been often neglected in these scholarly probes is the striking contrast in theophanic portrayals of the first power and the second power. It appears that in the aforementioned textual unit, appearances of Metatron and God are clearly depicted through two different sets of theophanic details belonging respectfully to the ocular and aural paradigms of the divine presence. Thus, Metatron is depicted with the distinctive features of the emblematic symbol of the ocularcentric trend— the Ezekielian Chariot, while the “true” deity is portrayed through the peculiar aural symbolism, namely, through the conception of the heavenly Voice. First, we should draw our attention to the features of Metatron’s epiphany. The “divine” attribute that clearly puzzles Aher in the Hagigah’s passage is the angel’s sitting, a motif that invokes here the memory of the divine Seat—a pivotal feature of the Ezekielean Chariot. Reflecting on Aher’s encounter with Metatron, Daniel Boyarin argues “that it was the combination of sitting, suggesting the enthronement … which leads to the idea of Two Sovereignties” (Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms). 350. In the same vein, Daniel Abrams earlier noted that “the heavenly enthronement or ‘sitting’ of Metatron, which was apparently a sign to Elisha that Metatron was himself divine, supports this understanding of Elisha’s heresy” (D. Abrams, “The Boundaries of Divine Ontology,” HTR 87 (1994): 294).
Yet, curiously, the vision of Metatron’s sitting in heaven is not corrected by the alternative vision of the “true” Chariot, but instead by an apparition of the divine Voice, which is understood in our passage as the true manifestation of God. On heavenly Voice conceptions in rabbinic and Hekhalot materials, see: D. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 71, 75, 108–31, 168–69; idem, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision, TSAJ 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 14, 34–35, 202–04, 257, 375; Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 191, 194; J. R. Davila, Hekhalot Literature in Translation: Major Texts of Merkavah Mysticism, SJJTP 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 116, 144, 203, 205, 229, 240, 399.
- Scholars also often detect the anthropomorphic overtones of the ocularcentric paradigm in Aher’s statement, according to which “on high there is no sitting and no emulation, and no back, and no weariness.” Thus, reflecting on this tradition, Alan Segal notes that “the rabbis are determined to refute the whole idea of heavenly enthronement by stating that such things as ‘sitting’ and other anthropomorphic activities are unthinkable in heaven.”17 Philip Alexander also points to the anthropomorphic ocularcentric dimension of Aher’s utterance, stating that the list suggests that “God and the angels are without body parts or passions” (Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 60). Furthermore, some scholars also point to possible theophanic connotations in Elisha’s statement by arguing that each element of Aher’s list appears to refer to a verse that describes theophanic attributes of the deity. Thus, Daniel Boyarin suggests that “each of the elements in the list refers to a verse: thus, for standing, we find Num 12:5, where the verse reads: ‘And YHWH came down on a column of cloud and stood in front of the Tent.’ … The crux, ‘back,’ is now neatly solved as well. Referring to the back of God that Moses allegedly saw (Exod 33:23), the text denies the literal existence of that as well” (Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 347).
- Another Hekhalot version of Aher’s episode found in 3 Enoch 16:1–5 (Synopse §20), now uttered from Metatron’s mouth, still fashions the same contrast between the corporeal characteristics of the great angel and the auricular depiction of the deity (P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985), 1.223–315 (268); Schäfer et al., Synopse, 10–11). In comparison with the testimonies about Aher’s apostasy found in b. Hag. 15a and Merkavah Rabbah (Synopse §672), 3 Enoch’s account of Metatron’s demotion becomes embellished with additional theophanic symbolism. Unlike in b. Hag. 15a and Synopse §672, where Metatron’s sitting position is explained through his role as the celestial scribe, whose function is to write down the merits of Israel (b. Hag. 15a), here the great angel is portrayed as the enthroned celestial ruler and arbiter, commissioned to judge “all the denizens of the heights on the authority of the Holy One.” The passage provides further details about Metatron’s celestial court and its entourage in the form of “the princes of kingdoms,” specifically mentioning that “he sat in the heavenly court.” In 3 Enoch, therefore, Aher encounters not merely a scribe who has a seat, but the enthroned vice-regent, surrounded with the stunning retinue of the crowned princes (Alexander, “3 Enoch and Talmud,” 65; Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition,” 30).
Similar to the enhancement of the second power’s theophanic profile, the aural and aniconic features of the first power, represented by God, also are boosted. Thus, in 3 Enoch the “true deity” becomes even more aniconic and bodiless than in b. Hag. 15a and Synopse §672, wherein it appears that God himself punishes Metatron with sixty fiery lashes. In 3 Enoch, however, this role is now openly assigned to another angelic power in the form of Anafiel YHWH. One can see that, in comparison with b. Hag. 15a and Merkavah Rabbah, in Sefer Hekhalot the contrast between the visual, corporeal stand of the second power and the aural, aniconic profile of the first power reaches its ultimate form. While scholars often argue that the scene of Metatron’s demotion in 3 Enoch represents a later interpolation of an “orthodox editor” (H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973), 86; Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 1.268; A. Kuyt, The “Descent” to the Chariot. Towards a Description of the Terminology, Place, Function and Nature of the Yeridah in Hekhalot Literature, TSAJ 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 338; J. 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. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, eds. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis, JSJSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 16–17; P. Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 130–31). the methodological framework articulated in this study provides new evidence that Metatron’s demotion was not a “reactive” development, but rather an “initiating” endeavor, which in its turn provoked the facilitation of Metatron’s exaltation.
The Story of the Four Rabbis Who Entered Pardes
For the purposes of our study it will be instructive to draw our attention to another cluster of rabbinic and Hekhalot materials that is closely associated with the two powers in heaven controversy, namely, the story about the four rabbis who entered Pardes, since these accounts often constitute the immediate context of Aher’s vision of Metatron. Some scholars argue that the earliest specimen of this story about the four rabbis is attested in Tosefta. T. Hag. 2.3–4 unveils the following tradition (J. Neusner, The Tosefta. Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction, 2 vols. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 1.669). This story again appears to exhibit a polemic against ocularcentric ideology, a tendency that again has consistently escaped the attention of almost all modern exegetes of this passage.
