pring 591 2/1 ple XLIL, Nout Half Yearly Spring 1991 JOURNAL of JEWISH STUDIES i BM 1 .J62 nal of Jewish studies. ; 42st Received on: Q6-12-91 ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY ~ UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PUBLISHED BY ‘THE OXFORD CENTRE FOR POSTGRADUATE HEBREW STUDIES ISSN 0022 2097 [Pee acer acct,OXFORD CENTRE FOR POSTGRADUATE HEBREW STUDIES Board of Governors Sir L Benin, E Cox, Si Z. COWES, Sir R. DAMRENDORS, Se Fuses, W. Frank, C. GRAYSON, F. Guzen, C, Hurwara, Doe Beton (Vice-Chairman), G. Kosaersk, A: Lev, Sir C Moser: Dra A parteason, GR. PINTO, F. POSES, D. A. ROE, SieM, SHOCK G Fee exo, G. Venues, the Rt Hon, Lord Justice Woot, ‘Hon Lord YOUNG of Graffbam (Chairman) President Dav PATTERSON Editor ofthe Journal of Jewish Studies (Geza Vows “the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies is designed 10 foster Hosea and Jewish studies from the biblical period to the present tine Tt Hebrew dncpuraging individual and collective research projects. The Cente amet ihe academic aegis of the University of Oxford but is financially Independent and administered by its own Board of Governors epee, with the Kressel Archive and supporting library, is situated at “Yarnton Manor, a seventeenth-century house five miles from Oxford, where earner ar Visiting Scholars are accommodated. There is also an offoe 2 ree ng rooms in central Oxford, close tothe Oriental fatitute of the Hae ety ned tothe Bodleian Library. The Centre publishes the Journal of evish Studies. Son ncademics and post-doctoral students who wish to become Visititg Sceaney tthe Centre ether for an academic year or for two months inthe Scholars ae requested to submit ther fully documented applications by 15 March prior to the intended date of arrival Enquiries regarding the Centre should be sent to: ‘The Administrative Secretary Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies 45 St Giles’ Oxford OX1 3LP ‘Correspondence for the Journal should be addressed to: ‘The Editor Journal of Jewish Studies Oriental Institute Pusey Lane Oxford OX1 2LE (© Osfod Centr for Poseraduate Hebrew Stes "15S Ger, Oxford OX1 2LP ypeet in Pines et Oxford University Computing Serie Journal of Jewish Studies Edited by Geza Vermes peter Hayman, Monothcism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies? re Genenrte, Tsael and the Nations Roundabout: | Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion essere Same, Berncen Scripture and its Rewording: Towards 2 Class eation of Rabbinic Exegesis sso geenee The “Elchasat’ Sanhedrin of the Cologne Mani Code i eh of Second Tempe Jewish Sectarian Sourees cane paptra,Poitial Messanism in Bube's Conception of Redemption ‘Aira irshman, The Preacher and his Public in Thid-Century Palestine aaeceee senyer, Heterodoxy and Censorship: Some Catical Remarks on SWrenhimers Edition of Midrash Aleph Beth REVIEWS tan F, Seant, Rebecea’s Children: Judas and Chron im the Reman iWortd (Martin Goodman) eects Nc Warsace, The Eden Narrative (Jeremy Hughes) Bowe Ronan, Biblical Hebrew in Transition —The Language ofthe Book of el (E. Qimr0n) Be Graax, Judaism in Ansgut Potial Development and Religious Se sjrom siexander to Hadrian (3.G. Cammpbs) Se Tauwon, The World of Qumran from Wahi: Collected tales (Gera Vermes) at Coston and J.Gaer (ds). Masa He The Yigal Yan Exeaneone oe cetes Final Reports: The Latin and Greek Documents (Martin Goodman) aes oMaGLIANO. Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Heleizaion (Martin ‘Goodman eines leninoez Mancos and Jose Rawon usto Saiz, EI Teste ATO eno la Bila Grega 1-2 Samuel (Sebastian Brock) cise fonano RopRiGteZ, Glosas Marginaes de Vetus Larna en las Bibles Walenta Espariolas: 1-2 Samuel (Sebastian Brock) eee nion College Annl, els. $9. 60 (Sebastian Brock) Feo Sis, Mamonides: A Collection of Cra Essass (Daniel Frank) Published by Half Yearly SPRING 1991 1 6 » “8 2 tos us 13 126 Ww 19 130 130 31 2 1 by THE OXFORD CENTRE FOR POSTGRADUATE HEBREW STUDIES 10 7 * jon7 SE]Gulsuah Evvatak Fruisst, Alas of Madern Jewish History (Noah Lucas) “Avi Situane The Polittes of Parton (Noah Lucas) Benn Monnis, 1948 and After Israel and the Palestinians (Nowh Lucas) Ronporei Ly BRAHAas (es), Reflections of the Holocaust m Art and Literature {Glenda Abramson) se Ntncte, Bowshed From Their Father’ Table: Loss of Faith and Hebrew “Autobiography (Glenda Abramson) BiatiocraPHicat SURVEY HW. Artainos etal. (eds), Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew ‘ible ntertcstamental Tudalsm, and Christan Origins (Geza Vermes) He Suteck and G. StewBERGER, Introduction tothe Talmud and Midrash (Geza Vermes) Susqu SuuNant, Bibliography of Jewish Bibliographies (Sarah Kochav) Sino Brsuax, 4 History and Guide 10 Judaic Bibliography ( ‘Kochay) union Buuswas, A History and Guide ro Judaic Encyclopedias and Lesicons {Sarah Kochav) [Aueunma } Eosturrr and Hexscit Eoaustsrr, The Jewish World in Modern “Ronen A Selected. Annotated Bibliography (Sarah Kochav) ‘soser Sanatt ConEN (ed), Antisemitiom: An Annotated Bibliography Kochi) Jays D. Purvis, Jerusalem, che Holy Cty (Sarah Kochav) “dex of Arices on Jenish Studies (RAM BD) (Sarah Kochav) Gana Diner and Yost GOEL (64s) Studies in Zionism: Journal of Irae! ‘Sraies (Yearly Bibliography) (Sarah Kochas) Books RECEVED ah Sarah ee: 133 Be iM 136 138 138 19 9 be. 139 139 40 140 40 sah Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies? * PereR HAYMAN ‘NEW COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH. Jrytgasome wor of cn thirty years ago it was conventional to nia that the story of Judaism was one of a gradual, but inexorable. Grolution from a Canganite/[sraclite pagan and mythological envionment fate the pure light of an unsullied monotheism, The point at which this treakthrough to monotheism was achieved was a subject of debate, but preaktMipolars seem to have been agreed that it certainly took place. Moreover, Judaism in the post-exilic era was thought to have carried the cues to such an extreme that excesive stress on the transcendental mature Pred led Jews increasingly to perceive him as inaccessible to them, Quracite religion, and its successor, Judaism, was supposed to have made a reraeihe break with its pagan environment and so to have produced a wholly sinigue religion, [ quote as an illustration of this position one of the beter Ta SF ihis eras TC. Vriezen's Religion of Ancient Israel, published originally in 1963 and translated into English in 1967; ‘God in his onenss, his uniqueness s0 completely other! in character in is eee yf berg the-God-oFlsral, bis allcontroliing, al-governing eelation ‘aot this nation his moral and supernal qualities, his faculties standing over aa ane tae creation, his absolute power and holines, that forthe faithful a ee eothing in the world offers to compare with him. That is why one is Pees te say shat monotheism in Israelis qualitatively and essentially ‘inething diferent in kind {rom monarchism, and even from the pantheizng, mmonarchism ofthe ancient East.* In the last twenty years or so there has been a radical change in the climate of Old Testament studies as scholars have come to realise that lms about the originality of ancient Israelite religion are virtually {mpossible to substantiate and relatively easy to demolish. Contrast Vriezen wun this from Niels Peter Lemche's Ancient Israel, published in 1988: [All we can be sute of i thatthe Israelite conception of Yahweh during the ‘iad othe monary didnot contin features which distinguish his worship From other types of religion in western Asia? + presidennial addres tothe British Association for Jewish Studies, Edinburgh, 24 August 1990 * Author'stlics 2 The Religion af Anion irae! London, 1967)» 3. 2 Ancona Sheil 1988p. 2562 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES Despite the changed climate in Old Testament studies of which Lemehe's book is but one symptom, there still remains, however, a consensus that Judaism after the Exile represents a startling new development in the history bf religion, and that itis the Jewish monotheistic conception of God that ‘makes this religion stand out from all others. It will be my contention inthis paper that it is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism 10 Gescribe the Jewish idea of God. that no progress beyond the simple formulas of the Book of Deuteronomy can be discerned in Judaism before the philosophers of the Middle Ages, and that Judaism never escapes from the legacy of the battles for supremacy between Yahweh, Batal and El from which itemerged, T do not intend to proceed here by setting up a model definition of monotheism and then assessing the Jewish tradition against this yardstick That would be too easy. Maimonides and the other Jewish philosophers ‘knew a long time ago that Judaism would not match up to such a test; hence their massive effort to allegorize the tradition, just as the Greek philoso- pers before them had to allegorize Homer. What I propose to do instead is to try and observe the pattern of Jewish beliefs about God from the Exile to the Middle Ages to assess whether or not itis truly monistic. The results of my observations will lead me to the conclusion that most varieties of Judaism are marked by 2 dualistic pattern in which two divine entities are presupposed: one the supreme creator God, the other his vizier or prime ‘minister, or some other spiritual agency, who really ‘runs the show’. oF at least provides the point of contact between God and humanity. And even when, as in rabbinic Judaism. there clearly is one dominant divine figure, 1 doubt whether the picture of God presented to us is really unitary at all ‘This reassessment of the supposed monotheistic nature of Judaism springs, in the first instance, from my work on Sefer Yesira. Two aspects of this text are relevant here. Firstly, in a work which grew into its present shape between the third and cighth centuries C.E. and which purports to tel us how God ereated the world, there is no sign of the doctrine of creatio ex rihilo* The earliest manuscript of Sefer Yesira has in §20 the following statement about how God created the world He formed substance from chios and made it with fire and it exists, and he hhewed out great eolumas rom intangible ait ‘This statement is entirely congruous with what we find in Bereshit Rabba: RR Huna suid in the name of Bur Qappara: IF it were not written explicily in Senplure it would not be possible to siy i: God vreute the heaven and the fart, From what? From the earth vas chaos (FR), et” + See my ‘The ustsine of Creation in Sefer Yep: Some Text-Crtcal Probleme fowomang a ths Prcseing oe Conre othe Earopeun isvaton for Jewth Sade, Trosen 190 MONOTHFISM—A MISUSED WORD IN JEWISH STUDIES? 3 ‘The position represented here by Sefer Yesira and Rab Huna represents no advance whatsoever on Genesis chapter one. God ereates order out of a pre-existing chaos; he does not create from nothing, Nearly all recent studies bn the origin of the doctrine of ereatio ex mihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible. and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the ‘course ofits fierce battle with Gnosticism.’ The one scholar who continues to maintain that the doctrine is native to Judaism, namely Jonathan Goldstein, thinks that it first appears at the end of the first century C.E., but has recently conceded the weakness of his position in the course of debate with David Winston.® My view is that David Winston is correct to argue that the doctrine of ereatio ex nihilo came into Judaism from Christianity and Islam at the beginning of the Middle Ages and that even then it never feally succeeded in establishing itself as the accepted Jewish doctrine on Greation. Aristotelian views on the eternity of the world were perfectly Acceptable in Judaism. as also were nco-platonist views on its emanation out ff the One, because creatio ex nihila could not be demonstrated from the Scriptures, Maimonides (Guide, 11.26) concedes that rabbinic texts teach creation out of primordial matter and most commentators. siarting with Samuel Ibn Tibbon, the frst translator of his work into Hebrew. believe that Maimonides himself privately thought that the world was eternal.” If then. before and even through the Middle Ages, Jews believed that God did not create the world out of nothing. where did the material for it come from? Clearly from the toh and hohu of Genesis 1:2. But where did these come from? Either they were co-ternal with God, and hence compromised his unique status, or they came out of him. The Kabbalists were not aftaid of drawing the latier conclusion, as we can see from the earliest text ofthe Kabbalah, the book Bahir There isin God a principle that is elled “Evi and ities in the north of God or the rof is in the north. and tow means precisely the evl that confuses ‘en unt they sin. and iti the source oF all man's ew impulses * But where does this leave Judaism’s supposed monotheism? fs a doctrine ‘of monotheism conceivable without a doctrine of creatio ex nila? Perhaps 5 See H. F, Weis, Unerschangen zur Kosmologie de hellemstuchen und pisinchen ademas (Besin, 106. Dawnd Winston, ‘The Boak of Wisdom's They of Cosmogony Isr of Religions 1 1970). pp. 185-202: Geoes Schrtermayr “Shopng aus dem Ncms in 2 Math 728" B2 17 979 pp 205-28; Gerand May Sepang ons sm Nich (Bet. iaaeh he Origins of the Doctrine of Creation fx Nihil’, 8 38 (8. pp_ 137-38, and Cceauon Pe Nino, Recatations and Resttemente US 38 (1987), pp. 8-98, Winston {els hime past Goldstein i reply pubis i 5 37 (1986).5p SK ‘Sx Colete Sra, Histor of Jonah Philosophy inthe Mudie ges (Cambridge, 198, p88, 200 Fralation site from C. G, Schotem, On the Kabat ads Simbstim (London 1s p98 Sev a is Da Bark Bahr (Lepie 1923) pp 1164 JOURNAL OF sEWISHE STUDIES this is what has led scholars in the teeth of the evidence to suggest that Creatio ex nililo is at least presupposed in the Hebrew Bible, even if itis rowhere explicit. And if this doctrine is so weakly rooted in Judaism, even as late as the Middle Ages, then we ean only conclude that Judaism never tscaped from the Canaanite mythological background which all scholars ‘now see behind biblical teaching on creation. The potentially evil rofu and ohw has always been there, limiting God's power and frustrating his purposes. However often he defeats it, it always comes back because lltimately itis as primordial as he is himself, perhaps, as the mystics thought, even a part of himself. When contemporary Jewish theologians attempt to confront the problem of the Holocaust by re-assessing God's ‘omnipotence, they are not innovating.” If my colleague John Gibson is correct, that is precisely the move made by the author of Job in the second speech from the whirlwind."° But it does remove one of the most generally accepted components of monotheism. Tn one other respect my studies on Sefer Yesira have led me to question ‘generally accepted definitions of Jewish monotheism, and this is an issue \hich I raised in my last paper to the society at its conference in Oxford in 1988." In that paper { argued that scholars have been wrong when they have stated that the experience of mystical unity with God is missing in Judaism because itis incompatible with Jewish definitions of monotheis In order to write his text at all, the author of Sefer Yesira had to identify himself with God, because he claimed to know what God knows without ‘making any reference to an experience of revelation. To quote that paper: What SY, and later on the Kabbala, offers Jews isthe opportunity "to think God's thoughts after him’. and hence in a real sense to experience imgins tively what itis ike to be God. "? Moshe Idel in his Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven, 1988) goes xen further than that in order to correct what he sees as the misleading impression given to the world of scholarship by Schotem’s domination of the subject. He argues that the unio mystica can be found in Judaism even in its most evieme forms and he quotes an impressive array of texts to support his argument." Many of these presuppose that humans can become divine and dispose of the powers of God. This theme of self-identiication with God, once we start to explore it * Seeeg Arthur A. Co (sew Yor 81 Ti On Ein he Bok oJ SCRIBE TO THE LORD: Bical nd Osher Star Menorvof Petr Cras Sie. 19), pp 399-219. "Wa Ga Magcan? Sefer Voss sd Jewish Nig’ J/S-40 (1989), p23 "S WasGad a Mapsn? 1 See chiter of Kabhalse New Perypecies, entitles “Unio Mystice in Jewish Mest pp 523, 0. Ti Tremendion: A Theological Iterpretaion of the MONOTHEISM—A MISUSED WORD IN JEWISH STUDIES? 5 leads us virtually everywhere in Judaism, from the style of biblical prose!* to the claims of Jewish magicians,"?, but above all to the claims of the Hekhalot literature that a man, Enoch, ascended to heaven and was metamorphosed into Metatron, the “litle Yahweh." The theme of the apotheosis of the wise man, the mystic, binds the Jewish mystical trend together with Jewish Apocalyptic of the post-enilic era, for the most ‘widespread version of belie in the Afterlife in the post-Maccabean period assumed that the faithful would join the heavenly assembly and become like the ‘angels’ the ‘sons of God’, the stars.*” The Dead Sea Serolls seem to assume that this is a goal attainable in this life as does the present tense phrasing of Luke 20:36: those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead nether marry not aze given in marriage. or they cannot die any more, because they are equal tothe angels and are sons of God. being sons of the resurrection, ‘The theme of “becoming like one of us’ reveals itself as the lurking sub-text of Judaism from Adam to Nachman of Bratslav. But how does this ‘material square with the supposed transcendental monotheism of Judaism from the postexilic period on? Not ata. as far as I can see! “Those, then, are the two areas in which my work on Sefer Yesira has led ime to question generally accepted definitions of Jewish monotheism. Let us now expand the scope of this enquiry to cover the fields of Jewish angelology and Jewish magic. These are two areas where the steadily increasing weight of evidence makes very clear the continuity of Jewish religious belief and practice from its ancient Canaanite sources. Who were the angels and the archangels, the Cherubim and the Seraphim, Satan. Azazel and Mastema? The Hebrew Bible is quite clear on the fact that these figures belong to the class of divine beings B"T>x 1a / O*N73, members of ‘host of heaven’ ("327 R33). Yahweh belongs to this class of beings. but is distinguished from them by his kingship over the heavenly host. However. hie is not different from them in kind, This reflects the probable origin of Yahweh as one member of the heavenly host, namely the national god of the Israelite people. who became king of the gods when he was identified with El Elyon, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, This identification of Yahweh with El (artbxn an mm) is the essential theme of the Hebrew Bible. But Yahweh in Old Testament times had many rivals who are explicitly named in ways which make quite clear that these other gods were + See R. Ale. The Ar of Beal Narariv ISBN. p.157 1 See Was Goa Magican”,p.235, "For references se Was God Magician”. p 235, © Sete Dan 123 Wa Sol 55:1 Enoch 1082 1m Stee g 1QH 3 19-23 lsh 422-6, 108 1 7-icfJuiees 318,6 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES belived fo exist.” He alo, at feast in popular ble had 2 female ‘One key text, Deuteronomy 32:8f., lays bare the structure of ‘these Isracive beliefs, and also in the history ofits text shows us the development from Yahweh to Elohim taking place. The original text here, as in the LXX sand supported by the DSS," probably read Wren the Most High ae othe nations heir inberitace, when he separated tga cunt tera or S200, israel hisaloted Reitage Ms porton was hs peone ‘The MT has removed the ceference here to the gods or the angels and fubtuted the sons of fara." while m verse 9 it identifies Yahweh with Elyon by reading mm pon "> whereas the LXX presupposes a Hebrew text tsi had si pon am. As Lemehe puts it "the Hebrew text ienties the “Most High” (Elon) with Yahweh, while the Greck version apparently cage Yah among the so ofthe Mos gh tha eas fi ‘member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate tothe supreme Gos reer ofthe fe dinate to the supreme God, In postexiic and later Jewish sources, of cours, there i no awareness that El Ejon:* was ever anything other than Yahweh himself, but the patter of belief revealed in thi text persisted So we find throughout Thais the idea, self probably of Canaanite ongin’® but with similar seas in isk vegan tat God tained he ea each ote ‘Seventy nation ofthe earth t0 ope of is angels, members of the heaven STANT acutsgc of wh ce amet iia were nas ot ost ny the alton. The following comment on the Shema in Deut R. is most trstuctve ransat from Onford Ms, 147, cited by Saul Lieberman Hear, O Israel (DX. 6:4). This tofers to Lam. 3:24--the portion of the Lord, Says my soul". What isthe portion ofthe Lord"? When the Holy One. Blessed te He, shared out his world to the nations of the world. as it says. Whe the Mos High gave to the nations ther inheritance (DL. 3:81 and they each chose © Seve. dies 1:24(Chemos er 4615 Apis er 13cm Lenche-op stp 36 . 2 Sop tn BS Seal be 2) lig he number ofthe nations (Genes 1) with che uber of 40 st aes « wid the numberof acs sa) 2 Ge rp 2, * The tile Elon is wed in Deuteronomy only inch. 328, The non-Jewish ’ ny ony inch, 328. The non-Jewish origin of re ee hi ha ey nth Ptah ton ee “SESE hen oh enya Akg the Bal Ant C1 in. See Mato Heng Juda and Helo (London 1978), Lp. 187 «HM Bees ihe rwsten ODL MONOTHEISM—A MISUSED WORD IN JEWISH STUDIES? 7 their own god. one chose for itself Michael, one chose Gabriel, yet another cethe san and the moon, But Israc} chose For sel the Holy One, Blessed ettecas tsa, Por the Lurd's portion sis people, (Dt. 3238) ‘That the rabbis were well aware of the danger for Jewish belief in this ‘Khatification of Michael, Gabriel ete. with the pagan gods is clear from the following midrash, also from Deut. R.:7” ‘When the Holy One. Blessed be He, descended to Mount Sinai says R: Ammi Mae if, there descended with him 22.000 of the ministering angels it eye poe coe STaT EATON. 27 (PS. AAS), What f UE? The, most Bee eTand praneworthy amongst them, samely, Michael and his group and Peet and fis group. And Israel looked at them and saw that they were fraeworthy und beautiful and they were struck dumb. And when the Holy PraeNlesed be He saw them he said to them, ‘Do not zo astray ater one of ase angas wh came down wth me: they ae all my servants. [am the Lord, your God, “That this was no theoretical danger can be seen. not only from Jewish magical texts where Michael and Gabriel etc. loom large, but also. by rateences in non-Jewish texts to Jewish worship of the angels.?? The rabbis fad to mount tremendous propaganda battle in the midrashim to Howngrade the angels and stress Israe’s superiority to them. Hence the theme. 30 comprehensively studied by Peter Schafer. and so widespread in the midrash, of the rivalry between the angels and human beings, As Schafer Concludes, Israel and humanity are exalted in order to keep the angels in their place." Here also is the context for that phrase so often repeated in tha euuvash: ‘not by means of an angel and not by means of a messenger’? Perho difference between the range and scope of rabbinic polemic against the angels and prophetic polemic in the Old Testament against the worship UFcner pods. The rabbis even had to ban the making of images of angels old other heavenly ereatures, as well as the practice of sacrificing to angels. The archangel Michael is expressly mentioned in the latter connection ** ‘One way of combating the danger of Jews worshipping angels was the development of the idea that angels are ephemeral creatures. A widely cited nidrash on Lamentations 3:23 (they are new every morning’) has the JTnaslc chorus created and destroyed every day. But somehoxe Michael and Gabriel could not be demoted in this fashion. As Gen, R_ 78:1 puts it “all of the other angels change every day, but they do nor’. Spinoza, that acute + tagbeman, p48 CFP. Schafer, Reo swichen Engels nd Menschen (Bein, 1979 pra Ee the Kerogma Pero (Neier woah him inthe aes ofthe fms: or they Fae eee shone know God, do not endestand, worshipig anaes the months a ee eames trans, Re Mck. Win). New Testament -porsp (London T9ssjaoh Ip. 10) Seeaso Colosins 215 See Rule ps1 28 $5 ures it fhe text ee Sete, Rita p48 2 Forthetene sce Schafer. Rl, pp8 JOURNAL OF EWSH STUDIES biblical scholar, spotted this problem a long time ago when he remarked: "we must remain in doubt whether Moses thought that these beings who acted as God's viceregents were created by Him, for he has stated nothing, So Tar as we know, about their creation and origin’. We will come back shortly to the primordial nature of Michael and Gabriel ‘None of this rabbinic polemic would have been necessary if lots of Jews had not continued the old Israelite pagan practices and simply substituted the angels for the Canaanite gods. The names and functions of many of these angels relate them to natural phenomena? and are exactly equivalent to the minor nature divinities of the Greek pantheon and the nature spirits ubiquitous in ali human societies. In some cases, we can sce the old ‘Canaanite gods stil there in rabbinic Judaism, even retaining their old cites. Prince Yam, for example, lives on in the Babylonian Talmud and in some of the midrashim, and his opposition to Israelis located precisely where we should expect it: at the Sea of Reeds, or, as my colleague Nicholas Wyatt prefers to translate Ape O°, “the sea of extinction’ >° The mythological ‘overtones of the crossing ofthe Myo &* are thus preserved in rabbinic Judaism are numerous other remnants of older Canaanite beliefs. Indeed, Irving Jacobs has argued that rabbinic Judaism has preserved intact the full version of the battle with the chaos monster which in the Old Testament has been broken into dislocated poetic fragments.” There are rich, as yet unexplored, pickings in rabbinic midrash for scholars interested in the Canaanite background to Israelite religion. This is one area where our specialization into Ugaritic scholars. Old Testament scholars, and Judaists, really ets us down. To appreciate the continuity one needs to be all three. Let us look now at just one example of how Jewish angolology reveals a pattern of religion that is anything But monotheistic, In the account of the Exodus and the Crossing of the Red Sea in the Book of Jubilees chapter 48, there are three divine actors. At the beginning, the person who attacked “Moses on his way into Egypt and forced Zipporah to circumcize their son is idemiified as Prince Mastema, not the Lord as in the biblical text. This is interesting since many commentators on Ex. 4:24-26 think that Yahweh is here identified with some sort of local demon. In what follows in Jubilees 48, wwe seem to be in the world of Homer's Iliad. The Egyptians. spurred on by Prince Mastema, pursue Israel, who are saved by the Angel of the Presence and God working together. The Angel of the Presence, who recounts the story to Moses. explicitly uses the plural und says, ‘We saved Israel from his hand” Jub. 48:13), Precisely the same form is to be scen behind Daniel ‘chapters 8-12. where war on earth parallels war in heaven and the heavenly Tract TheoogicoPti 3 Sceeg T Enoch 17 Dub vs Fovthe texte se Schr Rai pp Se 2 Sse Inang Jacobs, Elements of Neu Fastrn Mythology compet 2am R HLM. Elwes (New York, 1951). pp. 264 a Rabbinic Agguda’ 11525 MONOTHEISM-—A MISUSED WORD IN JEWISH STUDIES? fv buen eh of thin cui és (Dan 103. 20 £) ately, he imervention of God is dese im determining the outcome fee oe ze the Ia" and hi the Uz Bal Cua “Ts fame pacern B also extensively atested in the Dead Sea Scrolls specially the War Sra: 1 trave and strong for the bate of God? Fe thi ay he me ofthe (ee Goa apn the host of Satan, an of the judgment of ales Fae eis hs na Hs maser ast all te ss Teen tikes oth warn gods ea themes for ae fn Sete oF he Holy Ons pepe hems) forthe Day [of Resnel QM ASSL) In one fragment ofthe War Serolt, Michael. tral's champion, quoted as xistne Tam reckoned with the gods (ane aw 22 8 49591 F.1D presumably a necessary reassurance tothe faith Tho thee of Beavenly oppostion to God is continued in the rabbinic haan in which we find angels opposing God's plans for Il at every een iat to argue him out of stating human beings in the fst SAE fhen to atop Moses ascending to heaven 10 receive the Torah, and Bay teat the Sheina descending tthe Temple. The motive for the ngs actions ealousy of Trac and nearly always linked to discussions atfracl's election, The angels here, asin the non-rabbinic texts discussed ctaeetane surrozae for the gentle nations and thee 2005, The rabbis «era the cars theme ofthe bats ofthe gods angels inorder to discuss St esi frac section San we took at Jewish angelology in che Second Temple and rabhing perieds what we sem to have is development anay fom the raoestheker which more nearly ataned in the Book of Deuteronomy Senet estar explain rhe apparent proliferation of belt in angels is the Soils peti ay a reason to the distancing of God from Isa Pes Sduent"upon the adoption of 2 transcendental monotheism A much setts planation "s.that_ Deuteronomy. sands apart fom the ror teary of fralte and Jewish belies and witnesses 0 the views of 3 se ote or pets and series, the eroup which Morton Smith called “Phu ature Atone Paty In terms of quantity. txts which attest tothe Lint bi belt about angels which T have been discussing are far more itevous than those which standin the tration of Deateronoms. They rae ipe eng Us what most Tews hllved and probably always had Teheved + See Walter Burkert, Grek Region (Oxford 1985). pp. 128 ; Se) CL. abso, “The Theology of the Ugur Bal Cyl’ Orem 83 (1988 pe Me See his Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped she Old Te: en hn cee, London,0 JOURNAL OF JEWISHE STUDIES ‘Texts and artifacts witnessing to the widespread use of magic by Jews in all periods are becoming available in ever-increasing numbers. Pet Schafer, in an article in the latest issue of JUS, is promising us a rich harvest from the Cairo Geniza.*! Most of these texts cast a dark shadow over the supposed monotheism of Judaism. Take the text found on one hith unpublished amulet from the Geniza:*? {further adjure and deere upon you, all you (various) types of male and female demon, male and fem litths, vil pnts: male aed female hard Spits, male and female. which are mae from fr, rom water. fom ait and ffom cath, And sry particularly you seven spins which Ashmeda. the King of the demons, taught King Solomon, Those which penetrate the cata of Shomer and crsh this Inthe ame of 1 Sat, before whom you tremble and whom you fear, fn the name of Michael, your mate. In the name Or Atta yur Rig Sot 3 dp go aye a 8 Or this invocation from the text on a magic bow! now at the Hebrew University Institute of Archacology'+? In the name of Betiel and Yequtiel, and in ih angel, who has eleven names. ame of = the Great, the ‘What ishing about these texts s that she practitioners appeal 10 Gos and his sngeis without making any clear distnetion between them. On the sags bow! Yahweh is even called an angel Th lack of eiferentation etc the divine beings by no means unusul nthe mage tens, Much sore could be sid, and willbe said in future as more of these texts Published, about how aur increased knowledge ofthe extent ad nature Jewish magis must ad toa revision of our vews on the nature of Juda However. {wil conclude this brief reference to Jewish magi with some excerpts fom a bowl text which wil ad us into what T think isthe mos widely atesed pattern of Jewish belies about God our name Tak hisamalt hat maybe a eng to this one for he thresh (the hose) =I ind th ook of the eth and te dw the ‘sees ener ap, ten spe all evs ad ara ps ince do nr aot tema it fsa em epe ome he tine ofthe seven ayn of teaton you ae roped ad suppres al Sowranr he eto ins Marauga son of Qs Inthe mame of Gabe the ‘ph foro kl a ores who are vitro fae peas Sieh niko steno ol rcs Inna Yah, Yah a ‘Sabaoth, Amen. Amen. Selah.** 8 , sh. Yaka fy bossh Mace Laure im Late Amiguy aa ay Mile Ages. 41541 (990 p. + Sehr... pp sane Nich lS Shah, nr and Age Bois Uae a Lee. These three magical texts all come from the talmudie or later periods. They show religious beliefs untouched by those of Deuteronomy and the rabbis, They. and the many others like them, can hardly be described as ‘monotheistic, Indeed, they are scarcely even ‘monarchistic’, to use Vriezen’s Term, since Yahweh is reduced to not much more than an efficacious magic fname. The active roles are played by Michael, Gabriet and Yehoel. But who are they? If, then, monotheism seems an inappropriate term with which to describe all the rich variety of Jewish beliefs about God, at least before the Middle ‘Ages, what alternative description should be offered? It seems to me that Something like “a cooperative dualism’ would be a more appropriate description than monotheism. The rabbinic term for it was the belief in "wo powers in heaven’. When Yahweh was identified with El and became the head of the pantheon, the pattern we saw behind Deut. 32:8 f. remained Unchanged. Michael stepped into the vacant slot and became the number two in the hierarchy, the special representative of Israel and her protector ‘against her enemies. As John Emerton pointed out as long ago as 1958. this is the clue to the imagery of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man in Daniel 7.42 From the Book of Daniel on. nearly every variety of Judaism ‘maintained the pattern of the supreme God plus his vice-regent vizier. oF Some similar agency who relates Israel to God. The nares change but the oles remain the same. Sometimes the angel is Yehoel as on the magic bow. Note this name! Yahweh is El. Sometimes itis Metatron. In 11QMeleh itis Melchizedek. In Philo itis the Logos. For the mystics and the midrashim it is the Prince of the Presence of the Sur Torah, for the Kabbalah the Shekinah or the Sefrot, for the medieval philosophers the Active Intellect. For the rabbis it may suffice to quote the conclusion reached by Irving Jacobs in his study "Near Eastern Mythology in Rabbinic Aggadah’ Discussing the myth of the divine combat with the chaos monster. he says: Rabbinic legend however fas preserved the more original form ofthe combat smyth: The combination of the divine hero and his Supporting deity s retained, lthough translated into acceptable terms. The national god and hero of the pantheon inthe polythestc versions becomes a prince ofthe celestial beings, tino exercises a special guardianship over Israel. The supporting deity is God himset, who enables Gabriel's sword to vanquish Levithan.*® Hardly any variety of Judaism seems to have been able to manage with just one divine entity. Needless to say, this situation left many Jews Confused, especially about the identity of the number two in the hierarchy. We all know the story of how Elisha ben Abuyah went up to heaven and, seeing Metatron seated at the entrance. mistook him for God himself ** +5 The Origin of the Son of Man Imager’ JTS 9 1988), pp. 235-42. See Dan. 713 F 10.3, 12 Lamb also 1 Enoch 5 Test Lev 6 irvine Jacobson oh 10.R JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES ‘This is not surprising. In the Visions of Ezekiel, one of the eatliest of the Merkabah texts. Metatrom is seated in the third heaven and is identified as the Ancient of Days of Daniel 7+" In one of the Hekhalot texts he is Identified as ‘the god who appeared to Moses in the burning bush’ in others he is called fopa mm (the little Yahweh).*® Here is the context for the sustained rabbinic attempt to confront what they saw as the error of assuming the presence of “two powers’ in heaven, They were not, as earlier Scholars thought, confronting the metaphysical dualism of Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism, Most of this material has been ably studied by Alan Segal in his Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden, 1977) and by David Halperin in that important, but rather lengthy, book The Faces of the Chariot (Tibingen. 1988) Halperin, in particular, brings to light the rabbinic unease about much ‘material in the Hebrew Bible which seemed to them too close to paganism {for comfort and which they wished to keep from the attention of other Jews, ‘The material which Halperin amasses on the demonic undertones of Ezekiel’s havvor and the Mezkabah and their connection with the Golden Calf is particularly interesting for my purposes. As Halperin comments. in this material the wall between God and idols collapses"! The rabbinic answer to the “Iwo powers’ heresy. apart from the widespread effort 10 counter it atthe exegetical level, seems to have been to split up God himself into two aspects: the Attribute of Justice and the Auribute of Merey. Following a practice first attesed in Philo, these two attributes were designated by the divine names mm and 75M. But with brnbx aligned with the Attribute of Justice and mm with the Attribute of Merey the rabbis have preserved intact the dualistic pattern of Dt. 32:8 Consider the following passages from Genesis Rabbal 8:4-5, The midrash hhas just explained in connection with an exegesis of Ps. 1'6 that in order to create humanity God had to associate himself with the Attribute of Mercy. Tr goes on R. Hanina did not explain the verse in chis way. But [he said; When He came to create the first human being He took counsel with the ministering angels, He said to them, “Shall ve make humanity? (Gen. 1:26), They sad to Him, ‘What willbe his nature?” There then follows an exegesis of Ps, 1:6 at the end of which R. Hanina He revealed to them that righteous descendants would come from the first hhuman being, but He did not eeveal to them that wicked descendants Would “4 The Pin of eke. nes THe. Gruen in I Weinstock ed), Temi vo 1 erase, (97) pp. 18 Schafer, Stmype ur lethal Lieranur(Tabinge, 1981. $541 Op ais. Tals § The aves af he Charo 9. WS MONOTHEISM—A MISUSED WORD IN JEWISH STUDIES? B come forth from him, For if He had revealed to them that wicked descendants Swould come forth from him the Attribute of Justice (7 PM) would not have given permission for humanity to have been created, Here God. in association with his Attribute of Merey, has to conceal from his other aspect, the Attribute of Justice, his intention to ereate human beings, This inner confit within God, which is in reality a conflict between (wo ‘gods, is reinforced even more sharply in the next paragraph in Bereshit Rabbah R, Simon said: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, came to create the fst human beings, the ministering angels formed sects and parties. Some suid "Let them be created others said, "Let them not be created in line with Ps. B51l—Mercy and Truth eunfronted euch other, Righteousness and Peace wvarred with each other. Merey sad, Let them be created, for they will perform ‘Seeds of mere”. Truth said, "Let them not be created. for they are entirely false... Wha then did the Holy One, Blessed be He. do? He took Truth and threw tothe ground So. in order to create human beings, God has to keep his own Auribute of Justice in ignorance and throw Truth to the ground. The rabbinic attempt to maintain the unity of God by identifying mr with his Atiibute of Mercy and 2*7>X with bis Attribute of Justice does not work. What we still have here in the Midrash—and this is only one of numerous examples*?—is the conflict between mm, the particular god of Israel, and 5X. the head of the Canaanite pantheon, who stands for some kind of universal principle of justice above the heads of the other quarrelling gods. The ministering Angels are the gods of the gentiles opposed in the divine assembly to the special privileges which ma" wants for Israel. The atmosphere is that of Psaim 82, ma" can only get his way by overthrowing 5X, who stands for Justice and Truth, and that is precisely what happened in the history of Israelite religion, There was no way in which the election of Israel could be squared with the principle of equity and the rabbis knew it. One or the other hnad to give way. So in order to counteract the heresy of the two powers, whose roots indeed go back to the two names for God in the Hebrew 5 See A. P, Hayman, “Rabbinic fudsism and the Problem of Evil. SIT 29 (197), pp.a JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES Bible. the rabbis had to incorporate this inbuilt logical contradiction into the personality of God, But is the result monotheism? In theory, maybe, but Functionally itis not ‘There is one other area in which the ancient Canaanite buckground to Israelite religion has imposed a lasting dualistic pattern upon Judaism. Its clear both from the Hebrew Bible itself and from extra-biblical literary, inscriptional and archacological evidence that many, perhaps the majority. tf ancient Israelites worshipped Yahweh alongside his female consort, bis asherah, Biblical and post-biblical wisdom literature preserves some of the language of this earlier time in the way in which it speaks about personified Wisdom. Wisdom is a primordial being (Prov. 8:22-31) who sits beside God's throne as his consort (Wis. Sol. 9:4). She is the divine “mother of all things’ (Philo, Leg. All. 1149). In Philo this figure becomes the Logos which he can even describe as 2 ‘second god’.** The pattern was very useful for aligning Judaism with Middle Platonism and its distinction between the unknown supreme God and the demiurge. In rabbinic Judaism this second entity becomes the pre-cxistent Torah, the ground-plan of the universe, and God's instrument in creation (ef. Ber. R. 1:1), For the medieval philosophers it was the Active Intellect; for the Kabbalah the Shekhinah and the ‘Matronit** The dualistic pattern is nearly always there The fact that functionally Jews believed in the existence of two gods explains the speed with which Christianity developed so fast in the first century towards the divinization of Jesus. Some Christian authors used the ‘Yahweh/Michael/Gabriel pattern and identified him with the number two figure in the divine hierarchy. The angel Christology of the Ebionites is undoubtedly in touch here with the earliest forms of Christianity. There is a nice quotation from the Gospel of the Hebrews which neatly shows this pattern at work: ‘When Chist wished 10 come upon the earth to mem, the good Father summoned a mighty power in heaven, which was called Michael. and entrusted Christ 0 the care thereof. And the power came into the world and it ‘vas called Mary. and Chest was in her womb seven months." Other, better-educated Christians, used the wisdom/logos archetype, which gave Christ his role in creation. Whether or not the Enoch pattern of assumption to heaven and metamorphosis into Metatron was also at work here is difficult to say. because of the still unresolved problem of the date of | 2 As late asthe tenth entuy Suadsa stl et neces fo correct the mise of the ames 7H and SMT°¥ as suppor for the “wo powers eres), ar well ay Oreste risundertandings of Gees 8 See is Book of Beit and Opn 3, "Fora discussion of this insonnction with the two pos bell see Sep, Two Powers. pn, Soe Raphael Pati, The Hehvee Gass (New York, 1967), and his “Matron: The Cakes of the Ki 7831968) pp. 53-68, MONOTHEISM—A MISUSED WORD IN JEWISH STUDIES? 1s the Simiitues of Enoch, But the Mechiedek text at Qumran. is early hough to jus usin betving that the ground for Chestology had already fen well aid pre-Chnstan Judas, Unt Chritiniy ted, alays SnsuceestfallyIihink, to ft the Holy Spin snto the picture, i did not Svinte a fit 35 one might otherwise think from a well esaisbed pattem sadism: Ts there an etter explanation for why thousand of Jews inthe rst century so easly saw Cheistanity asthe flim of Judaism and so [iy ecpicd that beiesing inthe divinity of Jesus was perfec ompatile with hie ancestral religion? Tonclde thn that mono + wed, for example by Viren in chr postage with which I bepan this pape, indeed a missed word in Sensh Studien The pattern of lewish belts about God remains monarch- ic throughout. God i king ofa heavenly cour consisting of many other powerful Beings nt alwaye under his control. For most Jew. God is the, wee objet of worship, but he not the only divin being. tn partclr, there aways prominent number two in he Bierarcy 10 whom Israel in particular relates Ths pattern i iherited From tbl times. The attempt EFthe comers of the Hebrew Bible to merge mm and STOR never really sveszeded