Introduction

Early Jewish Mysticism

Although this investigation will focus mainly on the roots of the Metatron
lore, this Jewish tradition cannot be fully understood without addressing its
broader theological and historical context, which includes a religious
movement known as early Jewish mysticism. Research must therefore begin
with clarifying some notions and positions pertaining to the investigation of
this broader religious phenomenon.
The roots of the current scholarly discussion on the origin, aim, and
content of early Jewish mysticism can be traced to the writings of Gershom
Scholem. His studies marked in many ways a profound breach with the
previous paradigm of 19th and early 20th century scholarship solidified in
the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement which viewed Jewish mystical
developments as based on ideas late and external to Judaism.1 In his seminal
research, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, as well as other publications,2
Scholem saw his main task as clarifying the origins of early Jewish
mysticism on the basis of new methodological premises, which, in contrast
to the scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, approached early Jewish
mysticism as a genuine Jewish movement with roots in biblical and
pseudepigraphic traditions. Scholem’s project was not an easy one, and in
—————
1 One of the representatives of this movement, Heinrich Graetz, considered the
Hekhalot writings as late compositions dated to the end of the Geonic period. He viewed
the Hekhalot literature as “a compound of misunderstood Agadas, and of Jewish,
Christian, and Mahometan fantastic notions, clothed in mystical obscurity, and pretended
to be a revelation.” H. Graetz, History of the Jews (6 vols.; Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1894) 3.153.
2 G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1941); idem,
Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York: The Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, [1960] 1965); idem, On the Kabbalah and Its
Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1969); idem, Kabbalah (New York: Dorset
Press, 1987); idem, Origins of the Kabbalah (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).
For the complete bibliography of Scholem’s writings, see: F. Scholem and B. Yaron,
“Bibliography of the Published Writings of Gershom G. Scholem,” in Studies in Mysticism
and Religion Presented to Gershom Scholem on his Seventieth Birthday (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1967) 199–235; M. Catane, Bibliography of the Writings of Gershom G. Scholem
presented to Gershom G. Scholem on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1977).
2 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

many aspects it was a truly pioneering enterprise. In the speech delivered on

the occasion of his acceptance of the Rothschild prize, Scholem shared the
following lament about the predicament of his initial investigation: “All I
found were scattered, shabby pages, and I transformed them into history.” 3
Scholem’s writings exibit an impressive attempt to connect the early
Jewish mystical traditions attested in some apocalyptic texts of Second
Temple Judaism, such as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and the Apocalypse of
Abraham, with the later mystical developments hinted at in mishnaic and
talmudic sources about hbkrm h#(m and developed in the Hekhalot
writings.4 It is significant that Scholem viewed all three stages of this
evolution as integral parts of one larger movement designated by him as the
Merkabah tradition. In his view, the mystical testimonies attested in Jewish
apocalyptic writings represented the initial stage in the development of this
larger religious phenomenon. He thought that it is
entirely correct and by itself sufficient to prove the essential continuity of thought
concerning the Merkabah in all its three stages: the anonymous conventicles of the
old apocalyptics; the Merkabah speculation of the Mishnaic teachers who are
known to us by name; and the Merkabah mysticism of late and post-Talmudic
times, as reflected in the literature which has come down to us. We are dealing here
with a religious movement of distinctive character whose existence conclusively
disproves the old prejudice according to which all the productive religious energies
of early apocalyptic were absorbed by and into Christianity after the latter’s rise.5

Thus, Scholem considered rabbinic and Hekhalot developments as the

consequent stages of the long-lasting history of the Merkabah tradition, the
roots of which can be traced to pre-rabbinic apocalyptic circles. In sharp
contrast to the scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, he argued for the
early date of the Hekhalot literature which in his opinion could have
originated in Palestinian circles during the Talmudic or even Tannaitic
periods.
Scholem contended that the Hekhalot writings are intimately connected
with the early apocalypses by their distinctive common symbolism, namely
the throne imagery, which in his view constituted one of the central themes
of the conceptual world of the Merkabah tradition. In Major Trends, he
wrote that
the earliest Jewish mysticism is throne-mysticism. Its essence is not absorbed
contemplation of God’s true nature, but perception of His appearance on the throne,
—————
3 J. Dan, Gershom Scholem and the Mystical Dimension of Jewish History (New York:
New York University Press, 1987) 2–3.
4 For the texts and translations of the Hekhalot writings, see P. Schäfer, with M.
Schlüter and H. G. von Mutius, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tübingen:
Mohr/Siebeck, 1981); P. Schäfer et al., Übersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur (4 vols.; TSAJ
17, 22, 29, 46; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987–95).
5Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 43.
 Introduction 3
as described by Ezekiel, and cognition of the mysteries of the celestial throne-
world. The throne-world is to the Jewish mystic what the pleroma, the “fullness,”
the bright sphere of divinity with its potencies, aeons, archons and dominions is to
the Hellenistic and early Christian mystics of the period who appear in the history
of religion under the names of Gnostics and Hermetics.6

Scholem believed that another link between the Hekhalot writings and the
early apocalyptic traditions was that both of them represented reports of
actual ecstatic experiences. He thought that the Hekhalot writings
represented
not Midrashim, i.e., expositions of Biblical passages, but a literature sui generis
with a purpose of its own. They are essentially descriptions of a genuine religious
experience for which no sanction is sought in the Bible. In short, they belonged in
one class with the apocrypha and the apocalyptic writings rather than with
traditional Midrash.7

Scholem saw Hekhalot mysticism as a part of the visionary tradition of the

heavenly ascent, the beginning of which he traced to the heavenly journeys
of the exalted patriarchs and prophets attested in early Jewish apocalypses.
Despite the significant role which the early Jewish apocalypses and
pseudepigrapha seem to have played in Scholem’s grand scheme of the
history of early Jewish mysticism, his publications do not offer a thorough
textual analysis of these Second Temple materials.8 The investigation of
these important texts, which in Scholem’s judgment played a formative role
in emerging early Jewish mysticism, was confined in his publications to a
few unsystematic remarks. Scholem’s inability to demonstrate textually the
persistent presence of the matrix of early Jewish mysticism in the
pseudepigraphic literature would later lead his critics to concentrate their
studies mainly either on the rabbinic hbkrm h#(m accounts or on the
Hekhalot writings and to regard these literary evidences as the first
systematic presentations of early Jewish mysticism.9 Scholem’s failure to
give proper textual documentation for his argument for the roots of early
Jewish mysticism in premishnaic literature is, in my judgment, one of the
main reasons why his positions on the origin, aim, and content of early
Jewish mysticism have undergone so much criticism in later scholarship.

—————
6 Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 43–44.
7 Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 46.
8 Scholem’s avoidance of systematic textual exploration of Jewish pseudepigraphic
writings, such as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and 4 Ezra, which he
often cites in his publications, is understandable since his main area of expertise laid not in
the Second Temple Judaism but in later rabbinic developments.
9 This shift was not solely the invention of Scholem’s opponents but was rather the
reaffirmation of Scholem’s own methodological position in which the early
pseudepigraphic mystical evidence was perceived and evaluated not on its own but from
the perspective of the later rabbinic and Hekhalot mystical developments.
4 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

Detailed criticisms of Scholem’s positions were offered in the publications

of Peter Schäfer,10 David J. Halperin,11 and other scholars12 whose critique
stemmed from the earlier critical work of Johann Maier13 and Ephraim E.
Urbach.14
Scholem’s critics found unpersuasive his contention that the pre-
Christian apocalyptic writings and the later rabbinic Merkabah accounts
represented the same type of mystical mold. They suggested that the
rabbinic testimonies about hbkrm h#(m may not in fact refer to actual
ecstatic experiences similar to the ascent stories of pre-Christian
apocalypticists; rather they were exegetical expositions of Ezekiel’s account
of the Merkabah. One of the critics, David Halperin, stressed that “the
merkabah expositions of Tannaitic times did not, as far as we can tell,
accompany an ecstatic mystical practice, nor did they consist of a secret
doctrine. They were the public exegeses of Ezekiel’s vision, which I
presume, accompanied the recitation of Ezekiel 1 in the synagogue on
Shabu(ot.”15 Halperin viewed the rabbinic hbkrm h#(m accounts as being
connected with the Shabu(ot exegetical traditions in which Ezekiel’s
—————
10 P. Schäfer, “Prolegomena zu einer kritischen Edition und Analyse der Merkava
Rabba,” FJB 5 (1977) 65–99; idem, “Die Beschwörung des sar ha-panim, Kritische
Edition und Übersetzung,” FJB 6 (1978) 107–45; idem, “Aufbau und redaktionelle
Identität der Hekhalot Zutarti,” JJS 33 (1982) 569–82; idem, “Tradition and Redaction in
Hekhalot Literature,” JSJ 14 (1983) 172–81; idem, “Engel und Menschen in der Hekhalot-
Literatur,” in: P. Schäfer, Hekhalot-Studien (TSAJ 19; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1988)
250–76, esp. 258, 264–65; idem, “The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism.
Gershom Scholem Reconsidered,” in: Hekhalot-Studien, 277–95; idem, The Hidden and
Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism (Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press, 1992) 150–55.
11 D. J. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1980); idem, “A New Edition of the Hekhalot Literature,” JAOS 104.3
(1984) 543–552; idem, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s
Vision (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1988) 359–63.
12 P. Alexander, “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28 (1977)
173–80; M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1993) 106–14; idem, “The Experience of the Visionary and the
Genre in the Ascension of Isaiah 6–11 and the Apocalypse of Paul,” Semeia 36 (1986) 97–
111; idem, “The Practice of Ascent in the Ancient Mediterranean World,” in: Death,
Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (ed. J. J. Collins and M. Fishbane; Albany, N.Y.:
State University of New York Press, 1995) 123–37, esp. 126–28; M. D. Swartz, Scholastic
Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1996) 29; 153–57; 170–72; 210–12.
13 J. Maier, Vom Kultus zur Gnosis (Kairos 1; Salzburg: Müller, 1964) 128–146.
14 E. E. Urbach, “The Traditions about Merkavah Mysticism in the Tannaitic Period,”
in: Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on His Seventieth
Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (ed. E.E. Urbach et al; Jerusalem: Magnes,
1967) 1–28 [in Hebrew].
15 Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature, 182.
 Introduction 5
account interconnected with the Sinai narratives and depicted Moses
ascending to heaven in order to receive the Torah despite the objections of
the heavenly hosts. Halperin argued that the traditions attested in the
Shabu(ot circle were formative for the Sar Torah imagery which plays a
central role in Hekhalot literature.
Thus, critics of Scholem’s position proposed that, similar to the talmudic
discussions of hbkrm h#(m, the Hekhalot literature might also represent
exegetical expositions rather than the accounts of actual experiences of the
heavenly journey. Peter Schäfer argued that “the Hekhalot literature does
not provide us any indication as to how the heavenly journey actually is
carried out, or even if it is practiced at all as a ‘truly’ ecstatic experience.”16
Scholem’s hypothesis that the throne and ascent imageries occupy a crucial
place in the Merkabah and Hekhalot materials has also generated substantial
critical response. Schäfer observed that anyone reading the Hekhalot texts in
an unbiased way, “and without having the history of research inaugurated
by Scholem in mind, will hardly conclude that it is precisely the ascent to
the Merkavah which forms the center for the authors of this literature.”17 He
further pointed out that in the majority of Hekhalot writings the tradition of
the heavenly ascent clearly gave way to accounts of adjurations. In
Schäfer’s opinion, “the entire literature is permeated by such adjurations,
and the means by which these adjurations are carried out are the same as
those needed for a successful completion of the heavenly journey … the
objects of these adjurations are always angelic beings who assist visionaries
in the comprehensive knowledge of the Torah.”18
Despite the significant advance that the investigations of Schäfer,
Halperin, and other opponents of Scholem’s position brought to a better
understanding of the conceptual world of the rabbinic and Hekhalot
mystical developments, their works, in my judgment, affected negatively the
study of the premishnaic Jewish mystical testimonies. Their writings shifted
the whole notion of early Jewish mysticism towards the rabbinic and
Hekhalot documents and separated it from the early mystical evidence of
Second Temple Judaism. The criticisms of Scholem’s hypothesis have led to
the refocusing of priorities in the study of early Jewish mysticism. The main
focus of research has been transferred from pseudepigraphic evidence to the
rabbinic hbkrm h#(m and the Hekhalot writings in an attempt to show their
conceptual independence from the early apocalyptic materials. The view
that the Hekhalot tradition possesses its own set(s) of concepts and imagery,
different from the conceptualities of the early apocalyptic mystical
testimonies, should not however lead one to ignore the association of these
—————
16 Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God, 155.
17 Schäfer, Gershom Scholem Reconsidered, 6.
18 Schäfer, Gershom Scholem Reconsidered, 6.
6 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

texts with early Jewish mysticism. It is apparent that, despite its importance,
the body of Hekhalot literature cannot serve as the ultimate yardstick for
measuring all early Jewish mystical traditions. After all, the Hekhalot
literature in itself, as was demonstrated by several scholars who studied this
tradition, does not represent a homogeneous theological continuum, but
should rather be viewed as having several theological centers. In his
criticism of Scholem’s and Halperin’s positions, Schäfer observed that
“both approaches suffer from the desire to find one explanation for the
entire Hekhalot literature, which then assigns all other parts to their places,
thus ignoring the extremely complex relations of the texts and the various
literary layers within the individual macroform. The Hekhalot literature is
not a unity and, therefore, cannot be explained uniformly.”19
One of the consequences that stemmed from the critique of Scholem’s
position was that a substantial gap emerged between the rabbinic and
Hekhalot materials, on one hand, and the early apocalyptic traditions, on the
other. Thus, the rabbinic testimonies to hbkrm h#(m and the Hekhalot
writings were no longer considered directly connected with the visionary
practices of the pre-Christian apocalypticists, but were viewed instead as a
different phenomenon with its own peculiar conceptual world.

Slavonic Pseudepigrapha

As has been already mentioned, Scholem argued that the Jewish

pseudepigrapha were one of the important sources of the development of
Merkabah and Hekhalot mysticism. He drew special attention to the
pseudepigraphic texts associated with the Enochic tradition. Scholem
considered the early Enochic materials, particularly such Enochic
compositions as 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch and 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, as the texts
which contained the earliest formulations of Jewish mystical
developments.20 Scholem wrote that “one fact remains certain: the main
subjects of the later Merkabah mysticism already occupy a central position
in this oldest esoteric literature, best represented by the Book of Enoch.”21
—————
19 Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God, 152.
20 George Nickelsburg, supporting Scholem’s idea, observes that “1 Enoch 14 stands at
an important transitional point between prophetic and mystical tradition.” He, however,
cautiously observes that “although 1 Enoch 14 reflects the reinterpretation of prophetic
traditions in the direction of later mysticism, there are some marked differences between 1
Enoch 14 and the later texts…. A definite historical link between our text and the later
mystical texts must await careful exegesis of the latter and comparison with 1 Enoch.” G.
W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,”
JBL 100 (1981) 575–600, esp. 581–2.
21 Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 43.
 Introduction 7
He also pointed to other pseudepigraphic materials, such as the Fourth Book
of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Abraham, which along with the Enochic
writings contained concepts and imagery crucial for later Jewish mystical
developments. He stressed that the influence of these pseudepigraphic
writings “on the subsequent development of Jewish mysticism cannot be
overlooked” since they “undoubtedly contain elements of Jewish mystical
religion.”22
The significant evidence that has never been systematically explored in
the recent discussions about the origin of early Jewish mysticism is the
testimony of several Jewish pseudepigraphic materials which have survived
solely in their Slavonic translations. These texts include 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,
the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Ladder of Jacob where the traces of
early Jewish mystical developments can be detected.23 This group of Jewish
—————
22 Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 40.
23 On Jewish mystical traditions in these texts, see P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew
Apocalypse of) Enoch,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H.
Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.247–248; idem, “From Son of Adam
to a Second God: Transformation of the Biblical Enoch,” Biblical Figures Outside the
Bible (ed. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergen; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998)
esp. 102–111; C. Böttrich, Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Urkult: Studien zum slavischen
Henochbuch (WUNT 2/50; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992) 109–114; idem,
“Beobachtungen zum Midrash vom ‘Leben Henochs,’” Mitteilungen und Beiträge der
Forschungsstelle Judentum an der Theologischen Fakultät Leipzig 10 (1996) 44–83; A. De
Conick, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (SVC 33;
Leiden: Brill, 1996); M. Himmelfarb, “Revelation and Rapture: The Transformation of the
Visionary in the Ascent Apocalypses,” Mysteries and Revelations; Apocalyptic Studies
since the Uppsala Colloquium (eds. J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth; JSPSup., 9;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 79–90; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews
(7 vols.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1955) esp. 5.161–64; I.
Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 50–51;
J. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts
of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck,
1985); idem, “Colossians 1,15–18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism,”
NTS 35 (1989) 183–201; idem, The Image of the Invisible God. Essays on the Influence of
Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg
Schweiz; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995); M. Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,”
Immanuel 24/25 (1990) 220–240; J. Kugel, “The Ladder of Jacob,” HTR 88 (1995) 209–
27; H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973) esp.
52–63; W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinic
and Mediaeval Judaism (New York: Macmillan, 1920) esp. 236; A. A. Orlov, “Titles of
Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch,” JSP 18 (1998) 71–86; idem, “Secrets of Creation in 2
(Slavonic) Enoch,” Henoch 22.1 (2000) 45–62; idem, “Ex 33 on God’s Face: A Lesson
from the Enochic Tradition,” SBLSP 39 (2000) 130–47; idem, “Melchizedek Legend of 2
(Slavonic) Enoch,” JSJ 31 (2000) 23–38; idem, “The Origin of the Name ‘Metatron’ and
the Text of 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” JSP 21 (2000) 19–26; idem, “The Face as
the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob,” in: Of Scribes
and Sages (2 vols; ed. C.A. Evans; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 2.59-76; A. Orlov and A.
8 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

pseudepigrapha with an enigmatic history of transmission, that does not

leave any traces of these writings in Greek or other languages, except in
Slavonic, seems to share a highly developed mystical imagery that make
them stand out in the corpus of the early pseudepigraphic texts.24 These
writings have never been studied as a group for their possible connections
with early Jewish mysticism. Although Hugo Odeberg, Gershom Scholem,
and Ithamar Gruenwald referred occasionally to these texts in their research,
pointing to certain provocative allusions that seem to connect these
pseudepigrapha with the imagery and conceptual world of the later
Merkabah and Hekhalot materials, critics of Scholem’s approach often
ignored this important evidence.25 Even in the previous research of
Odeberg, Scholem, and Gruenwald, despite their formal recognition of the
importance of these pseudepigraphic texts for the history of early Jewish
mysticism, the presence of Jewish mystical traditions in the Slavonic
pseudepigrapha was never systematically explored. This situation has most
likely arisen, in my judgment, because those scholars who have been
seriously engaged in the study of early Jewish mysticism have historically
lacked motivation to work with the Slavonic translations of the early Jewish
texts. A primary obstacle was, of course, the Slavonic language, which itself
was categorized by most scholars as “esoteric.”
It appears that one of the important tasks in clarifying the origins of early
Jewish mysticism lies in the systematic investigation of such writings as 2
Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Ladder of Jacob and in
understanding their role in shaping the imagery and the concepts of the
subsequent Jewish mystical developments.
It should be noted that 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the
Ladder of Jacob represent a unique group of texts that share the theophanic
and mediatorial language which, in my view, is as different from
mainstream of early apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic writings as from later
Hekhalot materials. One can see in this group of materials a witness to the
lost practical and literary development which could well represent an
important transitional stage in early Jewish mystical testimonies, serving as
—————
Golitzin, “‘Many Lamps Are Lightened from the One’: Paradigms of the Transformational
Vision in the Macarian Homilies,” VC 55 (2001) 281–298; M. Philonenko, “La
cosmogonie du ‘Livre des secrets d’Hénoch,’” Religions en Egypte: Hellénistique et
romaine (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1969) 109–16; Scholem, Major Trends
in Jewish Mysticism; idem, Origins of the Kabbalah; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah
Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition; idem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic
Concepts in the Kabbalah (New York: Schocken, 1991).
24 On the similarities between the theophanic language of 2 Enoch and the Ladder of
Jacob, see Orlov, “The Face as the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic
Ladder of Jacob,” 2.59-76.
25 For example, in Halperin’s investigation of the pseudepigraphic materials in The
Faces of the Chariot, references to 2 Enoch are limited to half a page.
 Introduction 9
a kind of bridge from the matrix of early Jewish apocalypticism, as it was
manifested in the early Enochic circle, to the matrix of early Jewish
mysticism as it became manifest in rabbinic Merkabah and Hekhalot
materials. In my study I will illustrate this transitional character of the
Slavonic pseudepigraphic evidence by using the example of the Metatron
tradition found in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch. The concepts and imagery of this
tradition in the Slavonic apocalypse show that 2 Enoch occupies an
intermediary stage between Second Temple apocalypticism and Hekhalot
mysticism, thus manifesting its own, one might say, “proto-Hekhalot”
mystical mold. Similar to some of the Hekhalot writings, the Slavonic
Enoch already operates with the concept of Metatron and his later titles,
such as the Youth, which are absent from early Enochic writings but
prominent in such Hekhalot macroforms as Sefer Hekhalot, Hekhalot
Rabbati, and other materials.26 In contrast to the Hekhalot writings,
however, 2 Enoch is not preoccupied with adjuration, has no magical
content, and places the ascent imagery in the center of its narrative.

2 Enoch and Early Jewish Mysticism

The investigation has already noted that Scholem located the formative core
of the earliest Jewish mystical developments in the body of literature
associated with Enochic traditions.27 He also repeatedly drew his readers’
attention to one of the Enochic texts, an enigmatic writing preserved
exclusively in its Slavonic translation and therefore known to us as 2
(Slavonic) Enoch.
2 Enoch is a Jewish pseudepigraphon traditionally dated to the first
century C.E. The central theme of the text is the celestial ascent of the
seventh antediluvian patriarch Enoch through the seven heavens and his
luminous metamorphosis near the Throne of Glory.
The figure of Enoch portrayed in the various sections of 2 Enoch appears
to be more elaborate than in the early Second Temple Enochic tractates of 1
Enoch. For the first time, the Enochic tradition seeks to depict Enoch, not
simply as a human taken to heaven and transformed into an angel, but as a
—————
26 The Metatron tradition can be seen as one of the several “conceptual centers” of
Hekhalot literature.
27 He did not, however, confine the roots of early Jewish mystical developments solely
to the social setting associated with the Enochic tradition. He believed that “in the period
of the Second Temple an esoteric doctrine was already taught in Pharisaic circles. The first
chapter of Genesis, the story of Creation, and the first chapter of Ezekiel, the vision of
God’s throne-chariot, were the favorite subjects of discussion and interpretation which it
was apparently considered inadvisable to make public.” Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish
Mysticism, 42.
10 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

celestial being exalted above the angelic world.28 In this attempt, one may
find the origins of another image of Enoch (very different from the early
Enochic literature) that was developed much later in rabbinic Merkabah and
Hekhalot mysticism – the image of the supreme angel Metatron, “the Prince
of the Presence.” The image of the exalted Enoch found in 2 Enoch makes it
reasonable to suggest an earlier date for the development of the Metatron
tradition and to place the beginning of this tradition, not in the rabbinic era,
but in the Second Temple period. This study will focus on establishing such
early roots for the Metatron tradition in 2 Enoch.
Despite extensive important textual evidence pointing to possible
connections between 2 Enoch and the Metatron tradition, most scholars
have avoided further study in this direction. They seem to have been doing
so primarily because they are more interested in the traditional perspective
on 2 Enoch as the pseudepigraphic text of early premishnaic Enoch
literature, similar to 1 Enoch and the Enochic Qumran materials. They have
been slow to discuss the apparent Merkabah features of 2 Enoch, including
the Metatron imagery. In the twentieth century, very few studies have
sought to establish connections between 2 Enoch and the Metatron tradition.
Research has usually been conducted as part of broader investigations into
possible parallels between 2 Enoch and later Jewish mysticism. Although
the traditional view held the Metatron tradition to be quite late and
belonging to the Merkabah mysticism associated with the rabbinic era,
certain features of Enoch’s image found in 2 Enoch have led several
—————
28 One can argue that the beginning of this process can be seen already in the Book of
the Similitudes, where Enoch seems to be identified with the Son of Man. It is possible that
the Similitudes, written close to the time of 2 Enoch, also reflect this process of transition
to the new image of Enoch. The Similitudes, however, do not elaborate this process to the
same degree as the Slavonic apocalypse does. Enoch’s transformation into the Son of Man
in Similitudes 71 is rather instantaneous and ambiguous. In contrast, in 2 Enoch this
process of Enoch’s transition to a new super-angelic identity is described in detail through
the expositions of Enoch’s celestial titles which unfold the patriarch’s new roles in
numerous celestial offices. Another important detail is that the titles of Enoch attested in
the Similitudes (such as the Son of Man and others) do not play any significant role in the
later Jewish mystical developments and in the Metatron tradition. On Enoch’s
transformation in the Similitudes, see J. R. Davila, “Of Methodology, Monotheism and
Metatron,” 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, G. S. Lewis; JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 9–15; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-
Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology (WUNT 2/94; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1997)
151; M. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,” DSD 2
(1995) 177–80; D. W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (SBLDS
47; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 14–23; J. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah,
Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” The Messiah: Developments in Earliest
Judaism and Christianity. The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian
Origins (eds. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 182–3.
 Introduction 11
scholars to ponder connections between 2 Enoch and the Merkabah
tradition. A detailed review of these studies will follow later. At present, let
us offer only a brief review of them.
In his study of Jewish lore which was pioneering in many ways, Louis
Ginzberg drew attention to some similarities between the traditions found in
2 Enoch and other Jewish mystical testimonies. Ginzberg’s ad hoc
commentary engendered several important insights into the Merkabah
features of 2 Enoch.
Ginzberg observed that the words “God set him before His face,” found
in 2 Enoch 67:2, might be related to “the usual designation found in Geonic
mysticism of Metatron-Enoch as the ‘prince of the face.’”29 However, being
a circumspect scholar, Ginzberg later noted that this parallel may be
arguable. Ginzberg’s research also pointed to the important similarities
between Enoch’s transformation into an angel in 2 Enoch and the similar
description in the Hekhalot literature.30 The salient feature of Ginzberg’s
study is his observation of the Merkabah character of Enoch’s functions and
his luminous transformation in the heavenly realm.
Unfortunately, after these penetrating findings, Ginzberg’s research did
not proceed to explore further parallels between 2 Enoch and the Merkabah
tradition. His remarks revealed that he, in fact, was quite pessimistic about
the possible connection between 2 Enoch and later Jewish mystical
developments. He stressed that “there can be no doubt that there exists no
literary relationship between the so-called rabbinic books of Enoch and with
pseudepigrapha bearing the same name. This is quite obvious to any one
familiar with both literatures.”31
Hugo Odeberg may well be the first scholar to have pointed out that the
descriptions of the celestial titles for Enoch in 2 Enoch represent the most
important evidence for the connection between this apocalypse and the
Merkabah tradition. While Odeberg’s edition of 3 Enoch has some glaring
deficiencies, his scholarship offers important insights into the nature of the
relationship between 2 Enoch and Merkabah mysticism. Odeberg’s analysis
of Enoch’s image in 2 Enoch and in one of the Merkabah texts known as
Sefer Hekhalot, or 3 Enoch, reveals that 2 Enoch occupies an intermediate
position between earlier Enochic literature (1 Enoch), on the one hand, and
the Merkabah literature (3 Enoch), on the other. Odeberg observes that 2
Enoch stands, “speaking metaphorically, on the straight line connecting 1
Enoch with 3 Enoch.”32 He argues that the center of the Enoch conception
in 1 Enoch is the visions of Enoch. In contrast, in 2 Enoch, the conceptual
center is situated in “the idea of Enoch’s transformation into a high
—————
29 Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 5.161.
30 Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 5.163.
31 Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 5.163.
32 Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 1.61.
12 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

Celestial Being.”33 Odeberg stresses that this idea is not yet as advanced in
2 Enoch as it is in 3 Enoch. In his opinion, in 2 Enoch, Enoch, despite his
archangelic status, is still ranked below Michael and placed at the left hand
of the Lord.34 In spite of the intriguing hypothesis about the connection
between 2 Enoch and the Merkabah tradition, Odeberg concludes that this
apocalypse does not contain any traces of the identification of Enoch with
Metatron.
Gershom Scholem also investigated the relationship between 2 Enoch
and later Jewish mystical developments, including the Hekhalot tradition.
In Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Scholem considered 2 Enoch as one
of the major witnesses to the development of Merkabah concepts and
imagery in the pseudepigrapha, in the same line as such writings as 1 Enoch
and the Apocalypse of Abraham.35 In Jewish Gnosticism he pointed out a
number of parallels between 2 Enoch and Merkabah writings, for example,
several features of Enoch’s heavenly ascent and angelic singing.36 In his
book On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, he highlighted interesting
conceptual similarities between 2 Enoch and the Shi(ur Qomah tradition,
which has been frequently associated with the Metatron imagery. In
Vaillant’s French edition of 2 Enoch, Scholem discovered the expression
“l’étendue de mon corps” (“the extent of my body”), which, in his opinion,
shows remarkable similarities with the terminology of the Shi(ur Qomah
tradition.37
Ithamar Gruenwald’s research on apocalypticism and Merkabah
mysticism contains an important discussion of the Merkabah features of 2
Enoch. For his conclusions, Gruenwald uses Vaillant’s edition and the
English translation of 2 Enoch which appeared in the second volume of
Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Gruenwald stresses that the
description of Enoch’s ascent to the celestial realm, as well as the
descriptions of the contents of the seven heavens have a number of parallels
to such Hekhalot writings as the Visions of Ezekiel, Sefer Hekhalot, and
Sefer Ha-Razim. He points to some similarities in the picturing of Paradise,
which in 2 Enoch is located in the third heaven. Gruenwald draws particular
attention to the description of the Tree of Life in Chapter 8 of 2 Enoch,
which the text designates as the place “whereon the Lord rests, when he
goes up into Paradise.”38 Gruenwald stresses that this tradition could “refer
to the original abode of Shekhinah before the Shekhinah ascended to heaven

—————
33 Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 1.61.
34 Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 1.61.
35 Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 67.
36 Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 17, 30.
37 Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, 29.
38 Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 50.
 Introduction 13
on account of the sins of mankind.”39 He notes that Chapter 5 of Sefer
Hekhalot (Synopse §§7-8) might express a similar idea. Gruenwald also
underlines the Merkabah vision of Adam in Chapter 31, where the Lord
created for Adam an open heaven, so that he might look upon the angels,
singing the triumphal song. In Gruenwald’s view, Enoch’s final vision of
the most fearful angel in Chapter 37 is another example of the close
connection with the Merkabah lore.
It should be noted that Gruenwald’s research can be seen as an extension
of Scholem’s approach. Gruenwald develops one of Scholem’s insights,
namely his hypothesis about the close terminological correspondence
between 2 Enoch and the Shi(ur Qomah tradition.
Gruenwald also argues that the description of what happened to Enoch in
the seventh heaven could be considered as a distinctive Merkabah
contribution of the book. In this respect, he draws particular attention to the
account of Enoch’s extraction from “his earthly garments” and his
transfiguration into the glorious one.40
In his introduction to the English translation of Sefer Hekhalot in the first
volume of OTP, Philip Alexander offers several important insights about a
possible connection between 2 Enoch and Metatron mysticism. He supports
the view, earlier expressed by Scholem and Odeberg, that “2 Enoch is in
some ways even closer to 3 Enoch than 1 Enoch.”41 To prove this point,
Alexander argues that the cosmology of the seven heavens found in 2 Enoch
is fundamental to the Merkabah writings and could be found in such texts as
the Visions of Ezekiel and Sefer Ha-Razim. Alexander also highlights 2
Enoch’s close parallels to Sefer Hekhalot. In his interpretation, Enoch’s
journey through the seven heavens to the Lord’s throne has a number of
striking parallels to Ishmael’s ascent in 3 Enoch. Alexander was particularly
insightful in suggesting that the transformation of Enoch in 2 Enoch 22
provides the closest approximation, outside of Merkabah literature, to
Enoch’s transformation in 3 Enoch 3-15 (Synopse §§4-19).42 These
observations on the similarities between 2 Enoch and the Merkabah
tradition flow logically from Alexander’s earlier important methodological
conclusion expressed in an essay “The Historical Settings of the Hebrew
Book of Enoch.” There he argues that Enoch’s angelic transformation in 2
Enoch was a necessary evolutionary step to the profile of Enoch-Metatron
in Hekhalot literature. He further suggests that “if such a development had
not taken place, Enoch could never have been identified with the archangel

—————
39 Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 50.
40 Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 51.
41 Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 247.
42 Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 248.
14 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

Metatron.”43 Alexander also points out some apparent differences between 2

Enoch and later Metatron developments, stressing that the vagueness of the
imagery of Enoch’s angelic transformation in 2 Enoch stands in sharp
contrast to the detailed description in 3 Enoch. He concludes, however, that
“if the Hekhalot mystics received Enoch traditions like those in 2 Enoch 22,
they could easily have interpreted them to mean that Enoch was changed
into an archangel.”44
Michael Mach, in his article published in the Encyclopedia of
Apocalypticism, observes that “in comparison with various units included in
1 Enoch, 2 Enoch demonstrates a series of significant changes in regard to
our understanding of early mysticism and its possible apocalyptic
backgrounds.”45 Similarly to Philip Alexander, Mach draws attention to the
sevenfold ouranology found in 2 Enoch, which is fundamental to some
Hekhalot writings as well. He argues that Enoch’s journey is clearly
structured according to the system of seven heavens, noting that “what in 1
Enoch was recorded as traveling in different directions during the same
heavenly journey is now systematized into a model of seven heavens.”46
Mach also points to 2 Enoch’s descriptions of Enoch’s elevation above the
angelic realm and his installation at the side of God. He notes that “the
exaltation to a rank higher than that of the angels as well as the seating at
God’s side have their parallels and considerable development in
Enoch’s/Metatron’s transformation and enthronement as depicted in 3
Enoch.”47
While these inquiries have proven to be important for Merkabah studies,
they have not yielded any definitive evidence for the existence of the
Metatron tradition in 2 Enoch. They appear to have not done so chiefly
because the vast majority of these studies proceeded on the presupposition
that the Metatron tradition is a relatively late phenomenon usually
associated with post-mishnaic Jewish developments. Although some of
these scholars acknowledged the possibility that the Merkabah tradition has
very early biblical and pseudepigraphic roots, they were reluctant to
recognize that the Metatron tradition might have its origins in the Second
Temple period.

—————
43 P. Alexander, “The Historical Settings of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28
(1977) 160.
44 Alexander, “The Historical Settings of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” 161.
45 M. Mach, “From Apocalypticism to Early Jewish Mysticism?” in: The Encyclopedia
of Apocalypticism (3 vols.; ed. J. J. Collins; New York: Continuum, 1998) 1.229–264, esp.
251.
46 Mach, “From Apocalypticism to Early Jewish Mysticism,” 251.
47 Mach, “From Apocalypticism to Early Jewish Mysticism,” 251.
 Introduction 15

What Threads to Consider?

The question, however, remains: what kind of features in pseudepigraphic

texts such as 2 (Slavonic) Enoch might point unambiguously to similarities
with later Jewish mystical developments, including the traditions attested in
the Hekhalot writings?
Scholars have tried for a long time to investigate the possible threads that
connect these two bodies of literature. As has been previously noted,
Gershom Scholem, for example, considered the throne symbolism as a
crucial thread that links the early Enochic materials with the later Hekhalot
materials. David Halperin points to another important thread that connects
the early pseudepigraphic materials with the later mystical testimonies. This
is the idea that the Sinai event and the Merkabah vision are two aspects of
the same reality and must be interpreted together.48
One of the difficulties in connecting the early apocalyptic and
pseudepigraphic texts with the later Hekhalot materials is the fluidity of the
imagery in both bodies of literature. The research of David Halperin and
Peter Schäfer49 correctly points, in my judgment, to the difficulties in
locating the center in the Hekhalot writings, since they often represent a
strange mixture of hymns, incantations, and short narratives which seem to
be assembled without a discernible pattern and purpose.50 In these
narratives readers must often discover on their own “whatever unifying
principle there may be.”51 The same can be detected in the early apocalyptic
and pseudepigraphic materials, which also attest to a fluidity of concepts
and imagery seen in various stages of the development of early Jewish
mystical traditions.
It was mentioned earlier that in recent decades the discussion about the
aim and the nature of early Jewish mysticism has mainly revolved around
—————
48 Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, 114.
49 See also Joseph Dan who observes that “Hekhalot and Merkavah mystical literature
should not be viewed as a product of one school of mystics moved by a common theology
and literary activity. The texts we have today are but remnants of the activity of several
Jewish mystical schools in Late Antiquity, which differed from each other in both their
basic theological views and their mystical sources. The literature that reached us includes
works that are anthological in character, and used several layers of sources combined or
loosely harmonized.” J. Dan, Jewish Mysticism: Late Antiquity (2 vols; Northvale: Jason
Aronson, 1998) 1.233.
50 However, pointing to the fluid nature of the Hekhalot writings, Peter Schäfer warns
that “the obvious and unusually great fluidity in this literature should also not induce us
into seeing only chaos and ‘nonsense’ everywhere, which has evaded any redactional
structuring.” P. Schäfer, “Research on Hekhalot Literature: Where Do We Stand Now?”
in: Rashi 1040–1990: Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach (ed. G. Sed-Rajna; Paris: Cerf,
1993) 231.
51 Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, 367.
16 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

such important dichotomies as ascent/adjuration and visionary/exegetical.

However, it is apparent that the search for new comparative characteristics
between the early pseudepigraphic texts containing mystical testimonies and
the later Hekhalot materials must be continued.
In my 1998 article, “Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch,”52 I attempted
to investigate one such possible set of characteristics. The article focuses on
examining the celestial roles and titles of Enoch-Metatron, which play an
equally important role in early Enochic accounts and the Hekhalot
materials.53 The peculiar characteristic of these roles and titles, that make
them good indicators of the transition from the Enoch tradition to the
Metatron tradition, is that each of these traditions operates with a different
set of roles and titles. Thus, the early Enochic tradition put emphasis on
such roles or titles of the seventh antediluvian patriarch as diviner, scribe,
sage, visionary, witness of the divine judgment in the generation of the
Flood, and envoy to the Watchers/Giants. Later Jewish mysticism reveals
Enoch-Metatron in a different set of roles and titles depicting him as the
Prince of the Torah, the Prince of the Divine Presence, the Measurer of the
Lord, the Prince of the World, and the Youth. Only a few titles are common
to both traditions. But even in the roles that seem to be shared by both
traditions, such as Enoch-Metatron’s priestly role or his role as an expert in
the divine secrets, one can see a significant evolution of the offices and their
different functions in the Enochic and in the Merkabah traditions.
It is intriguing that Enoch’s titles found in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, despite
the Second Temple date of this pseudepigraphon, appear to demonstrate a
close proximity to the titles of Metatron found in the Hekhalot and other
rabbinic materials. These titles help distinguish 2 Enoch from other early
Enochic pseupedigrapha since the majority of these titles were not in use in
1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Book of Giants.
Unfortunately the question about the origin and development of the
celestial roles and titles of the divine and angelic agents appearing in early
Jewish mysticism has been consistently ignored in recent scholarship. All
attention in this area has been concentrated on only one title, often assigned
to Metatron in the Hekhalot writings, i.e., Sar Torah.54 The focus on the
concept of Sar Torah in recent scholarly debates on the aim and origin of
early Jewish mysticism might implicitly point to the importance of the
imagery of the celestial titles for the theological framework of Hekhalot
literature. Yet, in spite of heated debates on the Sar Torah concept, other
celestial titles of Metatron found in rabbinic and Hekhalot materials, such as
—————
52 Orlov, “Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch,” 71–86.
53 Odeberg was the first to draw close attention to the similarities between the celestial
titles of Enoch in the Slavonic apocalypse and the titles of Metatron in Sefer Hekhalot.
54 M. D. Swartz, Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996) 53ff.
 Introduction 17
the Youth, the Prince of the World, and the Prince of the Countenance, have
not received equal scholarly attention. We still do not have a systematic
investigation of the origin and possible roots of these titles, although it is
apparent that the title Sar Torah does not stand alone in the Hekhalot tracts
but is interwoven with other titles, such as the Youth, among others.
The widespread existence of the symbolism of the heavenly roles and
titles of angelic agents in various Hekhalot writings demonstrates the
significance of this imagery in the theological frameworks of Hekhalot
literature. One can say that the celestial titles of Metatron represent one of
the major conceptual areas for this body of literature.55 Sefer Hekhalot gives
a systematic presentation of Enoch-Metatron’s celestial roles and titles. This
macroform contains testimonies to such important titles as the Youth, the
Prince of the World, the Prince of the Torah, and the Prince of the
Countenance, among many others. These traditions are not confined solely
to the materials associated with 3 Enoch, but are widely disseminated in
other macroforms, including Hekhalot Rabbati (where such titles as the
Youth and Sar Torah are applied to Metatron), Hekhalot Zutarti, Merkavah
Rabbah, and other Hekhalot writings. Some of these titles are also applied
in these materials to other angelic figures.
As noted earlier, the titles of the patriarch found in the Slavonic
apocalypse appear to be different from those attested in early Enochic
writings and demonstrate a close resemblance to the titles of Metatron as
they appear in some of the Hekhalot sources. The traditions found in the
Slavonic pseudepigraphon, however, are not as highly developed as in the
Hekhalot tracts and apparently represent an intermediate stage of the
evolution from the Enochic to the Merkabah tradition. In my study of the
celestial titles of the seventh antediluvian patriarch, I will investigate this
evolution from Enoch to Metatron in the hope of understanding to what
specific stage of this transition the titles found in the Slavonic apocalypse
might belong.
This study must therefore analyze the celestial titles of Enoch and
Metatron in the early Enochic tradition(s), 2 Enoch, and the rabbinic and
Hekhalot accounts. This analysis will show that the later rabbinic and
Hekhalot imagery of the celestial titles of Metatron stemmed from the early
conceptual definitions already attested in 2 Enoch. Further, it will be argued
that the evolution of the imagery of the celestial roles and titles
demonstrates that 2 Enoch represents a bridge between the early apocalyptic
Enochic accounts and the later mystical rabbinic and Hekhalot traditions.
On this journey, 2 Enoch represents the formative stage during which the

—————
55 It is possible that Metatron’s imagery fulfills the same function for the Merkabah
tradition that Enoch’s imagery fulfills for the Second Temple pseudepigrapha, namely,
being a sort of archetypal imagery shaping other mediatorial traditions.
18 The Enoch-Metatron Tradition

early apocalyptic imagery has acquired its new, distinctive proto-Hekhalot

mold. The important transition from the early roles of Enoch to the later
roles of Metatron already occurred, therefore, in the text of 2 Enoch. The
study will also demonstrate that the mediatorial polemics with traditions of
the exalted patriarchs and prophets played an important role in facilitating
this transition from Enoch to Metatron in 2 Enoch.56
The first part of the study is devoted to an analysis of the Enochic roles
and titles from their Mesopotamian prototypes to Metatron’s offices and
designations in the Hekhalot materials.
In Chapter 1 I offer an analysis of the roles and titles of the seventh
antediluvian hero found in the Mesopotamian sources about the king
Enmeduranki.
In Chapter 2 I discuss the evolution of the roles and titles of the seventh
patriarch in early Enochic materials, including the Astronomical Book, the
Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dreams, the Epistle of Enoch, the Book
of the Similitudes, the Book of Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the
Book of Giants. 2 Enoch is excluded from this analysis and is investigated
separately in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 3 I analyze Enoch-Metatron’s roles and titles in Sefer
Hekhalot and other Hekhalot and rabbinic sources. I argue that the
Merkabah materials operate with two sets of Metatron’s celestial roles and
titles: the “old” cluster, which is similar to Enochic and Mesopotamian
counterparts, and the “new” cluster which is not attested in Mesopotamian
and early Enochic materials. This section demonstrates that understanding
the celestial roles and titles is pivotal for construing the whole evolution of
the Metatron tradition, since in the rabbinic and Hekhalot materials the
information about the exalted angel is given mainly through the expositions
of his titles, roles, and the situations corresponding to them.
In Chapter 4 I investigate roles and titles of Enoch-Metatron found in 2
Enoch. Here I suggest that the analysis indicates that the majority of
Metatron’s titles and roles attested in the rabbinic and Hekhalot sources
were developed from the descriptions of the celestial roles and titles of the
seventh antediluvian patriarch found in 2 Enoch.
The second part of the study explores the significance of the polemical
interactions between the pseudepigraphic traditions of the exalted patriarchs
and prophets in shaping the celestial roles and titles of Enoch-Metatron in
the Slavonic apocalypse.
To advance the claim about the importance of the mediatorial polemics
for the exalted profile of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch, I begin Chapter 5 by

—————
56 I initially approached the problem of the mediatorial polemics in 2 Enoch in A.
Orlov, “‘Noah’s Younger Brother’: Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch,” Henoch 22 (2000)
259–73; idem, “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” JSJ 31 (2000) 23–38.
 Introduction 19
investigating the role of Adamic polemics in the conceptual development of
such titles of Enoch-Metatron as the Youth, the Prince of the World, the
Redeemer of the World, and the Measurer of the Lord.
In Chapter 6 I discuss Mosaic polemics in 2 Enoch and their formative
role in molding Enoch-Metatron’s role as a sar happanim, the Prince of the
Divine Presence. Here I demonstrate that the imagery of the divine Face
plays a crucial role in shaping the protagonist’s role as the servant of the
divine Presence.
In Chapter 7 I clarify the issues pertaining to the date of 2 Enoch. The
students of early Jewish mysticism have often ignored the pseudepigraphon
on the grounds of its uncertain date. I demonstrate that, given the Noachic
polemics which take place in the Slavonic apocalypse, this text can be
safely placed in the chronological framework of Second Temple Judaism.