Андрей Орлов

Артуру

2009-11-24T23:09:40Z

А вот и мой маленький букетик на могилку Артуру:

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/gora2.pdf

Духовная Культура Сирийцев под редакцией Николая Мусхелишвили и Николая Селезнева

2009-11-24T03:34:05Z

Прекрасный сборничек нескольких выдающихся исследователей мирового уровня только что вышедший в важной иезуитской журнальной серии:

ДУХОВНАЯ КУЛЬТУРА СИРИЙЦЕВ (под ред. Николая Мусхелишвили и Николая Селезнева; Символ, 55; Париж-Москва: Институт философии, теологии и истории св. Фомы; 2009; ISSN 0222-1292)

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ:

ОТ РЕДКОЛЛЕГИИ 3

ОКОЛО БИБЛИИ

СЕРГЕЙ МИНОВ
АДАМ И ЕВА В СИРИЙСКОЙ «ПЕЩЕРЕ СОКРОВИЩ» 9

ЕВГЕНИЙ БАРСКИЙ
МОЛИТВА ИЛИ ПЛАЧ? СИРИЙСКАЯ ВЕРСИЯ 4-Й КНИГИ ЭЗРЫ
В ИСТОРИИ БИБЛЕЙСКИХ ПЕРЕВОДОВ 47

ДУХОВНОСТЬ, ЛИТУРГИКА

АРЬЕ КОФСКИ, СЕРЖ РУЗЕР
РАЙ КАК САД АСКЕТИЧЕСКИХ УСЛАД:
ГЕРМЕНЕВТИЧЕСКИЕ СТРАТЕГИИ «КНИГИ СТЕПЕНЕЙ» 71

НАТАЛИЯ СМЕЛОВА
ЯЗЫК СИМВОЛОВ: БОГОРОДИЧНАЯ ТИПОЛОГИЯ
В ПЕРЕВОДНОЙ СИРИЙСКОЙ ГИМНОГРАФИИ 94

АЛЕКСАНДР ТРЕЙГЕР
МОГЛО ЛИ ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСТВО ХРИСТА СОЗЕРЦАТЬ ЕГО БОЖЕСТВО?
СПОР VIII ВЕКА МЕЖДУ ИОАННОМ ДАЛЬЯТСКИМ
И ТИМАТЕОСОМ I, КАТОЛИКОСОМ ЦЕРКВИ ВОСТОКА 121

ИОАНН ДАЛЬЯТСКИЙ
ПИСЬМО 34 150

АНТОН ПРИТУЛА
ВОСТОЧНОСИРИЙСКИЕ ПЕСНОПЕНИЯ (‘ОНИТЫ) И ГОМИЛИИ НАРСАЯ:
ШЕСТЬ ГИМНОВ ИЗ СБОРНИКА «ВАРДА» 152

КОНФЕССИОНАЛЬНЫЕ СТОЛКНОВЕНИЯ

НИКОЛАЙ СЕЛЕЗНЕВ
ИМЯ НЕСТОРИЯ КАК СИМВОЛ И ВОПРОС ЕГО ПОЧИТАНИЯ
В ВОСТОЧНОСИРИЙСКОЙ ТРАДИЦИИ ХРИСТИАНСТВА 257

ЮРИЙ АРЖАНОВ
К ИСТОРИИ ХРИСТИАНСТВА И ИУДАИЗМА В ДОИСЛАМСКОЙ АРАВИИ 287

АЛЕКСЕЙ МУРАВЬЕВ
МЕМРА ИАКОВА САРУГСКОГО О СИМЕОНЕ СТОЛПНИКЕ В КОНТЕКСТЕ ИСТОРИИ
КОНФЕССИОНАЛЬНОЙ БОРЬБЫ НА СИРИЙСКОМ ВОСТОКЕ V–VI ВВ. 308

СИРИЙСКАЯ КНИЖНОСТЬ

ГРИГОРИЙ КЕССЕЛЬ
«КНИЖИЦА КРУПИЦ» — АНТОЛОГИЯ ВОСТОЧНОСИРИЙСКОЙ ПИСЬМЕННОСТИ 327

МИХАИЛ ТОЛСТОЛУЖЕНКО
«КНИГА СОКРОВИЩ» ИАКОВА БАР ШАККО: БОГОСЛОВСКАЯ КОМПИЛЯЦИЯ
ЭПОХИ СИРИЙСКОГО РЕНЕССАНСА 357

АРАБСКИЕ ПАМЯТНИКИ

ДМИТРИЙ МОРОЗОВ
ЗАТЕРЯННЫЕ ТЕКСТЫ ЕФРЕМА СИРИНА 377

НИКОЛАЙ СЕЛЕЗНЕВ
КАТОЛИКОС-ПАТРИАРХ ЦЕРКВИ ВОСТОКА МА̄Р ИЛИЯ III
И ЕГО «СЛОВО НА ПРАЗДНИК РОЖДЕСТВА ХРИСТОВА» 389

КОРОТКО ОБ АВТОРАХ 396

--------------------------------------------------

CULTURE RELIGIEUSE DES SYRIENS

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

EDITORIAL 3

AUTOUR DE LA BIBLE

Sergey Minov
ADAM ET ÈVE DANS LA CAVERNE DES TRÉSORS SYRIAQUE 9

Evgeny Barsky
LA PRIÈRE OU LES PLEURS ? LA VERSION SYRIAQUE DU 4E LIVRE D’EZRAS DANS
L’HISTOIRE DES TRADUCTIONS BIBLIQUES 47

SPIRITUALITÉ ET LITURGIE

Aryeh Kofsky, Serge Ruzer
LE JARDIN DES DÉLICES ASCÉTIQUES ET LES STRATÉGIES HERMÉNEUTIQUES
DANS LE LIBER GRADUUM 71

Natalia Smelova
UNE LANGUE SYMBOLIQUE : LA TYPOLOGIE DES THEOTOKIA DANS L’HYMNOGRAPHIE
SYRIAQUE TRADUITE DU GREC 94

Alexander Treiger
L’HUMANITÉ DU CHRIST POUVAIT – ELLE VOIR SA DIVINITÉ ?
LA POLÉMIQUE ENTRE JEAN DE DALYATHA
ET TIMOTHÉE I, CATHOLICOS DE L’ÉGLISE DE L’ORIENT, AU VIIIE SIÈCLE 121

LETTRE 34 DE JEAN DE DALYATHA
(TRADUITE DU SYRIAQUE PAR Nikolai Seleznyov) 150

Anton Pritula
COMPOSITIONS LITURGIQUES SYRO-ORIENTALES (‘ONYATA)
ET LES HOMÉLIES DE NARSAÏ : SIX HYMNES DU RECUEIL LITURGIQUE WARDA 152

CONTROVERSES CONFESSIONNELLES

Nikolai Seleznyov
LE NOM DE NESTORIUS DE CONSTANTINOPLE COMME SYMBOLE ET LA QUESTION
DE SA VÉNÉRATION DANS LA TRADITION CHRÉTIENNE SYRO-ORIENTALE 257

Yury Arzhanov
À PROPOS DE L’HISTOIRE DU CHRISTIANISME ET DU JUDAÏSME
EN ARABIE PRÉ-ISLAMIQUE 287

Alexei Muraviev
MEMRA DE JACQUES DE SAROUG SUR SIMÉON LE STYLITE DANS LE CONTEXTE
DE L’HISTOIRE DES CONTROVERSES CONFESSIONNELLES EN ORIENT SYRIEN
AUX Ve–VIe SIÈCLES 308

LITTÉRATURE SYRIAQUE

Grigory Kessel
LE LIVRET DES MORCEAUX : UNE ANTHOLOGIE DE LA LITTÉRATURE SYRO-ORIENTALE 327

Mikhail Tolstoluzhenko
LE LIVRE DES TRÉSORS DE JACQUES BAR ŠAKKO : UNE COMPLILATION THÉOLOGIQUE
DE L’ÉPOQUE DE LA RENAISSANCE SYRIAQUE 357

DOCUMENTS ARABES

Dmitry Morozov
LES TEXTES PERDUS ET RETROUVÉS D’EPHREM LE SYRIEN 377

Nikolai Seleznyov
LE CATHOLICOS DE L’ÉGLISE DE L’ORIENT ÉLIE III ET SON HOMÉLIE
SUR LA FÊTE DE LA NATIVITÉ DU CHRIST 389

BRÈVES NOTICES SUR NOS AUTEURS 396

Заказать и купить книгу можно здесь:
http://simbol.su/kontakt.html.

15 номер Волшебной Горы: Памяти Артура Медведева

2009-11-23T20:17:41Z

via mariya_mamyko

http://mariya-mamyko.livejournal.com/171468.html

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ 15 НОМЕРА ВОЛШЕБНОЙ ГОРЫ:

ТРАДИЦИОННЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

ПРАВОСЛАВНАЯ ТРАДИЦИЯ

Дионисий Поспелов. Преподобный Симеон Новый Богослов (новый
просопографический очерк)
1. Личность и эпоха
2. Биография и почитание
3. Литературное наследие
4. Гимны или «Эросы божественных гимнов»

мон. Кассия (Т.А. Сенина). Св. Симеон Новый Богослов в творениях
иеросхимонаха Антония (Булатовича)

Дмитрий Бирюков. Тема проникновения огня в железо и её использование в
контексте описания обожения человека в святоотеческой традиции

Этьен Ноде. По следам гипотезы Анни Жобер: пасха, хлеб и Вино

1. Датировка Тайной Вечери: традиционная проблема
2. Проблемы редакций
3. Христианская Пасха
4. Заключение

А.В. Марков. «Грамматика намёков»: греческое восприятие сакрального в
раннее новое время

Александр Преображенский. Некоторые аспекты инициатической работы в
Православии (продолжение)

Рецензии и мнения

о. Александр (Задорнов). Священное безмолвие и христианская культура:
грани понимания (Символ. Журнал христианской культуры, основанный
Славянской библиотекой в Париже. №52 (2007)

мон. Кассия (Т.А. Сенина). Новые монографии по вопросам имяславия

ХРИСТИАНСКИЙ ВОСТОК

Антон Притула.
Гимн о неравенстве в человеческом обществе из восточно-
сирийского сборника Варда Третьего воскресенья Ильи. Об обитателях мира, в котором один
презираем, а другой возвышаем (Пер. с сир. А. Притулы)

Николай Селезнёв. К истории затерянной культуры христианского Востока:
палестинские мелькиты

У ПРЕСТОЛА СЛАВЫ

Андрей Орлов. Голос Откровения: Традиции Имени Божиего в
«Апокалипсисе Авраама» (Пер. с англ. Н. Селезнёва)

ИСЛАМСКАЯ ТРАДИЦИЯ

Мохаммад Али Амир-Моеззи. Сокрытая религия (Верования и духовные
практики шиитского ислама) (Пер. с франц. С. Яблонской)
Замечания по поводу выражения Дин Али
Выражение Дин Али в историографических трудах
Единственность Али
Повествования об Али и алидах
Основания «религии Али»
коранические основания
доисламские основания
Отклики и последствия
Тьерри Заркон. Тайна и тайные общества в исламе: Турция, Иран и
Центральная Азия. XIX-XX вв. (Пер. с франц. С. Яблонской)
Фонд Исследований Исламской Культуры

Рецензии и мнения

Фатима Ежова. Книга Единобожия и Восстания против современного мира.
(«Путь красноречия» («Нахдж аль-балага») Имама Али (мир ему).) Имам Али.
Путь красноречия

МЕТАФИЗИКА

Ананда К. Кумарасвами. Об индийской и традиционной психологии или
вернее пневматологии (Перевод с англ. А. Коржова)

Рустем Вахитов. Платоновское учение об «идеальном государстве» как
теория реставрации традиционного общества (Окончание)

Станислав Киверин, Дмитрий Ипполитов.
Метафизика Младшего Футарка (Продолжение)

Рецензии и мнения

Андрей Рыжов. Избранные труды Фритьофа Шуона (Шуон Ф. Очевидность
и тайна – М.: Номос, 2007)

ЛЕЧЕНИЕ И ИСЦЕЛЕНИЕ
Глеб Бутузов. Алхимия и психология (Окончание)
ГНОЗИС

Ольга Васильева. Египтологи Джереми Нэйдлер и
Джон Гвин Гриффитс
Дж. Нэйдлер. Платон, шаманизм и Древний Египет
Шаманизм и древний Египет
Египет и Греция
Шаманы с севера
Психэ: от Гомера до Платона
Притяжение Юга
Египетская психэ: экзотерическая и эзотерическая
Платон и египетская традиция
Итоговые размышления
(Пер. с англ. О. Васильевой)

Джон Гриффитс. Атлантида и Египет (Пер. с англ. О. Васильевой)
Сопоставление древних Афин и Египта
Был ли Солон в Египте?
Жреческие имена и статус
Утопические аспекты Атлантиды
Возможные исторические отголоски
Государственный строй и религия
Числа и имена

САКРАЛЬНАЯ ГЕОГРАФИЯ

Георгий Нефедьев. Москва: Опыт реконструкции городской мифологии
(заметки к теме)

ОБРАЗЫ РОССИИ

Роман Багдасаров. Архидиакон Михаил Потапов
(из цикла «Алтарь и Холст»)

ФИЛОСОФИЯ ТВОРЧЕСТВА

Вера Сердечная. На пирах вечности: «Песнь Лоса» Уильяма Блейка
Уильям Блейк. Песнь Лоса (Пер. с англ. В. Сердечной)

Рецензии и мнения

Вера Сердечная. Книга торжествующих умолчаний: «Тайная слава» Артура
Мейчена (Мейчен А. Тайная слава: избр. произв./ А. Мейчен; [пер. с англ.,
сост. и примеч. Е.Пучкова]. – М.: Энигма, 2007)

ЭССЕ
Глеб Бутузов. Лишь голоса и звуки.
ПОЭЗИЯ

Григорий Бондаренко. Чарльз Вильямс: штрихи к портрету
Чарльз Вильямс. Талиесин чрез Логр (Пер. с англ. Г. Бондаренко)
Тарас Сидаш
Виктор Качалин
Регина Бондаренко
Мария Мамыко

IN MEMORIAM

Артур Медведев. Последний текст. 24 июля 2009
Владимир Малявин. Топология чуда
Глеб Бутузов. Каплям подобно дождевым
Андрей Окара. Артур Медведев. Незримое сияние Традиции
Григорий Бондаренко. Стоя у склона волшебной горы
Рустем Вахитов. Памяти Артура (Арсения) Медведева
Фонд исследований исламской культуры. Памяти Артура Медведева

Демоны, демоны ... и снова демоны

2009-11-02T01:12:57Z

Несколько последних постов в этом журнале были посвящены демонологии. Продолжая эту небезопасную для читателей и автора тему хочу предложить на суд аудитории мою новую статью (к сожалению без ссылок) выходящую в фестшрифте одного профессора Иерусалимского Университета - сборнике редактируемом мною и Дафной Арбел, который скоро будет опубликован в немецком издательстве De Gryeter.

Статья посвящена загадочной традиции из Славянского Откровения Авраама в которой говорится о том что великий противник Бога способен создать свой план и даже место своего возвышения - свой престол по образу и подобию Божиему....

Andrei A. Orlov
Marquette University

“The Likeness of Heaven”:
Kavod of Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham

Introduction

The chapter 14 of the Apocalypse of Abraham, a Jewish pseudepigraphon written in the first centuries of the Common Era, unveils an enigmatic tradition about the unusual power given to the main negative hero of the story – the fallen angel Azazel. In the text, Abraham’s celestial guide, angel Yahoel, warns his human apprentice, the hero of the faith, that God endowed his chief eschatological opponent – Azazel with the special will and the “heaviness” against those who answer him.

The reference to the mysterious “heaviness” (Slav. тягота) given to the demon has been puzzling the students of the Slavonic apocalypse for long time. One of the scholars, Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, previously suggested that the Slavonic term for “heaviness” (тягота) found in this passage from Apoc. Ab. 14:13 possibly serves there as a technical term for rendering the Hebrew word Kavod. Rubinkiewicz futher proposed that the original text most likely had dwbk, which has the sense of “gravity,” but also of “glory,” and the meaning of the verse would be: “the Eternal One … to him [Azazel] he gave the glory and power.” According to Rubinkiewicz, this ambiguity lays at the basis of the Slavonic translation of the verse.
It is quite possible that in view of the formative influences that the Book of Ezekiel exercises on the Apocalypse of Abraham, the authors of the text might indeed were cognizant of the Kavod technical terminology, which plays such an important role in the great prophetic book. Yet, the transference of peculiar theophanic imagery to an ambiguous character of the story is quite puzzling since the Kavod symbolism represents a very distinctive attribute which was reserved in the Jewish biblical and pseudepigraphic traditions almost exclusively for the celestial and translated agents in order to signal their divine status. Could this strange tradition about the glory of Azazel suggest that the authors of the Slavonic apocalypse attempted dualistically envision the fallen angel as a sort of the negative counterpart of the Deity who enjoys his own “exalted” attributes which mimic and emulate the attributes of the Deity?
Moreover, a closer look at the pseudepigraphon reveals that such dualistically symmetrical symbolism appears to be not only confined to the description of the fallen angel and his unusual attributes but in fact represents one of the main ideological tendencies of the Slavonic apocalypse. Several scholars previously noted this peculiarity of the theological universe of the Slavonic apocalypse which unveils the paradoxal symmetry of good and evil realms - the domains which in the Abrahamic pseudepigraphon seem stunningly depicted as emulating and mirroring each other.
It has been previously argued that striking prevalence of such dualistic symmetrical patterns permeating the fabric of the Apocalypse of Abraham can be seen as one of the most controversial and puzzling features of the text. It should be noted that the dualistic currents are present mostly in the second, apocalyptic portion of the text where the hero of the faith receives an enigmatic revelation from the Deity about the unusual powers given to Azazel.
Reflecting on these conceptual developments, Michael Stone draws attention to the traditions found in chapters 20, 22, and 29 where the reference to Azazel’s rule which he exercises jointly with God over the world coincide “with the idea that God granted him authority over the wicked.” Stone suggests that “these ideas are clearly dualistic in nature.”
John Collins explores another cluster of the peculiar depictions repeatedly found in the second part of the Apocalypse in which the humankind is divided into two parts - half on the right and half on the left, representing the chosen people and the Gentiles respectively. These portions of humanity are labeled in the text as the lot of God and lot of Azazel. Collins argues that “the symmetrical division suggests a dualistic view of the world.” He further observes that “the nature and extent of this dualism constitute the most controversial problem in the Apocalypse of Abraham.”
Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, while denying the presence of the “absolute” or “ontological” dualism in Apoc. Ab., at the same time admits that the pseudepigraphon exhibits some dualistic tendencies in its ethical, spatial and temporal dimensions.
Yet, in contrast to Rubinkiewicz’s opinion, George Box sees in these spatial and temporal dimensions the main signs of “radical dualism” of the apocalypse. He reflects that “the radical dualism of the Book comes out not only in the sharp division of mankind into two hosts, which stands for Jewry and heathendom respectively, but also in the clearly defined contradistinction of two ages, the present Age of ungodliness and the future Age of righteousness ….”
Another distinguished student of the Slavonic text, Marc Philonenko, while analyzing the symmetrical nature of the positions of Yahoel and Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham, notes the peculiarity of the interaction between these two spirits, one good and one malevolent. He notices that their battle does not occur directly but rather through a medium of a human being – Abraham. Abraham thus is envision in the pseudepigraphon as a place where the battle between two spiritual forces is unfolded. Philonenko sees in such anthropological internalization a peculiar mold of the dualism present also in Qumran materials including the Instruction on the Two Spirits (1QS 3:13 - 4:26) where the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness are fighting in the heart of man.
Aforementioned suggestions of scholars about dualistic tendencies of the apocalypse which seems to envision the symmetrical correspondence between the divine and demonic realms - the worlds of God and Azazel are intriguing and deserve further investigation. The study will attempt to explore some dualistic symmetrical patterns found in the Slavonic pseudepigraphon concentrating mainly on the peculiar theophanic imagery surrounding the figure of the main antagonist of the text – the demon Azazel.

The Inheritance of Azazel

The traditions about two eschatological lots or portions of humanity found in the second part of the text have been captivating imagination of the scholars of the Slavonic apocalypse for a long time. In these fascinating descriptions the students of the Abrahamic peudepigraphon often tried to discern a possible connections with the dualistic developments found in some Qumran materials where the imagery of the two eschatological lots played such a significant role. Indeed, in the Dead Sea Scrolls materials one can find a broad appropriation of the imagery of two portions of humanity which are depicted there often as standing in the striking opposition to each other in the final decisive battle. It has been often noticed that the peculiar symbolism of the eschatolological parties often takes form of dualistic symmetrical counterparts – as these groups are repeatedly described in the Dead Sea Scrolls through the metaphoric depictions involving dichotomies of darkness and light, good and evil, election and rejection. Such dualistic “mirroring” is also often underscored by the symbolic profiles of the main leaders of the eschatological “lots” whose peculiar sobriquets are often negatively or positively reflect or even polemically deconstruct the names of their respective eschatological rivals - Melchizedek and Melchirešac, the Angel of Light and the Prince of Darkness.
The peculiar imagery of the eschatological portions of humanity is also manifested in the Apocalypse of Abraham. The graphic depictions of two lots are widely dispersed in the second, apocalyptic, part of the pseudepigraphon. Scholars previously noted that the peculiar conceptual elaborations that surround these portrayals of the portions appear to be reminiscent not only the eschatological reinterpretations and terminology found in the Qumran materials but also the peculiar imagery of sacrificial lots prominent in the Yom Kippur ritual, the ordinance that is described in detail in the biblical and rabbinic accounts. Thus, it has been previously noticed that the word “lot” (Slav. часть) found in the Slavonic text appears to be connected to the Hebrew lrwg, a term prominent in some cultic descriptions found in biblical and rabbinic accounts as well as in the eschatological developments attested in the Qumran materials.
Similarly to the Qumran materials where the lots are linked to the fallen angelic figures or translated heroes (like Belial or Melchizedek), in the Apocalypse of Abraham the portions of humanity are now tied to the main characters of the story – the fallen angel Azazel and the translated patriarch Abraham.
It is also noteworthy that in the Apocalypse of Abraham similarly to the Qumran materials the positive lot is designated sometimes as the lot of the Deity - “my [God’s] lot”:
And the Eternal Mighty One said to me, “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “Here am I!” And he said, “Look from on high at the stars which are beneath you and count them for me and tell me their number!” And I said, “Would I be able? For I am [but] a man.” And he said to me, “As the number of the stars and their host, so shall I make your seed into a company of nations, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel.”

While the similarities of the Apocalypse of Abraham with the Qumran materials were often noticed and accentuated in the previous studies, the differences in the descriptions of the eschatological lots and their respective leaders have been often neglected. Yet, it is quite possible that the dualistic imagery of the eschatological portions might receive their even more radical form in the Slavonic apocalypse then in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, it appears that the Slavonic pseudepigraphon attempts to transfer to the negative protagonist and to his lot some of the notions and attributes that in Qumran materials remain reserved solely for the domain of the positive portion of humanity. One of such notions includes the concept of “inheritance” – the term that plays such an important role both in the Dead Sea Scrolls materials and in the Slavonic apocalypse.
Thus, the passage found in chapter 14 of the pseudepigraphon unveils the following enigmatic tradition about the very special “inheritance” given to the fallen angel Azazel:

Since your inheritance (достояние твое) are those who are with you, with men born with the stars and clouds. And their portion is you (ихъже часть еси ты).

The striking feature of this account is that in Apoc. Ab. 14:6 the concept of the eschatological “lot” or “portion” (Slav. часть) of Azazel appears to be used interchangeably with the notion of the “inheritance” (Slav. достояние).
This terminological connection is intriguing since two notions – “inheritance” and “lot” are also used interchangeably in the Qumran passages which deal with the imagery of the lots. Thus, for example, 11Q13 speaks about “inheritance” referring to the portion of Melchizedek which will be victorious in the eschatological ordeal:
…and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, fo[r…] … and they are the inherita[nce of Melchize]dek, who will make them return. And the d[ay of aton]ement is the e[nd of] the tenth [ju]bilee in which atonement shall be made for all the sons of [light and] for the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek.

In 1QS 3:13 - 4:26, in the fragment also known as the Instruction on the Two Spirits the imagery of inheritance is tied to the concept of the lot of the righteous:
… they walk in wisdom or in folly. In agreement with man’s inheritance in the truth, he shall be righteous and so abhor injustice; and according to his share in the lot of injustice, he shall act wickedly in it, and so abhor the truth.

In 1QS 11:7-8 and CD 13:11-12 this concept of inheritance again connected with the participation in the lot of light, also labeled in 1QS as “the lot of the holy ones”:
To those whom God has selected he has given them as everlasting possession; and he has given them an inheritance in the lot of the holy ones. (1QS 11:7-8)

And everyone who joins his congregation, he should examine, concerning his actions, his intelligence, his strength, his courage and his wealth; and they shall inscribe him in his place according to his inheritance in the lot of light. (CD-A 13:11-12).

In these last two texts the concept of “inheritance” appears to be understood as the act of participation in the eschatological lot as it rendered through the formulae “inheritance in the lot” (Heb. lrwgb wtlxn). The same idea seems to be operational in the aforementioned passage from Apoc. Ab. 14:6. where the “inheritance” is understood as the participation in the lot of Azazel.
Yet, despite the similarities, one striking difference between these texts however is discernable – that is while in Qumran materials the “inheritance” appears to be connected with the divine lot, in Apoc. Ab. it is unambiguously tied to the lot of Azazel.
This transference of the notion of “inheritance,” the concept which plays such important conceptual role in the Qumran ideology, under the umbrella of the lot of Azazel in the Apoc. Ab. is striking since it brings the dualistic ideology of the Jewish pseudepigraphon on a entirely new conceptual level in comparison with the dualistic developments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Such new conceptual advancement appears also exercise a long-lasting influence on the profile of the main antagonist of the text – the fallen angel Azazel, who in comparison with the eschatological opponents of the Dead Sea Scrolls now becomes not just one of the characters in the gallery of many eschatological opponents, but the adversary par excellance. In this respect Lester Grabbe suggests that the Apocalypse of Abraham seems to be referring to the “basic arch-demon complex under the name of Azazel.” In his opinion, in the Slavonic apocalypse “Azazel is no longer just a leader among the fallen angels but the leader of the demons. Figures originally separate have now fallen together while the various names have become only different aliases of the one devil.”
Such mythological consolidation affecting the profile of the main eschatological opponent advances the dualistic thrust of the Slavonic apocalypse and helps to secure Azazel’s confrontational stand not only towards Yahoel and Abraham but more importantly his unique status in opposition to the Deity.

The Theophany of Azazel

The second, apocalyptic, section of the Slavonic pseudepigraphon begins with the series of the arcane portrayals which unveil the striking appearance and the spectacular offices of Abraham’s celestial guide – angel Yahoel. Yet, in comparison with these disclosures about the great celestial being, the figure of another important character of the story, the main adversary of the text, the fallen angel Azazel, remains to be shrouded in the cluster of even more ambiguous and enigmatic descriptions. For some hidden reasons, possibly viewing the arch-demon’s figure as one of the conceptual keys for unlocking the mystery of the theological universe of the text, the authors of the pseudepigraphon appears to be very reluctant to unveil and clarify unambiguously the exact status of their mysterious antihero, instead offering to their readers a rich tapestry of the arcane traditions embroidered with the most recondite imagery which can be found in the apocalypse.
Yet, despite the aura of concealment which envelops the cryptic profile of the arch-demon, the cosmic significance of this perplexing character keeps radiating its controversial light through various details of the story. Thus, the very first lines of chapter 13, which introduce Azazel to the audience, appear to be hinting him as the figure of a very special authority. His bold descend on the sacrifices of the hero of the faith appears to be not coincidental as the authors of the Slavonic apocalypse might want to signal to their readers that Azazel is not merely an abandoned demoted creature, but rather an object of the worship, veneration, and sacrificial devotion who possibly possesses an exalted status and place that negatively replicate and mimic authority and position of the Deity.
In previous studies much ink has been spilled on establishing the conceptual correspondences between Azazel and Abraham as well as parallels between Azazel and Yahoel. Yet, despite the significance of these comparative studies, that have been able to clarify conceptual symmetry between positive and negative protagonists of the story, the scholars often neglected another portentous parallelism found in the text – that is the correspondence in the roles and attributes between the Deity and the demon. The initial sign of this baffling dualistic symmetry appears to be hinted already in the depictions of the eschatological lots where the portion of Azazel is openly compared with the lot of the Almighty. Yet, this juxtaposition between the fallen angel and the Divinity can be considered as rather schematic and one even might see in this correspondence between two portions of humanity, one belonging to God and the other to the demon, a merely metaphorical distinction which does not intend to match fully the status and the attributes of the Deity with the condition of Azazel, but rather simply hint to demon’s temporary role in the eschatological opposition. Yet, a closer analysis of the text reveals that the comparisons between God and Azazel have much broader conceptual ramifications which appear to be transcending purely metaphorical level, as the depictions of the both characters unveil the striking theophanic similarities. One of the important features in this respect is the peculiar imagery of the epiphanies of both characters unfolding in the special circumstances of their fiery realms.
It is intriguing that in the text where the theophanic manifestations of the Deity are repeatedly portrayed as appearing in the midst of flames – the presence of Azazel is also conveyed through the similar imagery.
It has been previously noted that the imagery of fire plays an important conceptual role in the Slavonic apocalypse. It is often envisioned there as the substance which predestine to scrutinize the authenticity of things and test their eternal status. Apoc. Ab. 7:2 reminds its readers that “the fire mocks with its flames the things that perish easily.” Both animated and unanimated characters of the story, including the infamous idols and their blasphemous makers, are depicted in the text as undergoing the fiery probes – the ominous tests that often marshal them into their final catastrophic demise. Thus, by the means of fire, the young hero of the faith “tests” the wooden stature of his father – the idol Bar-Eshath which flames turn into a pile of ashes. Moreover, the craftsmen of the idolatrous figures themselves are not exempted from the scrutiny of the fiery probes. The first haggadic section of the text concludes with the blazing ordeal during which the workshop of Terah is obliterated by the fire send by God. Later, in the second, apocalyptic, section of the work the patriarch Abraham himself undergoes multiple fiery tests during his progress into the upper heaven. All these remarkable instances of the fiery annihilations of certain characters of the story and yet miraculous survivals of the others appear to be not coincidental. Scholars previously noted that in the Apocalypse of Abraham as in several other apocalyptic texts (including Dan 3 or Ezek 28) the fire serves as the ultimate test which intends to distinguish inauthentic and idolatrous representations of the Divinity from its true counterparts. In accordance with this belief, which often envisions the endurance of the “true” things in the flames, the very presence of the Deity is repeatedly portrayed in the text as situated in the stream of fire. Thus, already in chapter eight, which marks a transition to the apocalyptic section of the work and narrates the patriarch’s response to the divine call in the courtyard of Terah’s house, the divine presence is depicted as “the voice of the Mighty One” coming down in a stream of fire. This self-disclosure of God in the midst of the theophanic furnace becomes then a standard description adopted by the author(s) of the apocalypse in order to convey manifestations of the Deity.
In view of these peculiar theophanic tenets of the pseudepigraphon it is intriguing that some eschatological manifestations of Azazel similar to the epiphanies of the Deity, are depicted in the pseudepigraphon with the fiery imagery.
Although in chapter 13 the patriarch sees Azazel in the form of the unclean bird – the apocalypse makes clear that this appearance does not reflect the true appearance of the demon whose proper domain is designated several times in the text as situated in the subterranean realm. What is striking that there, in the authentic abode of the negative protagonist, in the belly of the earth, the domicile of the great demon is fashioned with the same peculiar visual markers as the abode of the Deity – that is as being situated in the midst of the theophanic furnace.
Thus, in Yahoel’s speech found in chapter 14, that reveals the true place of the chief antagonist - the arch-demon’s abode is designated as the furnace of the earth. Moreover, he himself is portrayed as the “burning coal” or the “firebrand” of this infernal kiln. This depiction of Azazel’s glowing in the furnace of his own domain is intriguing. It evokes the peculiar memory of the fiery nature of the divine abode which in the Apocalypse of Abraham is portrayed as the upper furnace. The fiery nature of heavenly plan is underlined multiple times in the text. It is notable that seer’s progress into the domain of the deity is portrayed as his movement into the fiery realm. Thus, in Apoc. Ap. 15:3 the transition of the hero and his guiding angel through the boarder of heavenly realm is portrayed as entrance into fire: “…and he carried me up to the edge of the fiery flame. And we ascended like great winds to the heaven which was fixed on the expanses.”
Then, in chapter 17, the readers again encounter this terrifying presence of the celestial furnace as the flames envelop the visionary and his celestial guide on their progress to the abode of the Deity:
And while he was still speaking, behold, a fire was coming toward us round about, and a sound was in the fire like a sound of many waters, like a sound of the sea in its uproar. (Apoc. Ab. 17:1).

In 18:1 upon his entrance into the celestial Holy of Holies the visionary againpasses another fiery threshold: “… while I was still reciting the song, the edge of the fire which was on the expanse rose up on high.”
Finally the fiery apotheosis reaches its pinnacle in chapter 18 where the patriarch sees the depiction of the heavenly throne room of the Deity. There, in the utmost concealed theophanic locale, the seer beholds the very seat of the Deity which is fashioned from the substance of fire: “And as the fire rose up, soaring higher, I saw under the fire a throne [made] of fire and the many-eyed Wheels” (Apoc. Ab. 18:3).
This fiery nexus of the divine presence paradoxically parallels the fiery nature of the subterranean abode of the negative protagonist.
This striking imagery brings us back to the Azazel tradition found in Apoc. Ab. 14:5 where according to some scholars the demonic presence is fashioned as the fire of Hell.
Such identification of Azazel’s essence through the imagery of the subterranean flames is intriguing in view of the aforementioned conceptual currents in which the fire serves as a distinctive theophanic medium, expressing the very presence of the Deity. Similar to the Deity who is depicted as the fire of heaven enthroned on the seat of flames, the demon is portrayed as the fire of the underworld.
In this respect it is also noteworthy that similar to the divine Voice, the main theophanic expression of the Deity in the book, which is depicted as coming in stream of fire – Azazel’s aural expression is also conveyed through the similar fiery symbolism. Thus, Apoc. Ab. 31:5 speaks about “the fire of Azazel’s tongue” (Slav. огонь языка Азазилова):

And those who followed after the idols and after their murders will rot in the womb of the Evil One—the belly of Azazel, and they will be burned by the fire of Azazel’s tongue (палими огнемъ языка Азазилова).

What is also intriguing in this passage is that like the fire of God which destroys the idols and idolaters alike in its flames, the fire issuing from Azazel has power to destroy those who “follow after the idols.” Though it is not entirely clear in this context if the fire of Azazel is the fire of God – since in Apoc. Ab. 31:3 the Deity tells that he destined those who “mocked” him “to be food for the fire of hell, and ceaseless soaring in the air of the underground depths.”

The Kavod of Azazel

Our previous exploration of the features of the infamous antagonist of the text demonstrated that the authors of the apocalypse appears to envision Azazel as the one who possesses the theophanic attributes that now mimic the attributes of the Deity.
The impressive cluster of enigmatic traditions about the attributes and offices of the fallen angel, that closely resemble their divine counterparts, reaches its new paradoxal shape in chapter 23 where to the hero of the faith is given a vision of the protological scene portraying the demon’s corruption of the Protoplasts.
Before we proceed to a close analysis of this puzzling scene, several words must be said about the peculiar arrangement of the patriarch’s vision during which the exalted hero of the faith literally gazes into the abyss from the heights of his most exalted position near the Throne of the Deity. This enigmatic setting seems further paradoxically reaffirms the dualistic framework of the text with its repeated parallelism of the lower and upper realms.
In the beginning of this mysterious vision the Deity orders the seer to look beneath his feet and “contemplate the creation.” The apocalypse then portrays Abraham looking beneath the expanse at his feet and beholding what the text called the “likeness of heaven.” This reference to the “likeness of heaven” (Slav. подобие неба) baffled the imagination of students of the apocalypse for a long time because the text’s decision to put under this category of “resemblance of heaven” the vision of the corrupted domain belonging to Azazel:
And I looked beneath the expanse at my feet and I saw the likeness of heaven (подобие неба) and what was therein. And [I saw] there the earth and its fruits, and its moving ones, and its spiritual ones, and its host of men and their spiritual impieties, and their justifications, <and the pursuits of their works,> and the abyss and its torment, and its lower depths, and the perdition which is in it. And I saw there the sea and its island<s>, and its animals and its fishes, and Leviathan and his domain, and his lair, and his dens, and the world which lies upon him, and his motions and the destruction of the world because of him. (Apoc. Ab. 21:2-4).

In this arcane vision which the patriarch receives from the highest heaven, gazing down into the abyss, the reader encounters another dazzling illustration of the dualistic vision of the Apocalypse of Abraham.
Yet the most puzzling disclosure in the cluster of these mysterious expositions about the “likeness of heaven” is given further in chapter 23 where the visionary beholds the Azazel’s appearance under the paradisal Tree.
Apoc. Ab. 23:4-11 unveils the following enigmatic tradition involving peculiar protological imagery:
And I looked at the picture, and my eyes ran to the side of the garden of Eden. And I saw there a man very great in height and terrible in breadth, incomparable in aspect, entwined (съплетшася) with a woman who was also equal to the man in aspect and size. And they were standing under a tree of Eden, and the fruit of the tree was like the appearance of a bunch of grapes of vine. And behind the tree was standing, as it were, a serpent in form, but having hands and feet like a man, and wings on its shoulders: six on the right side and six on the left. And he was holding in his hands the grapes of the tree and feeding the two whom I saw entwined with each other. And I said, “Who are these two entwined (съплетшася) with each other, or who is this between them, or what is the fruit which they are eating, Mighty Eternal One?” And he said, “This is the reason of men, this is Adam, and this is their desire on earth, this is Eve. And he who in between them is the Impiety of their pursuits for destruction, Azazel himself.”

In this vision that the patriarch receives while standing at the place of God’s theophany, near the divine Throne, Abraham beholds Azazel’s protological manifestation in the lower realm where the demon’s presence is placed in the midst of the protoplasts. Another important feature of the depiction is that it renders the abode of Azazel through the primordial imagery of the Tree situated in the Garden of Eden.
There are no doubts that the text offers to its audience the portrayal of the infamous Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – the arboreal symbol of the protological corruption of the first human couple. The peculiar features of the scene and the reference to the “grapes of vine” as the fruit of the Tree bring to the memory the cluster of familiar motifs associated in the Jewish lore with the legendary paradisal plant. While some features of the scene look familiar, others are not. One novel detail which strikes the reader’s imagination is the portrayal of Azazel between the intertwined protoplasts under the Tree.
This intriguing tradition has puzzled the students of the Slavonic apocalypse for a long time. Although the imagery of the intertwined Protoplasts is known from Jewish and Christian lore about the serpentine Eve, the depiction found in the Apocalypse of Abraham appears to be unveiling some novel perplexing features of such symbolism. Some scholars have discerned an erotic dimension of this portrayal suggesting that the demon and the intertwined protoplasts form here some sort of a ménage à trois. But if it is true what then is a theological significance of this ominous intercourse involving the demonic spirit and the human couple?
Is it possible that in this scene which depicts an enigmatic union of the arch-demon and the protoplasts one might have not merely a scandalous illustration of the protological corruption of the first humans but also a disclosure of one of the most mysterious and controversial epiphanies of Azazel? If it is indeed possible, here, like in some biblical and pseudepigraphic accounts, the erotic imagery and the symbolism of the conjugal union might be laden with theophanic significance.
Moreover, if the epiphanic angle is indeed present in the protological scene, the arboreal imagery appears to be also contributing to such theological dimension. In this respect the peculiar details of Azazel’s position between the protoplasts under the Tree might be invoking the memory of peculiar theophanic trend related to another prominent plant of the Garden of Eden – the Tree of Life.
In Jewish lore the Tree of Life often has a theophanic significance – as it described as the very special arboreal abode of the Deity. In these traditions God is depicted as resting on the cherub beneath the Tree of Life. These traditions are found in the number of apocalyptic and mystical accounts. Thus, for example, Apocalypse of Moses 22:3-4 connects the theophany of the Deity with the Tree of Life:

And God came into paradise, mounted on the chariot of his cherubim with the angels proceeding before him and singing hymns of praises. As God entered paradise, the plants of Adam’s portion flowered but all mine were bereft of flowers. And the throne of God was fixed where the Tree of Life was.

The similar tradition is found also in 2 Enoch 8:3 where the Tree of Life again is described as the abode of God:

And in the midst (of them was) the tree of life, at that place where the LORD takes a rest when he goes into paradise. And that tree is indescribable for pleasantness and fine fragrance, and more beautiful than any (other) created thing that exists. And from every direction it has an appearance which is good-looking and crimson, and with the form of fire.

The tradition of the Divinity dwelling on the cherub under the Tree of Life was not forgotten in the later Jewish mysticism where God’s very presence – his Shekinah is portrayed as resting on a cherub beneath the Tree of Life. 3 Enoch 5:1 unveils the following tradition:
R. Ishmael said: Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence, said to me:
From the day that the Holy One, blessed be he, banished the first man from the garden of Eden, the Shekinah resided on a cherub beneath the tree of life.

The striking feature of this account is that here, like in the classic Ezekelian accounts, the cherubic creature represents the “angelic furniture” that functions as the seat of the Deity.
It is also intriguing that in the later Jewish mysticism not only the Tree of Life but also the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil receives a similar epiphanic re-interpretation being envisioned as the symmetrical theophanic locale with its own cherubic servants.
Thus, the Book of Zohar I.237a unveils the following enigmatic tradition about the symmetry of the upper and lower cherubim openly associating the latter with the Tree of Sin and Corruption:

Adam was punished for his sin, and brought death upon himself and all the world, and caused that tree in regard to which he sinned to be driven out along with him and his descendants for ever. It says further that God “placed the cherubim on the east of the garden of Eden”; these were the lower cherubim, for as there are cherubim above, so there are cherubim below, and he spread this tree over them.

This passage is striking since it brings to the memory of the Tree of Knowledge found in the Slavonic apocalypse which overshadowed the protological couple holding in their midst the presence of Azazel. It is noteworthy that in the passage from the Zohar – the Tree of Knowledge is now unambiguously associated with the angelic servants designated as the “lower cherubim.”
Keeping in mind this cryptic tradition about the cherubic servants it is now time to return to the protological scene found in the Slavonic apocalypse. The hidden allusions to the cherubic imagery might also be present in the Azazel’s epiphany in Apoc. Ab. 23:4-11 where he is depicted under the Tree of Knowledge in the midst of the protoplasts. What is intriguing here in the description of Azazel is that the presence of the evil spirit is manifested in the connubial union of the intertwined couple.
It should be noticed that the imagery of the intertwined primordial couple holding the presence of the spiritual agent is quite unique in the Adamic lore. Yet, it invokes the memory of another important theophanic tradition of the divine presence – where God’s presence is depicted through the imagery of the intertwined cherubic pair in the Holy of Holies.
The treatise Yoma of the Babylonian Talmud contains two passages which offer the striking if not scandalous descriptions of the intertwisted cherubim in the Holy of Holies.
Thus, b. Yoma 54a reads:
R. Kattina said: Whenever Israel came up to the Festival, the curtain would be removed for them and the Cherubim were shown to them, whose bodies were intertwisted with one another, and they would be thus addressed: Look! You are beloved before God as the love between man and woman.

This arcane passage portrays an erotic union of the cherubic angelic servants holding the presence of the Deity. One might see here later rabbinic innovations which are far distant or maybe even completely divorced from the early biblical tradition of the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies.
Yet, scholars previously noted that already early biblical accounts hint to the ambiguous “proximity” of the famous cherubic pair. Thus, Rachel Elior notes that in some biblical materials “descriptions of them usually imply a posture characterized by reciprocity or contact: ‘they faced each other,’ or also ‘their wings touched each other’ or were even joined together.’” Elior notes that while the early traditions about the cherubim found “both in the Bible and elsewhere, imply varying degrees of proximity and contact – later tradition was more explicit, clearly indicating the identity of the cherubim as a mythical symbolization of reproduction and fertility, expressed in the form of intertwined male and female.”
In b. Yoma 54b the tradition of the intertwisted cherubim is repeated again:
Resh Lakish said: When the heathens entered the Temple and saw the Cherubim whose bodies were intertwisted with one another, they carried them out and said: These Israelites, whose blessing is a blessing, and whose curse is a curse, occupy themselves with such things! And immediately they despised them, as it is said: All that honored her, despised her, because they have seen her nakedness.

Rachel Elior argues that the description of the intertwined cherubim found in the Talmud suggests “a cultic, mystical representation of myths of hieros gamos, the sacred union or heavenly matrimony….” It is also apparent that this arcane imagery of the Cherubic union has the theophanic significance as it in itself expresses the manifestation of the divine presence – the feature especially evident in b. Yoma 54a with its motifs of the removal of the curtain and the revelation of the Cherubim on Yom Kippur. It is therefore clear that the tradition of the intertwined cherubim is envisioned here as the theophanic symbol.
In the view of these developments it is quite possible that such theophanic dimension of the conjugal union might be also negatively evoked in depiction of the intertwined protoplasts in the chapter 23 of the Apocalypse of Abraham. In this respect could it be possible that the erotic ordeal of the protological couple holding in the midst the presence of Azazel somehow serves as a negative counterpart of the Cherubic Couple holding the divine presence in the Holy of Holies? Can Adam and Eve be understood here as the “lower cherubim” overshadowed by the Tree of Knowledge – the Adamic tradition openly articulated in the Zohar 1.237 and maybe already hinted in the Apocalypse of Abraham?
What is also captivating in the veiled description found in chapter 23 is that the mysterious shape of Azazel situated under the Tree appears to be in itself hinting to the unity of the cherubic couple as his form combines some attributes of two cherubim joined together. The passage tells that the demon has twelve wings – six on the right side of his body and six on the left side:
And behind the tree was standing, as it were, a serpent in form, but having hands and feet like a man, and wings on its shoulders: six on the right side and six on the left.

It is noteworthy that earlier in the text when Abraham sees the “Living Creatures of the Cherubim” in the heavenly Throne Room he reports that each of them has six wings:
And under the throne [I saw] four singing fiery Living Creatures ... and each one had six wings: from their shoulders, <and from their sides,> and from their loins (Apoc. Ab. 18:3-6).

These mind-boggling attributes of the demon are intriguing and in the view of the aforementioned theophanic traditions it is possible that Azazel here attempts to mimic the divine presence represented by the cherubic couple in the Holy of Holies by offering his own, now corrupted and demonic version of the sacred union. Here the Adversary who according to the Slavonic apocalypse appears to have his own Kavod, given to him by God, possibly intends to fashion his own presence in dualistic symmetrical correlation with the divine theophany which takes place between two intertwined angelic creatures.

Conclusion

In conclusion of our study of the dualistic tendencies found in the Apocalypse of Abraham we should say that the exact nature and the possible sources of these conceptual developments remains shrouded in the mystery. In the past there have been a number of studies that attempted to explicate the dualistic tenets found in the Slavonic translations of several pseudepigraphical works, including the Apocalypse of Abraham and 2 Enoch, through their alleged connections with the Bogomil movement, a dualistic sect that flourished in the Balkans in the late middle ages. These studies argued that the Apocalypse of Abraham, might contain Bogomil dualistic interpolations. Recent scholarship however is increasingly skeptical of such radical proposals and generally finds little or no connection between the aforementioned pseudepigraphons and the Bogomil movement.
Our research helps further critically question the validity of the “Bogomil hypothesis” since it helps to discern the conceptual complexity of the dualistic tenets found in the Slavonic apocalypse and their reliance on the authentic Jewish traditions. The consistency and paramount significance of these developments for the overall conceptual framework of the pseudepigraphon suggest that they don’t represent secondary additions and interpolations but rather embody the main theological tendency of the Slavionic pseudepigraphon. This peculiar ideological trend demonstrates the remarkable similarities to the Palestinian dualism reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the dualistic currents manifested in the later Jewish mystical literature.
In the view of these portentous developments it is quite possible that the Apocalypse of Abraham in itself can represent the important conceptual bridge that links the early Palestinian dualistic currents found in Qumran documents with their later rabbinic counterparts. In this respect a further investigation of the dualistic profile of the chief negative protagonist of the text might help us further clarify the true extent and the nature of these significant theological advancements taking place in the Slavonic apocalypse.

Symbola Caelestis: Le symbolisme liturgique et paraliturgique dans le monde chrétien

2009-10-29T17:51:04Z

Title: Symbola Caelestis
Subtitle: Le symbolisme liturgique et paraliturgique dans le monde chrétien
Series: Scrinium: Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique 5
Availability: In Press
Publisher: Gorgias Press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Andrei Orlov
Edited by Basil Lourié
ISBN: 978-1-60724-665-7
Availability: In_Press
Language: English
Format: Hardback, Black, 6 x 9 in
Price: $142.16

The volume deals with the liturgical dimension of mystical, ascetical, and hymnographic texts and traditions circulated in Christian environment including different liturgical texts of the Coptic and the Byzantine rite, especially in its Slavonic and Georgian versions.

The volume also explores the Jewish background of some Christian liturgical settings and the afterlife of the Jewish priestly and liturgical traditions in the Christian milieu. The collection includes the critical edition of the early Slavonic version of the liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts accompanied by the historical study of this service.

http://gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-57029-orlov-andrei-and-basil-louri-symbola-caelestis.aspx

положение во мрак

2009-10-29T17:33:54Z

В Первой Книге Еноха описывается приговор Бога в отношении падшего ангела Асаэла (Азазела). Господь приказывает архангелу Рафаилу положить Азазела во мрак - покрыть демона мраком и "закрыть ему лицо" чтобы он "не смотрел на свет":

И сказал опять Господь Рафаилу: "Свяжи Азазела по рукам и ногам и положи его во мрак; сделай отверстие в пустыне, которая находится в Дудаеле, и опусти его туда. И положи на него грубый и острый камень, и покрой его мраком, чтобы он оставался там навсегда, и закрой ему лицо, чтобы он не смотрел на свет!

Меня всегда интересовала эта традиция положения великого демона во мрак. Означает ли эта традиция здесь тривиальное удаление от Божественного присутствия и Света исходящего от Божественного Лика? либо это создание своего рода апофатического полюса Божественного отсутствия симметричного полюсу Божественного присутствия? В чем космологический смысл присутствия Азазела во тьме?

И в сязи с этим ещё один вопрос теперь относительно традиции камня возложенного на Азазела.
Может быть традиция положения камня на Азазела здесь связана не только с ритуалом Дня Искупления (когда на Козла бросали камни) - но также и с актом первоначального установления Камня Основания в хаосе и бездне, камня на котором затем строится всё творение.

Продолжение. Великий Ангел "изгоняющий" Небесного Козла Отпущения

2009-10-27T15:03:14Z

Re-enactment of the Yom Kippur Festival in the Apocalypse of Abraham: The Scapegoat Ritual

The High Priest and Azazel

Like in the Enochic tradition where the profiles of both protagonists and antagonists often reveal their cultic affiliations, in the Slavonic apocalypse too both Azazel and Abraham are envisioned as priestly figures. As has already been mentioned, this sacerdotal vision permeates the fabric of the entire pseudepigraphon, in which all main characters are endowed with cultic roles. The most spectacular cultic attributes are, of course, given to Yahoel, who is presented in the text as the heavenly high priest and the celestial choir-master.

The repeated instructions about sacrificial rites and proper liturgical procedures that he conveys to his human apprentice Abraham reveal Yahoel as the most distinguished sacerdotal figure of the story. It is possible that, in his role as instructor and revealer of cultic mysteries, Yahoel discloses his teachings to the patriarch not only in speech but also through direct participation in priestly praxis. One such instance may be seen in chapters 13 and 14 of the Slavonic apocalypse, where Yahoel appears to perform one of the central ordinances of the Yom Kippur atoning ceremony, in which impurity is transferred onto Azazel and the scapegoat is dispatched into the wilderness.
Thus, in Apoc. Ab. 13:7-14 the following arcane encounter between the high priest Yahoel and the scapegoat Azazel can be found:

… “Reproach is on you, Azazel! Since Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth,
Since you have chosen it and desired it to be the dwelling place of your impurity. Therefore the Eternal Lord, the Mighty One, has made you a dweller on earth. And because of you [there is] the wholly-evil spirit of the lie, and because of you [there are] wrath and trials on the generations of impious men.
Since the Eternal Mighty God did not send the righteous, in their bodies, to be in your hand, in order to affirm through them the righteous life and the destruction of impiety.
… Hear, adviser! Be shamed by me, since you have been appointed to tempt not to all the righteous!
Depart from this man! You cannot deceive him, because he is the enemy of you and of those who follow you and who love what you desire. For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.”

In view of the cultic affiliations of Yahoel, it is possible that his address to the scapegoat has a ritual significance, since it appears to be reminiscent of some of the actions of the high priest on Yom Kippur. The first thing that draws attention is that Yahoel’s speech contains a command of departure: “Depart from this man!” Crispin Fletcher-Louis has noted a possible connection between this command found in Apoc. Ab. 13:12 and the dispatching formula given to the scapegoat in m. Yoma 6:4 – “Take our sins and go forth.”
Scholars have also pointed out that some technical terminology found in chapter 13 appears to be connected with Yom Kippur terminology. Thus, Daniel Stökl draws attention to the expression about “sending” things to Azazel in Apoc. Ab. 13:10, which Alexander Kulik traces to the Greek term a)poste&llw or Hebrew xl#. Stökl proposes that this terminology “might allude to the sending out of the scapegoat.”
The phrase “dwelling place of your impurity” is also noteworthy since it alludes to the “purgation” function of the scapegoat ceremony, the rite which centered on removing the impurity heaped on the sacrificial animal to the “dwelling” place of the demon in the wilderness.
Putting reproach and shame on Azazel in Apoc. Ab. 13:7 and 13:11 may also relate to the ritual curses bestowed upon the scapegoat.
Another important detail of Yahoel’s speech is the angel’s mention that the corruption of the forefather of the Israelite nation is transferred now to Azazel.
Reflecting on this utterance of the great angel, Robert Helm sees its connection to the Yom Kippur settings by proposing that “the transference of Abraham’s corruption to Azazel may be a veiled reference to the scapegoat rite….” Similarly, Lester Grabbe also argues that the phrasing in the statement that “Abraham’s corruption has ‘gone over to’ Azazel suggest[s] an act of atonement.”
It is also possible that the high priest Yahoel is performing here the so-called “transference function” – the crucial part of the scapegoat ritual – when the high priest conveys the sins of Israel onto the head of the goat through confession and laying-on of hands.

Abraham and the Scapegoat

It is quite clear that in the Apocalypse of Abraham Yahoel functions as a senior priest explaining and demonstrating rituals to a junior sacerdotal servant - Abraham. This parallelism between the instructions of the master and the actions of the apprentice is manifested already in the beginning of the apocalyptic section of the text, where the patriarch faithfully follows the orders of his angelic guide about the preparation of the sacrifices. The same pattern of sacerdotal instruction in which orders of the master are then followed by the performance of the disciple is also discernable in the depiction of the ritual of dispatching the scapegoat.
In the Apocalypse of Abraham, after Yahoel’s own “handling” of Azazel, the angel then verbally instructs Abraham on how to deal with the scapegoat:
Say to him, “May you be the fire brand of the furnace of the earth! Go, Azazel, into the untrodden parts of the earth. <Since your inheritance are those who are with you, with men born with the stars and clouds. And their portion is you, and they come into being through your being. And justice is your enmity. Therefore through your own destruction vanish from before me!” And I said the words as the angel had taught me. (Apoc. Ab. 14:5-8).

In this narrative the dispatching formulas appear to be even more decisive and forceful than in the previously investigated passage from chapter 13, now including such commands to the scapegoat as: “Go” (Slav. иди) and “Vanish from before me” (Slav. буди от мене исчезлъ).
Another captivating detail is that the dispatching formula “Go, Azazel, into the untrodden parts of the earth” designates the destination of the demon’s removal as “the untrodden parts of earth.” The word “untrodden” (Slav. беспроходна) is significant since it designates a place uninhabitable (lit. impassable) to human beings. Reflecting on the language of Lev 16 where the scapegoat is dispatched “to the solitary place” (hrzg Cr)-l)) “in the wilderness,” (rbdmb), Jacob Milgrom observes that “the purpose of dispatching the goat to the wilderness is to remove it from human habitation.”
In view of these observations it is possible that in the Apocalypse of Abraham one encounters another, so-called “elimination,” aspect of the scapegoat ritual whereby impurity must be removed from the human oikumene into an inhabitable (or in the language of the Apocalypse of Abraham, “untrodden”) realm.
In this respect Daniel Stökl also observes that the terminology found in Apoc. Ab. 14:5, where Azazel goes “into untrodden parts of the earth,” is reminiscent of the Septuagint version’s translation of Leviticus 16:22 (ei)v gh~n a!baton) and the expression chosen by Philo in De Specialibus Legibus 1:188 in his description of Yom Kippur.
The concluding phrase of the passage from chapter 14, which reports that Abraham repeated the words he received from the great angel, confirms our suggestion that Abraham is depicted here as a sort of a priestly apprentice receiving instructions from his master Yahoel and then applying this knowledge in dispatching the scapegoat.

Conclusion

In the conclusion of our study of the Yom Kippur imagery discernable in the second part of the Apocalypse of Abraham, we should again draw attention to the possible connections between these sacerdotal traditions and the conceptual developments found in the first, haggadic section of the pseudepigraphon.
As has already been mentioned, the first part of the text is also permeated with cultic concerns as it depicts the idolatrous worship of the household of Terah, envisioned there through the metaphor of the polluted sanctuary. The section ends with the demise of the infamous house of worship and the death of its sacerdotal servants - Abraham’s father Terah and his brother Nahor – perishing in the fire of the destroyed shrine polluted by idols.
In this respect it is intriguing that the description of the Yom Kippur ritual found in Leviticus 16 also begins with a reference to two priests who have perished: Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu who, like Terah and Nahor in the Slavonic apocalypse, were killed by the fire proceeding from God because their improper priestly practice defiled the sanctuary.
This reference to priests who have perished and caused a contamination which now requires purgation appears to serve well for the cultic agenda of Lev 16, which then offers the description of the purificatory rite of Yom Kippur. As was already seen, later rabbinic materials that link the Golden Calf episode with the establishment of Yom Kippur hint at this correspondence between sacerdotal transgression and the need for its cultic repair.
In light of the aforementioned traditions, it appears that the re-enactment of the Yom Kippur observances found in the second part of the Apocalypse of Abraham also fits nicely in the overall structure of the Slavonic pseudepigraphon where the hero’s transition from the polluted and destroyed sanctuary depicted in the beginning of the story to the true place of worship shown him by Deity at the end is mediated by the atoning ritual.

Продолжение. Ещё один небольшой отрывок из статьи о Козле Отпущения и Великом Дне Искупления

2009-10-19T05:35:21Z

Mosaic Background of Abraham’s Priestly Initiations and the Day of Atonement

Chapters 9-12 describe the beginning of Abraham’s priestly initiation, during which Yahoel teaches the young hero of the faith how to prepare sacrifices in order to enter the presence of the Deity. Scholars have previously observed that some details of this initiation recall the story of another remarkable visionary of the Jewish tradition – the son of Amram, the seer who was privileged to receive a very special revelation on Mount Sinai.

As was already mentioned, the liturgical setting of Abraham’s priestly initiation might be related to the Festival of Weeks - Shavuot or Pentecost. This feast celebrates Moses’ reception of revelation at Mount Sinai and is also known in Jewish tradition as the Festival of the Giving of Our Torah.
Indeed, as many scholars have already noted, some motifs found in the Apocalypse of Abraham appear to reflect the peculiar details surrounding the reception of the Torah on Sinai by the great Israelite prophet. One of the distinctive hints here for establishing the connection with the Mosaic traditions is the theme of Abraham’s forty-day fast.
This motif is first introduced in Apoc. Ab. 9:7, where God orders Abraham to hold a strict fast for forty days. It is noteworthy that, as in the Mosaic traditions, so in the Slavonic apocalypse this fast coincides with the promise of a divine revelation on a high mountain:
But for forty days abstain from every food which issues from fire, and from the drinking of wine, and from anointing [yourself] with oil. And then you shall set out for me the sacrifice which I have commanded you, in the place which I shall show you on a high mountain.

The theme of the forty day fast on the mountain receives an even more distinctly “Mosaic” shape in chapter 12, where it coincides with another cluster of Mosaic traditions, including the reference to Horeb (a name for Sinai in some biblical passages) and information about the nourishment of a seer through the vision of a celestial being:
And we went, the two of us alone together, forty days and nights. And I ate no bread and drank no water, because [my] food was to see the angel who was with me, and his speech with me was my drink. And we came to the glorious God’s mountains—Horeb.

Scholars often see in this passage an allusion to Exodus 34:28, which reports that Moses was with God forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai without eating bread or drinking water. The reference to alternative nourishment through the vision of a celestial being again evokes the cluster of interpretive traditions associated in Second Temple and rabbinic literature with the figure of Moses.
Although the biblical accounts of Moses’ and Elijah’s theophanic experiences often “mirror” each other by sharing similar imagery, David Halperin argues that in the Apocalypse of Abraham Mosaic traditions have greater formative value than traditions about Elijah. He notes that
… when the angel tells Abraham that he will see God “come straight towards us” (chapter 16), this reminds us that God “passes by” both Moses and Elijah (Exodus 33:22; 34:6; 1 Kings 19:11-12). But it is only Moses who is told in this connection that “you cannot see my face” and “my face shall not be seen” (33:20, 23), just as the angel goes on to tell Abraham that God “Himself thou shalt not see.” Moses, not Elijah, “bowed down upon the earth and prostrated himself” when God passed (34:8) – which explains Abraham’s frustrated urge to do the same thing (chapter 17).

Previous studies have convincingly demonstrated the importance of Mosaic typology for the authors of the Apocalypse of Abraham, who decided to transfer several important Mosaic motifs into Abraham’s story. Yet, despite scholars’ thorough attention to the Mosaic background of the story, one portentous detail appears to have escaped their notice: Moses’ forty-day fast occurred immediately after his fight with idolatry and his destruction of the Golden Calf, when he returned to Sinai again to receive a second set of tablets from the deity.
It is intriguing that in the Apocalypse of Abraham, as in the Exodus account, the forty-day fast follows the hero’s fight with idolatry. One can see a certain parallelism between the stories of the two visionaries. Like Moses who burns the Golden Calf (Exodus 32) and then fasts (Exodus 34), Abraham too is described earlier in the text as burning the idol of his father, a figurine bearing the name Bar-Eshath. It is important that in both cases the transition to the initiatory purifying fast occurs immediately after the accounts dealing with idolatry and the demotion of idols.
The tradition of the hero’s fast that occurs after his fight with an idolatrous statue betrays distinctly priestly concerns and appears important for discerning the sacerdotal background of Abraham’s story and its possible connections with Day of Atonement traditions. Yet, the main question remains open: how can a Yom Kippur setting be reconciled with the Mosaic details of Abraham’s initiation, given that these details point unambiguously to the cluster of motifs associated with the Shavuot festival which celebrates Moses’ reception of the Tablets of the Law?
It is intriguing that later rabbinic writers identify the day on which Moses received the tablets of the law for a second time with another Jewish festival, the Day of Atonement. Thus, b. Baba Bathra 121a records the following tradition:
…One well understands why the Day of Atonement [should be such a festive occasion for it is] a day of pardon and forgiveness. [and it is also] a day on which the second Tables were given …

An almost identical tradition is found in b. Taanith 30b:
…R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: There never were in Israel greater days of joy than the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement. I can understand the Day of Atonement, because it is a day of forgiveness and pardon and on it the second Tables of the Law were given….

It appears that this cluster of traditions about the “day of pardon and forgiveness” draws on biblical traditions similar to the one found in Exodus 32:30, where, after the idolatry of the Golden Calf, Moses tells the people that he will go to the Lord asking for atonement of their sin.
Several midrashic passages make even more explicit this connection between the repentance of the Israelites after the idolatry of the Golden Calf in Exodus 33 and the establishment of Yom Kippur. In these materials the Israelites’ repentance serves as the formative starting point for observance of the Day of Atonement. Thus, Eliyyahu Rabbah 17 reads:
When Israel were in the wilderness, they befouled themselves with their misdeeds, but then they bestirred themselves and repented in privacy, as is said, Whenever Moses went out to the Tent, all the people would rise and stand, each at the entrance of his tent, and gaze after Moses. And when Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the Tent … When all the people saw the pillar of cloud poised at the entrance of the Tent, all the people would rise and bow low, each at the entrance of his tent (Exod. 33:8, 9, 10), thus intimating that they repented, each one in the privacy of his tent. Therefore His compassion flooded up and He gave to them, to their children, and to their children’s children to the end of all generations the Day of Atonement as a means of securing His pardon.

It is noteworthy that this passage from Eliyyahu Rabbah invokes the memory of the familiar events found in Ex 33 which occurred immediately after the Golden Calf episode. The midrashic evidence indicates that the rabbinic tradition attempts repeatedly to place the institution of Yom Kippur’s atoning rites into the framework of the traditions surrounding Moses’ reception of the second set of the Tablets of the Law.
Thus, a passage found in Pirke de R. Eliezer 46 unveils the tradition connecting Moses’ vision of the Glory of God in Exodus 33 with the Day of Atonement:
Moses said: On the Day of Atonement I will behold the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, and I will make atonement for the iniquities of Israel. Moses spake before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of all the universe! “Shew me, I pray thee, thy glory” (Ex. xxxiii, 18). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Moses! Thou art not able to see My glory lest thou die, as it is said, “For men shall not see me and live” (ibid, 20)…

This tradition of Moses’ quest to behold the Kavod, now placed in the liturgical setting of the Day of Atonement, anticipates the vision of the concealed Glory of God in the Holy of Holies by the high priest on Yom Kippur.
It is even more important for our study, in view of the Mosaic traditions found in the Slavonic apocalypse, that several midrashic passages link Moses’ forty-day ordeal on Sinai with the institution of the Day of Atonement. Thus, the passage found in Pirke de R. Eliezer 46 preserves the following tradition:
The Son of Bethera said: Moses spent forty days on the mount, expounding the meaning of the words of the Torah, and examining its letters. After forty days he took the Torah, and descended on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement, and gave it as an everlasting inheritance to the children of Israel, as it is said, “And this shall be unto you an everlasting statute” (Lev. xvi. 34).

It is also intriguing that the passage from Pirke de R. Eliezer links the revelation given to the son of Amram with the instructions about Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16. Another passage, Eliyyahu Zuta 4, goes even further by connecting the forty-day fast that preceded Moses’ reception of the tablets for a second time with the establishment of the practice of self-denial on Yom Kippur:
During the last forty days when Moses went up a second time to Mount Sinai to fetch the Torah, Israel decreed for themselves that the day be set aside for fasting and self-affliction. The last day of the entire period, the last of the forty, they again decreed self-affliction and spent the night also in such self-affliction as would not allow the Inclination to evil to have any power over them. In the morning they rose early and went up before Mount Sinai. They were weeping as they met Moses, and Moses was weeping as he met them, and at length that weeping rose up on high. At once the compassion of the Holy One welled up in their behalf, and the holy spirit gave them good tidings and great consolation, as He said to them: My children, I swear by My great name that this weeping will be a joyful weeping for you because this day will be a day of pardon, atonement, and forgiveness for you – for you, for your children, and for your children’s children until the end of all generations.

All this evidence from the rabbinic literature indicates that in later Jewish interpretation Moses’ fight with idolatry, his forty-day fast, his vision of the deity, and his reception of the portentous revelation on Sinai were understood as a chain of formative events linked to the establishment of the Yom Kippur ceremony. Moreover, some of these traditions envisioned Moses’ ordeal as the cosmic prototype of the symbolic actions that, while the Temple still stood, were re-enacted annually by the high priest in the Holy of Holies.
Now it is time to return to the Slavonic apocalypse, where a very similar constellation of motifs is found. It is possible that by evoking this particular cluster of Mosaic traditions the authors of the apocalypse were attempting to connect the patriarch’s sacrificial practices on Mount Horeb with Moses’ receiving the tablets of the law for the second time, the event which later rabbinic traditions interpreted as the inauguration of the Yom Kippur holiday.
It is intriguing that in the Apocalypse of Abraham, as in the aforementioned rabbinic accounts, the self-afflicting practice of the forty-day fast which follows the sin of idolatry is then connected to Day of Atonement imagery. It is possible that in the Slavonic apocalypse, as in rabbinic accounts, a very similar combination of Mosaic motifs is permeated with Yom Kippur symbolism.
While several scholars have previously pointed to the existence of Yom Kippur imagery in the Slavonic apocalypse, no sufficient explanation was offered for why this cluster of traditions surrounding the scapegoat Azazel and the two lots suddenly appears in the Abrahamic pseudepigraphon. In this respect it is noteworthy that other Abrahamic pseudepigrapha (for example, the Testament of Abraham), while sharing some other common conceptual tenets with the Apocalypse of Abraham, do not show any interest in appropriating Day of Atonement symbolism. Such imagery is also absent from other early extra-biblical elaborations of the patriarch’s story found in the Book of Jubilees, Josephus, and Philo as well as in the later rabbinic materials (Genesis Rabbah, Tanna debe Eliahu, Seder Eliahu Rabba). There too one fails to find any references to Azazel or the imagery of the two lots, the very themes that play such a significant theological role in the Slavonic apocalypse. The aforementioned Abrahamic materials also contain no references to the peculiar cluster of Mosaic traditions found in our text.
Yet the uniqueness of this cluster of motifs opens up the possibility that in the Slavonic apocalypse the story of the patriarch might be patterned not according to biblical Mosaic typology but according to a later version, found also in the aforementioned rabbinic accounts, which now connects the hero’s fight with idolatry and his practice of self-denial with the establishment of the observance of the Yom Kippur festival. In this respect the highly “developed” shape of certain Mosaic themes found in the apocalypse--such as, for example, the motif of the unusual nourishment of a seer during his forty-day fast--points to apparent departures from the early biblical blueprint.

Отрывок из статьи Об эсхатологическом Йом Киппуре в Откровении Авраама выходящей в Пятом Скриниуме

2009-10-15T05:04:50Z

В Пятом Скриниуме будет опубликована моя новая большая статья (примерно 37 страниц) об эсхатологической реинтерпретации ритуала Козла Отпущения в Славянском Откровении Авраама. Выношу здесь впервые на суд читателей небольшой отрывок из этой статьи. К сожалению без footnotes (все цитаты из Откровения Авраама даны в переводе Александра Кулика).

From a Sacrificial Animal to a Fallen Angel

... One of the challenges in arguing for a Yom Kippur setting in the Apocalypse of Abraham lies in the fact that the accounts of Abraham’s sacrificial practices lack any explicit reference to the two goats of biblical and rabbinic traditions. These emblematic sacrificial animals played a distinctive role in the Yom Kippur rite, wherein one goat was sacrificed to God and the other was released into the wilderness for Azazel.
Yet in the Apocalypse of Abraham, a writing which exhibits a great deal of influence from the Enochic tradition, allusions to the Yom Kippur ritual seem to be affected also by Enochic re-interpretation of the scapegoat imagery and especially the enhanced symbolism of its chief antagonist, the scapegoat Azazel, envisioned now not as a sacrificial animal but as a demoted celestial being.

Scholars have previously noted that in the Book of the Watchers the scapegoat rite receives a striking, angelological reinterpretation in incorporating some details of the sacrificial ritual into the story of its main negative hero - the fallen angel Asael. Thus, 1 Enoch 10:4-7 reads:

And further the Lord said to Raphael: “Bind Azazel by his hands and his feet, and throw him into the darkness. And split open the desert which is in Dudael, and throw him there. And throw on him jagged and sharp stones, and cover him with darkness; and let him stay there for ever, and cover his face, that he may not see light, and that on the great day of judgment he may be hurled into the fire. And restore the earth which the angels have ruined, and announce the restoration of the earth, for I shall restore the earth ….

Several distinguished students of the apocalyptic traditions have previously discerned that some details of Asael’s punishment are reminiscent of the scapegoat ritual. Thus, Lester Grabbe points to a number of parallels between the Asael narrative in 1 Enoch and the wording of Leviticus 16, including “the similarity of the names Asael and Azazel; the punishment in the desert; the placing of sin on Asael/Azazel; the resultant healing of the land.” , Daniel Stökl also observes that “the punishment of the demon resembles the treatment of the goat in aspects of geography, action, time and purpose.” Thus, the place of Asael’s punishment designated in 1 Enoch as Dudael is reminiscent of the rabbinic terminology used for the designation of the ravine of the scapegoat (wdwdh / wrwdh tyb) in later rabbinic interpretations of the Yom Kippur ritual. Stökl remarks that “the name of place of judgment (Dudael – wrwdh tyb) is conspicuously similar in both traditions and can likely be traced to a common origin.”
Several Qumran materials also appear cognizant of this angelological reinterpretation of the scapegoat figure when they choose to depict Azazel as the eschatological leader of the fallen angels, incorporating him into the story of the Watchers’ rebellion. Thus, 4Q180 1:1-10 reads:

Interpretation concerning the ages which God has made: An age to conclude [all that there is] 2 and all that will be. Before creating them he determined [their] operations [according to the precise sequence of the ages,] one age after another age. And this is engraved on the [heavenly] tablets [for the sons of men,] [for] /[a]ll/ the ages of their dominion. This is the sequence of the son[s of Noah, from Shem to Abraham,] [unt]il he sired Isaac; the ten [generations …] […] Blank […] [And] interpretation concerning ‘Azaz’el and the angels wh[o came to the daughters of man] [and s]ired themselves giants. And concerning ‘Azaz’el [is written …] [to love] injustice and to let him inherit evil for all [his] ag[e …] […] (of the) judgments and the judgment of the council of […]

Lester Grabbe points to another important piece of evidence – a fragmentary text from the Book of Giants found at Qumran (4Q203). In this document the punishment for all the sins of the fallen angels is placed on Azazel.
Later rabbinic materials also link the sacrificial animal known from the scapegoat ritual to the story of the angelic rebels. Thus, for example, b. Yoma 67b records the following tradition:

The School of R. Ishmael taught: Azazel – [it was so called] because it obtains atonement for the affair of Uza and Aza’el.”

As can be seen, the conceptual link between the scapegoat and the fallen angel is documented in a number of important materials across a substantial span of history. A broad scholarly consensus now recognizes this connection.
It appears that such an “angelological” pattern also operates in the Apocalypse of Abraham, where Azazel, like the antagonist of the Enochic tradition, is envisioned as a fallen angelic being. It has previously been noted that the Azazel story in the apocalypse reflects several peculiar details of the Enochic myth of the fallen watchers. Thus, for example, Rubinkiewicz argued that

… the author of the Apocalypse of Abraham follows the tradition of 1 Enoch 1-36. The chief of the fallen angels is Azazel, who rules the stars and most men. It is not difficult to find here the tradition of Genesis 6:1-4 developed according to the tradition of 1 Enoch. Azazel is the head of the angels who plotted against the Lord and who impregnated the daughters of men. These angels are compared to the stars. Azazel revealed the secrets of heaven and is banished to the desert. Abraham, as Enoch, receives the power to drive away Satan. All these connections show that the author of the Apocalypse of Abraham drew upon the tradition of 1 Enoch.

It is clear that in the Slavonic apocalypse, as in the Enochic and Qumran materials, Azazel is no longer a sacrificial animal, but an angelic being. Already in his first appearance in chapter 13:3-4, he is depicted as an unclean (impure) bird (Slav. птица нечистая). In the pteromorphic angelological code of Apocalypse of Abraham, which chooses to portray Yahoel with the body of griffin, the bird-like appearance of Azazel points to his angelic form.
The assumption that Azazel was once an angelic being is further supported by Apoc. Ab. 14 which tells about the celestial garment that the fallen angel once possessed: “For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him (Abraham)…”
Yet, in comparison with the early Enochic developments, the angelic profile of Azazel appears to be more advanced. Lester Grabbe suggests that in the depiction of its main antagonist the Apocalypse of Abraham seems to be referring to the “basic arch-demon complex under the name of Azazel.” In his opinion, there “Azazel is no longer just a leader among the fallen angels but the leader of the demons. Figures originally separate have now fallen together while the various names have become only different aliases of the one devil.”

The Goat for YHWH?

Abraham’s symmetrical role in relation to Azazel in the Slavonic apocalypse again evokes the memory of the Enochic tradition and its legendary hero – the seventh antediluvian patriarch. In both cases the protagonists appear to be mirroring their respective negative counterparts, as both stories portray them exchanging attributes and roles with one another. Just as Enoch takes the priestly and celestial offices of Asael, while the fallen angel assumes some human roles, so in the Apocalypse of Abraham too, Azazel surrenders his angelic garment to the hero of the faith. Both parties, thus, accept the roles and offices of their counterparts as they enter the realms of their opponents. In this respect it is noteworthy that the transition of the antagonist of the Slavonic apocalypse into the lower realm, as in the case of Asael of the Enochic tradition, encompasses two steps: his removal first to the earth, then further, to the fiery abyss of the subterranean sphere.
Furthermore, similarly to the Book of the Watchers, in the Abrahamic pseudepigraphon the protagonist progresses in the direction opposite to his negative counterpart by ascending into heaven, as he acquires a special status and a celestial garment that allows him to enter the celestial sanctuary. The progression of the patriarch into upper sancta has here, like in 1 Enoch, a sacerdotal significance, as it betrays connections with the Yom Kippur ceremony of the high priest’s entrance into the divine presence. Moreover, it is possible that Abraham’s progressive movement into the heavenly Holy of Holies might be understood here as encompassing not only the priestly but also the sacrificial dimension, in view of the patriarch’s symmetrical position to the celestial scapegoat, by virtue of which Abraham’s lot is repeatedly juxtaposed with the lot of Azazel.
The Slavonic text conceals many details, and it remains unclear whether Abraham is understood in the Slavonic apocalypse as the sacrificial goat for the Lord. Yet, some cryptic traditions found in the text might hint at this possibility. As is known from the biblical and rabbinic descriptions of the Yom Kippur ritual, the flesh of the goat for YHWH was destroyed by fire, while his blood (which represents in Jewish tradition the soul of the sacrificial animal) was then brought into the Holy of Holies by the high priest and used there for purification.
In light of these traditions, could Yahoel and Abraham’s entrance into the heavenly Throne room in chapter 18 be understood as an allusion to the entrance of the high priest who brings the purifying sacrifice into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur?
It is interesting that in Apoc. Ab. 13:4-5 Azazel warns his counterpart representing the “divine” lot that he will be destroyed by fire along with other sacrificial animals:

And the impure bird spoke to me and said, “What are you doing, Abraham, on the holy heights, where no one eats or drinks, nor is there upon them food of men? But these will all be consumed by fire and they will burn you up. Leave the man who is with you and flee! Since if you ascend to the height, they will destroy you.”

Azazel’s arcane warning remains one of the most profound puzzles of the text. Yet, the motif of a seer’s encounter with fire appears significant for the authors of the pseudepigraphon, who envision fire as a theophanic substance surrounding the very presence of the deity. Thus, later in the text Abraham’s transition into the divine realm is described as his entering into the fire. Could the promise of a celestial garment to the patriarch in the Apocalypse of Abraham signify here, as in many other apocalyptic accounts, that his “mortal” body must be “altered” in the fiery metamorphosis? Unfortunately, the text does not provide direct answers for such inquiries.
In order to better understand Abraham’s connections with the “divine” lot, which might help us further clarify his eschatological role as the “goat for YHWH,” we must now explore the imagery of the two lots found in the Slavonic apocalypse.

Eschatological Lots

We have already noted that the remarkable angelic metamorphosis of the sacrificial animal associated with the lot of Azazel has had a long-lasting conceptual afterlife in Jewish apocalypticism and its eschatology. Yet one should not forget another portentous aspect of Yom Kippur symbolism that similarly exercised a formative influence on some Second Temple apocalyptic materials, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Qumran writings one encounters a broad appropriation of the imagery of two lots, symbolism that has profound significance in the scapegoat ordinance. Like the figure of Azazel, who is enhanced with a new celestial profile, the imagery of the sacrificial lots also receives a novel eschatological reinterpretation. Thus, in a number of Qumran materials such as 1QM, 1QS, 4Q544, and 11Q13, the two lots become associated not with two sacrificial goats but with celestial protagonists, both positive - like Melchizedek or the Angel of Light - as well as negative - like Melchirešac, Belial, or the Prince of Darkness. Those fascinating characters come to be understood in these documents as the leaders of the “portions of humanity” associated with the lots of good and evil, darkness and light. In Qumran documents one can find repeated references to these eschatological lots representing the respective good and evil portions of humanity, often designated as “the men of the lot of Melchisedek” (11Q13 2:8) or “the men of the lot of Belial” (5Q11 1:3).
Such eschatological re-interpretation of the lots looms large in the Apocalypse of Abraham as well. Numerous references to the two lots are widely dispersed in the second, apocalyptic part of the pseudepigraphon. Scholars have previously noted that the peculiar conceptual elaborations that surround the imagery of the lots are reminiscent of the eschatological reinterpretations and terminology found in the Qumran materials. Thus, it has been previously noted that the word “lot” (Slav. часть) appears to be connected to the Hebrew lrwg, a term prominent not only in biblical descriptions of the scapegoat ceremony but also in the Qumran materials.
Similarly to the Qumran materials where the lots are linked to angelic representatives (like Belial or Melchizedek), in the Apocalypse of Abraham the lots are now tied not to the sacrificial animals but to the main heroes of the story – the fallen angel Azazel and the translated patriarch Abraham.
Yet, in comparison with the Qumran materials, connections to the underlying formative pattern of the scapegoat ritual appear even more distinctive and therefore more easily recognizable in the Slavonic accounts of the lots. Thus, in Apoc. Ab. 13, in one of the first passages in the text to invoke imagery of two “lots” or “portions,” one can easily discern allusions to particular details associated with Yom Kippur observance. Apoc. Ab. 13:7-8 reads:

And he [Yahoel] said to him, “Reproach is on you, Azazel! Since Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, since you have chosen it and desired it to be the dwelling place of your impurity. Therefore the Eternal Lord, the Mighty One, has made you a dweller on earth….”

Here the distinctive reference to the dwelling place of the “impurity” of the antagonist immediately recalls the motif of the removal of impurity into another realm by means of Azazel, a concept which plays a prominent role in the original scapegoat ceremony.
Further connections can be seen in the description of the other lot, associated with Abraham. Thus, similarly to the Day of Atonement commemoration, wherein the lot of the goat for YHWH is called the lot for the Lord, in Apoc. Ab. 20:5 the lot of Abraham is designated as the lot of the deity (my [God’s] lot):

20:1 And the Eternal Mighty One said to me, “Abraham, Abraham!” 20:2 And I said, “Here am I!” 20:3 And he said, “Look from on high at the stars which are beneath you and count them for me and tell me their number!” 20:4 And I said, “Would I be able? For I am [but] a man.” 20:5 And he said to me, “As the number of the stars and their host, so shall I make your seed into a company of nations, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel.”

This identification of the positive lot with the lot of God is also present in the Qumran materials.
While the parallels between the imagery of the lots found in the Apocalypse of Abraham and in Qumran materials have often attracted scholars’ attention, they have often failed to discern the pronounced similarities with the rabbinic developments. Yet the intriguing details in the descriptions of the lots in the Slavonic apocalypse seem to point to close connections with later rabbinic re-interpretations of Yom Kippur imagery found in the Mishnah and the Talmud. A captivating parallel here involves the spatial arrangement of the lots on the left and right sides, found both in the Slavonic apocalypse and in rabbinic materials.
Thus, a passage found in Apoc. Ab. 22 portrays two portions of humanity arranged according to the two lots and situated on the left and right sides:

22:4 And he said to me, “These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who were before and who are destined to be after you: some for judgment and justice, and others for revenge and perdition at the end of the age. 22:5 Those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of the people [that are] with Azazel. These are the ones I have destined to be born of you and to be called my people.”

In Apoc. Ab. 27:1-2 and 29:11 this division of the two lots arranged on the left and right is repeated again:

And I looked and saw, and behold, the picture swayed, and a heathen people went out from its left side and they captured those who were on the right side: the men, women, and children. And some they slaughtered and others they held with them (Apoc. Ab. 27:1-2).

And that you saw going out from the left side of the picture and those worshiping him, this [means that] many of the heathen will hope in him (Apoc. Ab. 29:11).

It should be noted that while in the Qumran materials the spatial arrangement of the lots on the left and right sides does not play any important theological role, such a distinction receives its paramount cultic significance in the rabbinic descriptions of the Yom Kippur custom of the selection of the goats.
In this respect it is intriguing that the spatial arrangement of the lots on the left and right sides in the Apocalypse of Abraham is reminiscent of the descriptions found in the mishnaic treatise Yoma where the ritual selection of two goats – one for YHWH and the other for Azazel - also operates with the symbolism of the left and right sides.
Thus in m. Yoma 4:1 the following tradition is found:

He shook the casket and took up the two lots. On one was written “For the Lord,” and on the other was written “For Azazel.” The prefect was on his right and the chief of his father’s house on his left. If the lot bearing the Name came up in his right hand the Prefect would say to him, “My lord High Priest, raise thy right hand”; and if it came up in his left hand the chief of the father’s house would say to him, “My lord High Priest, raise thy left hand.” He put them on the two he-goats and said “A sin-offering to the Lord.”

Although the passage from Mishnah does not openly identify the right side with the divine lot, as does the Slavonic apocalypse, the Babylonian Talmud makes this connection explicit. Thus b. Yoma 39a reads:

Our Rabbis taught: Throughout the forty years that Simeon the Righteous ministered, the lot [“For the Lord”] would always come up in the right hand; from that time on, it would come up now in the right hand, now in the left. And [during the same time] the crimson-colored strap would become white. From that time on it would at times become white, at others not.

This imagery of the selection of the goats in rabbinic materials, in which the scapegoat is placed on the left and the goat for the Lord on the right, recalls the spatial arrangement of the lots in the Slavonic apocalypse where the divine lot is similarly situated on the right side and the lot of Azazel on the left side.....

Содержание Пятого Скриниума

2009-10-02T17:45:38Z

Scrinium 5: Symbola Caelestis. Le symbolisme liturgique et paraliturgique dans le monde Chrétien (eds. B. Lourié and A. Orlov; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009)

Préface

ÉDITION CRITIQUE
Andrei S. Slutskij (St Petersburg). Early Slavonic Versions of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

ARTICLES
Andrei A. Orlov. (Milwaukee, WI) Eschatological Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham
Silviu N. Bunta. (Dayton, OH) “Your Own of Your Own”: Jewish Adam Speculations and Christian Liturgy in the Slavonic and Romanian Life of Adam and Eve
Bogdan G. Bucur, (Pittsburgh, PA) "The Mountain of the Lord": Sinai, Zion, and Eden in Byzantine Hymnographic Exegesis
Fr. Jack Custer. (Pittsburgh, PA) Inspired Word and Spiritual Worship: How Byzantine Hymnography Interprets Sacred Scripture
Stéphane Verhelst. (Jérusalem) Les prières de l’ambon de la Liturgie de saint Jacques
Dmitry F. Bumazhnov. (Tübingen) Das Charisma in der christlichen Gnosis und im frühen ägyptischen Mönchtum
Dragos Giulea. (Milwaukee, WI) The Heavenly Fire Working the Earth of the Heart: Origen, Antony, Pseudo-Macarius, and the Internalization of the Image of Divine Fire
Nestor Kavvadas. (Tübingen) Theology of Language and Liturgical Prayer in Isaac of Nineveh
Leena Mari Peltomaa. (Vienna) Role of the Virgin Mary at the Siege Of Constantinople in 626
Tatiana Borisova. (Athens) To the Problem of the Reconstruction of the Early Stages of the History of the Church Slavonic Translation of the Akathistos Hymn
Tatiana A. Sénina (moniale Kassia). (St Pétersbourg) Remarques sur le canon des défunts écrit par S. Cassia de Constantinople
Youhanna Nessim Youssef (Virginia, Australia) The psalis for the consecration of the church (revisited)
Sung-Hyun Nam (Séoul), L’Usage du Terme « notre père dans la littérature pachômienne

NOTES
Constanta Costea. (Bucharest) Earlier Versions of Patriarch Germanus’ Homily On the Cross and the Icons
Basil Lourié. (St Petersburg) Courts of Solomon, A Jewish Collection
Basil Lourié. (St Petersburg) Slavonic Texts Of Hard Fate: The Prophecy of Solomon and Some Others
Tatiana A. Senina (moniale Kassia). (СПб) Un saint fouette un autre : Théoktistos le logothète et Euthyme de Sardes
Youhanna Nessim Youssef. (Virginia, Australia) Two notes on the Coptic Theotokias
V.A. Livshits, Sogdian “Ancient Letters” (II, IV, V).

DISCUSSION
Татьяна Л. Вилкул. (Киев) По поводу рецензии П. В. Лукина «Деконструкция деконструкции»
Павел В. Лукин. (Москва) Нужно ли нам «новаторство»? (Об ответе Т.Л. Вилкул)

BIBLIOGRAPHIE
Michel Stavrou, Nicéphore Blemmydès, Œuvres théologiques. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes. Tome I (Basile Lourié)
Tedros Abreha, Il Gädl di Abuna Demyanos santo eritreo (Alessandro Bausi)
Nouvelles publications de l'Institut de la littérature russe (Maison de Pouchkine) sur la littérature ancienne de la Russie (Basile Lourié)
Bibliographie du R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s.j. Addenda.

Окончательная версия "Поваленных Деревьев"

2009-09-18T18:46:40Z

Окончательная версия моей статьи о поваленных деревьях как символах грехопадения человека только что вышедшая в Гарвардском Богословском Журнале:
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/derevja.pdf

Умер Артур Медведев

2009-09-02T23:24:15Z

Сегодня получил известие о смерти Артура Медведева. Всего несколько недель тому назад мы встречались в Москве и делились планами - он рассказывал мне о своём новом проекте "Камень Веры" и о будущих планах в отношении "Волшебной Горы." Я пообещал ему дать две новые статьи для "Горы". Всё ещё помню его голос и его улыбку. Много смеялись. И вот его уже нет.
Он был удивительно смелой и свободной личностью обладающей редкой мистической интуицией. Будучи глубоко верующим православным человеком, он не боялся учиться у других великих духовных традиций.
Я уже писал раньше о его важном вИдении которое отразилось в проекте "Волшебная Гора"
http://aorlov.livejournal.com/47168.html
Этот журнал несомненно оставит свой неповторимый след в интеллектуальной и духовной истории России. Ведь в его томах Артур всегда стремился собрать самое важное, глубокое и бессмертное ...

Предчувствиям не верю, и примет
Я не боюсь. Ни клеветы, ни яда
Я не бегу. На свете смерти нет...

... Ни тьмы, ни смерти нет на этом свете.
Мы все уже на берегу морском,
И я из тех, кто выбирает сети,
Когда идет бессмертье косяком...

Арсений Тарковский

Горгиевское Издание "Divine Manifestations in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha"

2009-08-04T13:29:26Z

http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-56667-orlov-andrei-divine-manifestations-in-the-slavonic-pseudepigrapha.aspx

Title: Divine Manifestations in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha
Series: Orientalia Judaica Christiana 2
Availability: In Print
Publisher: Gorgias Press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Andrei Orlov
ISBN: 978-1-60724-407-3
Availability: In_Print
Publication Date: 7/2009
Language: English
Format: Hardback, Black, 6 x 9 in
Pages: 315
Price: $110.00

This volume explores the formative theophanic patterns found in such pseudepigraphical writings as 2 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Ladder of Jacob where the visual tradition of the divine Form and the aural tradition of the divine Name undergo their creative conflation and thus provide the rich conceptual soil for the subsequent elaborations prominent in later patristic and rabbinic developments. The visionary and aural traditions found in the Slavonic pseudepigrapha are especially important for understanding the evolution of the theophanic trends inside the eastern Christian environment where these Jewish apocalyptic materials were copied and transmitted for centuries by generations of monks.

Introduction to the volume:
http://aorlov.livejournal.com/85779.html

Горгиевское переиздание "The Theophaneia School: Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism"

2009-08-04T13:20:44Z

http://gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/pc-56302-126-louri-basil-and-andrei-orlov-the-theophaneia-school.aspx

Title: The Theophaneia School
Subtitle: Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism
Series: Scrinium: Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique 3
Availability: In Print
Publisher: Gorgias Press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Basil Lourié and Andrei Orlov
ISBN: 978-1-60724-083-9
Availability: In_Print
Publication Date: 4/2009
From the 2007 edition
Language: Russian & English
Format: Hardback, Black, 6 x 9 in
Pages: 537
Price: $144.00

Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique, established in 2005, is an international multilingual scholarly periodical devoted to patristics, critical hagiography, and Church history. Its scope is the ancient and medieval Christian Church worldwide, but primarily Eastern/Oriental Christianity and Christian Origins. It is published annually, in both printed and electronic forms, ranging from 400 to 550 pages per volume. Each volume is focused on a specific subject (covering not less than 60% of the whole volume) that is announced in the individual title of each volume. Two supplement series (established in 2008) contain monographs and edited volumes on medieval Christianity (in the series “Scripta ecclesiastica”) and Christian Origins, Second Temple and non-Rabbinical Judaism, including the afterlife of the Second Temple Jewish traditions in Christianity (in the series “Orientalia Judaica Christiana”). This volume is dedicated to Jewish Second Temple and early Christian mysticism.

Птицеобразная Ангелология Откровения Авраама

2009-08-04T13:06:48Z

Сегодня получил гранки моей статьи "Птицеобразная Ангелология Откровения Авраама" которая будет опубликована скоро в Католическом Библейском Ежеквартальнике:

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/cba.pdf

В статье ещё много ошибок несмотря на то что они её так очень даже солидно отредактировали. Вообще это хорошо когда журнал редактирует статьи - большинство журналов по иудаике и библеистике включая Брилевские журналы этого не делают. Вся работа и ответственность на плечах автора - даже артикли не поставят где пропущены.
Из тех журналов с кем приходилось работать только три журнала солидно редактировали мои статьи - Journal of Biblical Literature, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Harvard Theological Review. Остальным все было по барабану.

Обложка новой книжки

2009-06-27T16:07:58Z

Получил из Бриля обложку моей новой книги. Скоро её должны поставить в каталог.

Отчёт о Семинаре Еноха в Неаполе

2009-06-22T11:33:14Z

Профессор James Davila (University of St. Andrews, Scotland) в своём блоге PaleoJudaica предлагает следующий отчёт о только что завершившемся Семинаре Еноха в Неаполе:

2 ENOCH: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US*

The fifth Enoch Seminar** in Naples last week was a great success; not because we now understand the book of 2 Enoch -- we don't, but because we understand much better why we don't understand it and what sorts of questions we need to ask to make any progress. I have many pages of minute notes from the numerous sessions, but rather than taking days or weeks to try to digest and summarize them, I will, without further delay, boil down what seem to me to be some of the main points that have come out of this Seminar. The attributions of positions to specific people are my effort to give credit where credit is due. If I have misunderstood anything anyone has said, apologies in advance and I will be happy to make corrections.

I should begin by noting two important presentations on the first evening of the conference. Esther Eshel reported on two new Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch. These are attributed to Qumran (i.e., are taken to be Dead Sea Scrolls), although they were recovered on the antiquities market and are thus unprovenanced. One is a papyrus fragment containing 1 Enoch 106:19-107:1 (from the story of the birth of Noah). The other is a parchment fragment containing 1 Enoch 7:1-5. Eshel thinks it is part of 4QEnochc ar/4Q204.

The second presentation was by Joost Hagen on the new Coptic fragments of 2 Enoch. A summary of his work on the fragments is here. I won't repeat any more of it except to say that my favorite part of the story was how he identified the work as 2 Enoch. When he deciphered the phrase "and the appearance of the angel was like snow" on one of the Coptic fragments, he entered it into Google. A translation of 2 Enoch in Google Books then told him that the phrase came from 37:1.

The study of 2 Enoch suffers severely from the problem of the lack of a complete edition of all the Slavonic evidence. Grant Macaskill set out to produce a critical edition with an eclectic reconstructed critical text, but has decided this is impossible. He is now finishing a diplomatic edition that will at least collect all the evidence of all the Slavonic manuscripts.

Even so, very few scholars know Slavonic. Of the sixty delegates of this year's Enoch Seminar, only eight were specialists in this language. It is very important that specialists in other pseudepigrapha, Second Temple Judaism, early Christianity, Byzantine studies, etc., open a dialogue with them and keep it open. One of the most important accomplishments of the Naples Enoch Seminar was to have fully opened this dialogue.

At the beginning of the final plenary session Hanan Eshel commented that 2 Enoch is like Melchizedek in the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews. As he is without mother or father and with no genealogy, so 2 Enoch is without a date, a text, or an origin.

The problem of the short and long recensions of 2 Enoch may not be as simple as it initially looks. We must resist the temptation to place them in binary opposition as though one is "original" and the other "secondary." The truth may be far more complicated. To take just one scenario as an illustration (many more are possible) they could share a common original archetype that each has distorted in its own way. The short recension may have cut parts of the original but preserved the rest of it relatively well. The long recension may have added considerably to the archetype without any (or with much less) cutting. The result would be that the short recension is missing original material while the long recension includes both secondary and original material not in the short recension. And still more complicated scenarios are possible. (The basic point is Michael Stone's, although I have filled out the example.) We urgently need our Slavonic philologists to interrogate the text with the sorts of questions that will help us to start narrowing down the possibilities.

In addition to the problem of text and language, the content itself of 2 Enoch defies all our expectations. It is not obviously Christian: it lacks reference to Jesus and other obvious elements of early Christianity and the exalted picture of Enoch would not sit well with Christian theology. It is not obviously Jewish: it deals with biblical commandments but includes no halakhic development of them (i.e., it makes no attempt to think them through in the context of how they might actually be practiced). And it is not obviously Jewish-Christian, a widely-recognized third way that involves acceptance of Jesus as Messiah (and/or as divine0 along with acceptance of halakhic praxis. 2 Enoch is a new category that fails to fit into any of the boxes we have prepared for it and must be taken entirely on its own terms. (These points are Larry Schiffman's.)

From the various discussions during the conference, it seems to me that if there is a Second Temple-era base to 2 Enoch, the evidence is likely to come from the calendrical material in it, some of which may reflect a Jewish sectarian 364-day calendar. But at present all we can say with confidence is that there was a Greek version (behind the surviving fragments in Slavonic and Coptic) which had its origin sometime between the Second Temple period and the Byzantine period.

Andrei Orlov summed up correctly that even if we had the original manuscript of 2 Enoch in our hands, we still would not be able to understand it at present.

*A very free (perhaps excessively so) paraphrase of a comment by Enoch Seminar organizer Professor Gabriele Boccaccini in his closing address. But accurately expressing the sentiment.

**For full information on the 2009 Enoch Seminar in Naples, go to the Enoch Seminar website, click on the "Enoch Seminars" drop down menu, then click on "Naples 2009." Some of the information on the menus of the Naples 2009 page is password protected, but much is available to everyone. There's also more on Slavonic pseudepigrapha here. Many thanks to Gabriele Boccaccini and Andrei Orlov for organizing this event.

posted by Jim Davila

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/

Cвященическая Традиция Героя Потопа во 2 (Славянском) Енохе

2009-06-07T17:53:31Z

Моя статья для Семинара Еноха в Неаполе посвящённая священическим традициям патриарха Ноя во Втором Енохе.

In previous studies experts have repeatedly raised concerns about the date of the Slavonic apocalypse, noting that the text does not seem to supply definitive chronological boundaries.

Indeed, while for the last hundred years 2 Enoch has been consistently included in various collections of early pseudepigraphical texts, scholarly studies show some ambiguity and caution in their treatment of the Slavonic apocalypse as a sample of early Jewish thought, given the uncertainty of the text’s date. Alongside this ambiguity and caution, one often finds references to Francis Andersen’s remark that “in every respect 2 Enoch remains an enigma. So long as the date and location remain unknown, no use can be made of it for historical purposes.”[1]
However, the uncritical use of Andersen’s reference to 2 Enoch as an enigma “in every respect” simplifies 2 Enoch scholarship, trivializing the value of the long and complex history of efforts to clarify the date of the text. The current study will deal with the history of research on the sacerdotal traditions in the Slavonic apocalypse which constitute an important cluster of motifs scholars often use to demystify the text’s date.

Early Debates about the Date

Already in 1896, in his introduction to the English translation of 2 Enoch, Robert Henry Charles assigned “with reasonable certainty” the composition of the text to the period between 1-50 CE,[2] before the destruction of the Temple; this view, however, did not remain unchallenged.[3] In 1918 the British astronomer A.S.D. Maunder launched an attack against the early dating of the pseudepigraphon, arguing that the Slavonic Enoch does not represent an early Jewish text written in the first century CE, but instead is “a specimen of Bogomil propaganda,” composed in the Slavonic language in “the ‘Middle Bulgarian’ period – i.e., between the 12th and 15th centuries.”[4] In the attempt to justify her claim, Maunder appealed to the theological content of the book, specifically to its alleged Bogomil features, such as the dualism of good and evil powers. She found that such dualistic ideas were consistent with the sectarian teaching that “God had two sons, Satanail and Michael.”[5] Maunder’s study was not limited solely to the analysis of the theological features of the text but also included a summary of the astronomical and calendarical observations which attempted to prove a late date for the text. Her argument against the early dating of the pseudepigraphon was later supported by J. K. Fotheringham, who offered a less radical hypothesis that the date of 2 Enoch must be no earlier than the middle of the seventh century CE.[6]

Scholars have noted that Maunder’s argumentation tends to underestimate the theological and literary complexities of the Slavonic Enoch. The remark was made that, after reading Maunder’s article, one can be “astonished at the weakness of this argument and at the irrelevant matters adduced in support of it.”[7] Charles responded to the criticism of Maunder and Fortheringam in his article published in 1921 in the Journal of Theological Studies, in which he pointed out, among other things, that “the Slavonic Enoch, which ascribes the entire creation to God and quotes the Law as divine, could not have emanated from the Bogomils.”[8]

Another attempt to question the scholarly consensus about the early date of 2 Enoch was made by Josef Milik in his introduction to the edition of the Qumran fragments of the Enochic books published in 1976.[9] In the introductory section devoted to the Slavonic Enoch, Milik proposed that the apocalypse was composed between the ninth and tenth centuries CE by a Byzantine Christian monk who knew the “Enochic Pentateuch” “in the form with which we are familiar through the Ethiopic version.”[10] In order to support his hypothesis of a late date Milik draws attention to several lexical features of the text. One of them is the Slavonic word zmureniemü (zmureniem’)[11] found in 2 Enoch 22:11 which Milik has traced to the Greek term surmaio&grafoj,[12] a derivative of the verb surmaiografei~n, translated as “to write in minuscule, hence quickly.”[13] He argues that this verb appears to be a neologism which is not attested in any Greek text before the beginning of the ninth century. In addition in his analysis of the lexical features of the apocalypse, Milik directed attention to the angelic names of Arioch and Marioch found in 2 Enoch 33, arguing that they represent the equivalents of the Harut and Marut of the Muslim legends attested in the second surah of the Qur’an.[14]

John Collins, among others, has offered criticism of Milik’s lexical arguments, noting that even if the Slavonic text uses the Greek word surmaio&grafoj, “a single word in the translation is not an adequate basis for dating the whole work.”[15] He has also pointed out that “the alleged correspondence of the angels Arioch and Marioch to Harut and Marut of Muslim legend is indecisive since the origin of these figures has not been established.” [16]

Milik’s arguments were not confined only to the lexical features of the apocalypse. He also argued that the priestly succession from Methuselah to Noah’s nephew Melchisedek described in the third part of 2 Enoch reflects “the transmission of monastic vocations from uncle to nephew, the very widespread custom in the Greek Church during the Byzantine and medieval periods.”[17] This feature in his opinion also points to the late Byzantine date of the pseudepigraphon. It should be noted that Milik’s insistence on the Byzantine Christian provenance of the Slavonic apocalypse was partially inspired by the earlier research of the French Slavist André Vaillant who argued for the Christian authorship of the text.[18] Vaillant’s position too generated substantial critical response since the vast majority of readers of 2 Enoch had been arguing for the Jewish provenance of the original core of the text.[19]

The Sacerdotal Traditions and the Date of the Text

Our previous analysis shows that none of the arguments against the early dating of the pseudepigraphon stands up to criticism and that no convincing alternative to the early date has so far been offered.[20]

Still, one should recognize that, while the adoption of an early date for the text itself does not face great challenges, placing the text within the precise boundaries of Second Temple Judaism is a much more difficult task.

In proceeding to this task one must first understand what features of the text point to the early date of the text in the chronological framework of Second Temple Judaism. It is noteworthy that the vast majority of scholarly efforts have been in this respect directed towards finding possible hints that might somehow indicate that the Temple was still standing when the original text was composed.[21]

Thus, scholars have previously noted that the text does not seem to hint that the catastrophe of the destruction of the Temple has already occurred at the time of its composition. Critical readers of the pseudepigraphon would have some difficulties finding any explicit expression of feelings of sadness or mourning about the loss of the sanctuary.

The affirmations of the value of the animal sacrificial practices and Enoch’s halakhic instructions also appear to be fashioned not in the “preservationist,” mishnaic-like mode of expression, but rather as if they reflected sacrificial practices that still existed when the author was writing his book.[22]

There is also an intensive and consistent effort on the part of the author to legitimize the central place of worship, which through the reference to the place Akhuzan[23] (a cryptic name for the temple mountain in Jerusalem), is transparently connected in 2 Enoch with the Jerusalem Temple.[24]

Scholars have also previously noted that there are some indications in the text of the ongoing practice of pilgrimage to the central place of worship; these indications could be expected in a text written in the Alexandrian Diaspora.[25] Thus, in his instructions to the children, Enoch repeatedly encourages them to bring the gifts before the face of God for the remission of sins, a practice which appears to recall well-known sacrificial customs widespread in the Second Temple period.[26]

Moreover, the Slavonic apocalypse also contains a direct command to visit the Temple three times a day, advice that would be difficult to fulfill if the sanctuary has already been destroyed.[27]

One can see that the crucial arguments for the early dating of the text are all linked to the themes of the Sanctuary and its ongoing practices and customs. These discussions are not new; already Charles employed the references to the Temple practices found in the Slavonic apocalypse as main proofs for his hypothesis of the early date of the apocalypse. Since Charles’ pioneering research these arguments have been routinely reiterated by scholars.

In recent scholarship one can see continuation of this line of inquiry involving close analysis of the sacerdotal traditions in attempt to clarify the possible date of the text.

A few years ago Christfried Böttrich broadened the familiar lines of debate through a nuanced investigation of several sacerdotal traditions in the third part of 2 Enoch. In a study published in 1995 and an article appearing subsequently in the Journal for the Study of Judaism in 2001, Böttrich draws attention to a tradition in Chapter 69 which deals with the joyful festival marking Methuselah’s priestly appointment and his animal sacrifices.[28] Böttrich proposes that this cult-establishing event falls on the 17th of Tammuz, which is identified in 2 Enoch as the day of the summer solstice. Böttrich links this solar event with the imagery in 2 Enoch 69, where Methuselah’s face becomes radiant in front of the altar “like the sun at midday rising up.” He then reminds us that, since the second century CE, the 17th of Tammuz was observed as a day of mourning and fasting because it was regarded as the day when Titus conquered Jerusalem.[29] Böttrich suggests that, lacking any signs of sadness or mourning, the description of the joyful festival in 2 Enoch 69 suggests that the account and, consequently, the whole book were written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.[30]

Böttrich’s study of the sacerdotal developments in the third part of the pseudepigraphon is important for understanding the conceptual mold of these cultic traditions that appear to reflect Second Temple settings.

It is possible that this portentous cluster of sacerdotal traditions introduced in 2 Enoch’s final part, which is permeated with the imagery of the sacrificial rites and priestly successions, contains a set of decisive clues for unlocking the mystery of this enigmatic text’s date.

Another important chronological marker appears to be hinted at in the strong presence of the early priestly Noachic motifs in this final portion of the Slavonic apocalypse – the cluster of unique traditions that shows remarkable similarities to the Second Temple Jewish developments found in the early Enochic booklets and the Qumran materials.

The Priestly Noachic Traditions

It is well known that the birth of Noah occupies an important place in early Enochic and Noachic materials which portray the hero of the Flood as a wonder child.[31] 1 Enoch 106,[32] the Genesis Apocryphon,[33] and possibly 1Q19[34] depict him with a glorious face and eyes “like the rays of the sun.” 1 Enoch 106:2 relates that when the new-born Noah opened his eyes, the whole house lit up. The child then opened his mouth and blessed the Lord of heaven. Scholars have previously noted[35] that the scene of the glorious visage of the young hero of the Flood delivering blessings upon his rising up from the hands of the midwife has a sacerdotal significance and parallels the glorious appearance and actions of the high priest.[36] The scene manifests the portentous beginning of the priestly-Noah tradition.[37]

In 2 Enoch, this prominent part of Noah’s biography finds a new niche where the peculiar details of Noah’s story are transferred to another character, the miraculously born priest Melchisedek.[38]

Scholars have previously pointed out that Melchisedek’s birth in Slavonic Enoch recalls some parallels with the birth of Noah in 1 Enoch and the Genesis Apocryphon.[39] The details of Noah’s natal account correspond at several points with the Melchisedek story:

1. Both Noah and Melchisedek belonged to the circle of Enoch’s family.

2. Both characters are attested as survivors of the Flood.

3. Both characters have an important mission in the postdiluvian era.

4. Both characters are depicted as glorious wonder children.

5. Immediately after their birth, both characters spoke to the Lord.

1 Enoch 106:3 relates that “… when he (Noah) arose from the hands of the midwife, he opened his mouth and spoke to the Lord with righteousness.” A similar motif is attested in 2 Enoch 71:19 where Melchisedek “… spoke with his lips, and he blessed the Lord.”[40]

6. Both characters were suspected of divine/angelic lineage.

M. Delcor affirms that Lamech’s phrase in the beginning of the Genesis Apocryphon, “Behold, then I thought in my heart that the conception was the work of the Watchers and the pregnancy of the Holy Ones...” can be compared with the words of Noah in 2 Enoch uttered at the time of examining Melchisedek: “This is of the Lord, my brother.”[41]

7. The fathers of both infants were suspicious of the conception of their sons and the faithfulness of their wives.[42] Thus, in the Genesis Apocryphon, Lamech is worried and frightened about the birth of Noah, his son. Lamech suspects that his wife Bathenosh was unfaithful to him and that “the conception was (the work) of the Watchers and the pregnancy of the Holy Ones, and it belonged to the Nephil[in].”[43] The motif of Lamech’s suspicion about the unfaithfulness of Bathenosh found in the Genesis Apocryphon seems to correspond to Nir’s worry about the unfaithfulness of Sothonim. 2 Enoch relates that when “… Nir saw her [Sothonim] … he became very ashamed about her. And he said to her, ‘what is this that you have done, O wife? And why have you disgraced me in the front of the face of all people? And now, depart from me, go where you conceived the disgrace of your womb.’”[44]

8. Mothers of both heroes were ashamed and tried to defend themselves against the accusation of their husbands. Thus, in the Genesis Apocryphon, the wife of Lamech responds to the angry questions of her husband by reminding him of their intimacies: “Oh my brother and lord! remember my sexual pleasure... [...] in the heat of intercourse, and the gasping of my breath in my breast.”[45] She swears that the seed was indeed of Lamech: “I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the King of the hea[vens...]...[...] that this seed comes from you, [...] and not from any foreigner nor from any of the watchers or sons of heav[en].”[46] In 2 Enoch Sothonim does not explain the circumstances of the conception. She answers Nir: “O my lord! Behold, it is the time of my old age, and there was not in me any (ardor of) youth and I do not know how the indecency of my womb has been conceived.”[47]

9. Fathers of both sacerdotal infants were eventually comforted by the special revelation about the prominent future role of their sons in the postdiluvian era.[48]

One cannot fail to notice host of interesting overlaps between the birth of Noah in the Noachic materials and the birth of Melchisedek in 2 Enoch.

The analysis of the Noachic background of the Melchisedek natal account in 2 Enoch and its sacerdotal flavor leads us to the important question about the role of these Noachic developments in discerning of the early date of the apocalypse. It is possible that the presence of these early priestly Noachic themes reflected in 2 Enoch can represent a testimony which hints to the fact that the text was composed when the Second Temple was still standing.

The central evidence here is the priestly features of the miraculous birth of the hero. The main concern of the story of the wondrous birth was sacerdotal; the story is permeated with imagery portraying the newborn as the high priest par exellence. It also has been shown that the mold of the Noachic priestly tradition reflected in 2 Enoch belongs to the same set of conceptual developments reflected in such Second Temple Enochic and Noachic materials as 1 Enoch 106, the Genesis Apocryphon, and 1Q19. The priestly features of 2 Enoch’s account of the wondrous birth might thus point to the fact that this narrative and, as a consequence, the whole macroform to which it belongs was written in the Second Temple period. It should be emphasized again that the distinct chronological marker here is not the story of the wonder child itself, which was often imitated in later Jewish materials, but the priestly features of the story that are missing in these later improvisations.

The analysis of the later pseudepigraphic and rabbinic imitations of the account of Noah’s birth shows that the priestly dimension of the story never transcended the boundaries of the Enochic-Noachic lore, nor did it cross the chronological boundary of 70 CE since it remained relevant only within the sacerdotal context of the Second Temple Enochic-Noachic materials. Although some later Jewish authors were familiar with the account of Noah’s birth, this story never again became the subject of priestly polemics once the dust of the destroyed Temple settled.

Several examples can illustrate this situation. In search of the later variants of the story of the wonder child Fletcher-Louis draws attention to the account of Cain’s birth in the primary Adam books.[49] Thus, the Latin Life of Adam and Eve 21:3 relates that Eve “brought forth a son who shone brilliantly (lucidus). At once the infant stood up and ran out and brought some grass with his own hands and gave it to his mother. His name was called Cain.”[50] Fletcher-Louis points out that this narrative of the wonder child recalls the story of Noah. Yet he notes that “all the features which in the birth of Noah signal the child’s priestly identity—solar imagery, birth in a house and child’s blessing of God are markedly absent in the Adamic story.”[51] Such absence of the significant features can be an indication that the final form of the text was composed outside the chronological boundaries of Second Temple Judaism and therefore, unlike 2 Enoch, displays no interest in the sacerdotal dimension of the story. Although the authors of the Latin LAE might have been familiar with the narrative of Noah’s birth, the priestly concerns associated with the story were no longer relevant for them.

The same situation of the absence of the sacerdotal concern is observable also in the rabbinic stories of Moses’ birth reflected in b. Sotah 12a,[52] Exod. R. 1:20,[53] Deut. R. 11:10,[54] PRE 48,[55] and the Zohar II.11b,[56] whose authors were possibly cognizant of the Noachic natal account.

Reflecting on this evidence Fletcher-Louis notices that, although the authors of the rabbinic accounts of Moses’ birth appear to be familiar with Noah’s narrative, these materials do not show any interest in the sacerdotal dimension of the original story. Buried in the ashes of the destroyed Sanctuary, the alternative portrayal of the Noachic priestly tradition was neither offensive nor challenging for the heirs of the Pharisaic tradition.

Fletcher-Louis observes that, although Moses, like Noah, is able to speak from his birth and the house of his birth becomes flooded with light, “the differences of the specifically priestly form of that older tradition can be clearly seen.”[57] He points out that while Moses is able to speak as soon as he is born, he does not bless God, as do Noah and Melchisedek.[58] The same paradigm shift is detected in the light symbolism. While in the rabbinic stories the whole house becomes flooded with light, the Mosaic birth texts do not specifically say that Moses is himself the source of light.[59] These differences indicate that, unlike in 2 Enoch, where the priestly concerns of the editors come to the fore, in the rabbinic accounts they have completely evaporated. Fletcher-Louis notices that “the fact that in the Mosaic stories the child is circumcised at birth indicates his role as an idealized representative of every Israelite: where Noah bears the marks of the priesthood, Moses carries the principal identity marker of every member of Israel, irrespective of any distinction between laity and priesthood.”[60]

The marked absence of sacerdotal concerns in the later imitations of the story may explain why, although the rabbinic authors knew of the priestly affiliations of the hero of the Flood, the story of his priestly birth never appeared in the debates about the priestly successions. This fact demonstrates that the Noachic priestly traditions reflected in 2 Enoch can be placed inside the chronological boundaries of the Second Temple period, which allows us to safely assume a date of the Melchisedek story and the entire apocalypse before 70 CE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] F. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 97.

[2] In his introduction to the Forbes’ translation of 2 Enoch in APOT, Charles broadened the range of the dating of the apocalypse, postulating that “2 Enoch in its present form was written probably between 30 B.C. and AD 70. It was written after 30 B.C., for it makes use of Sirach, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Wisdom..., and before A.D. 70; for the Temple is still standing.” R. H. Charles and N. Forbes, “The Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” in: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; ed. R. H. Charles; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 2. 429. This opinion about the early date of 2 Enoch was also supported by Charles’ contemporaries, the Russian philologist Matvej Sokolov and German theologian Nathaniel Bonwetsch.

[3] R. H. Charles and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896) xxvi.

[4] A. S. D. Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” The Observatory 41 (1918) 309-316, esp. 316.

[5] Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” 315.

[6] J. K. Fotheringham, “The Date and the Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch,” JTS 20 (1919) 252.

[7] A. Rubinstein, “Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” JJS 15 (1962) 1-21 at 3.

[8] R. H. Charles, “The Date and Place of Writings of the Slavonic Enoch,” JTS 22 (1921) 162-3. See also K. Lake, “The Date of the Slavonic Enoch,” HTR 16 (1923) 397-398.

[9] J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).

[10] Milik, The Books of Enoch, 109.

[11] M.I. Sokolov, “Материалы и заметки по старинной славянской литературе. Выпуск третий. VII. Славянская Книга Еноха Праведного. Тексты, латинский перевод и исследование. Посмертный труд автора приготовил к изданию М. Сперанский,” Чтения в Обществе Истории и Древностей Российских 4 (1910) 1–167 at 23, footnote 13.

[12] Milik’s hypothesis is implausible. Most scholars trace the word zmureniemü (zmureniem’) to the Slavonic zmurüna (zmur’na) which corresponds to smu&rna, myrrha. J. Kurz, ed., Slovnik Jazyka Staroslovenskeho (Lexicon Linguae Palaeoslovenicae)(4 vols.; Prague: Akademia, 1966) 1.677-8. Andersen’s translation renders the relevant part of 2 Enoch 22:11 as follows: “And Vereveil hurried and brought me the books mottled with myrrh.” Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 141.

[13] Milik, The Books of Enoch, 111.

[14] Milik, The Books of Enoch, 110.

[15] J. J. Collins, “The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism,” in: Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1983) 533, n. 7.

[16] Collins, “The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism,” 533, note 7.

[17] Milik, The Books of Enoch, 114.

[18] A. Vaillant, Le Livre des secrets d’Hénoch: Texte slave et traduction française (Textes publiés par l’Institut d’études slaves, 4; Paris: L’Institut d’études slaves, 1976 [1952]).

[19] Some of the supporters of the idea of the Jewish authorship of the text include the following scholars: Amusin, Andersen, Bonwetsch, Böttrich, Bousset, Charles, Charlesworth, Collins, De Conick, Delcor, Denis, Eissfeldt, Ginzberg, Gieschen, Greenfield, Gruenwald, Fletcher-Louis, Fossum, Harnak, Himmelfarb, Kahana, Kamlah, Mach, Meshcherskij, Odeberg, Pines, Philonenko, Riessler, Sacchi, Segal, Sokolov, de Santos Otero, Schmidt, Scholem, Schürer, Stichel, Stone, and Székeley.

[20] The early date of the pseudepigraphon was supported by, among others, the following investigations: R. H. Charles and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896); M.I. Sokolov, “Материалы и заметки по старинной славянской литературе. Выпуск третий. VII. Славянская Книга Еноха Праведного. Тексты, латинский перевод и исследование. Посмертный труд автора приготовил к изданию М. Сперанский,” Чтения в Обществе Истории и Древностей Российских 4 (1910) 1–167; G. N. Bonwetsch, Das slavische Henochbuch (AGWG.PH Neue Folge Bd.1 Nr.3; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1896); N. Schmidt, “The Two Recensions of Slavonic Enoch,” JAOS 41 (1921) 307-312; G. Scholem, Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala (Berlin, 1962) 62-64; M. Philonenko, “La cosmogonie du ‘Livre des secrets d’Hénoch,’” in: Religions en Egypte: Hellénistique et romaine (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1969) 109-116; S. Pines, “Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” in: Types of Redemption (eds. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and C. Jouco Bleeker; SHR, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 72-87; J. C. Greenfield, “Prolegomenon”, in: H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973) XVIII-XX; U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW, 44; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978) 38-41; J. H. Charlesworth, “The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars at Tübingen and Paris on the Books of Enoch (Seminar Report),” NTS 25 (1979) 315-23; J. J. Collins, “The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism,” in: Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck,1983) 533; F. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.91-221; M. E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT, 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) 406; A. de Santos Otero, “Libro de los secretos de Henoc (Henoc eslavo),” in: Apocrifos del AT (ed. A. Diez Macho; Madrid: Ediciones Christiandad, 1984) 4.147-202; C. Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1995) 812-13; P. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History (JSPSS, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).

[21] U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW, 44; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978) 40-41; Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 812-13.

[22] 2 Enoch 59.

[23] Slav. Ahuzanü.

[24] In Ezek 48:20-21 the Hebrew word hzx) “special property of God” is applied to Jerusalem and the Temple. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 114.

[25] Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813.

[26] 2 Enoch 61:1-5; 2 Enoch 62:1-2.

[27] 2 Enoch 51:4: “In the morning of the day and in the middle of the day and in the evening of the day it is good to go to the Lord’s temple on account of the glory of your creator.” Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 178.

[28] Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813. See also C. Böttrich, “The Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to A. Orlov,” JSJ 32.4 (2001) 451.

[29] y. Tacan. 68c and b. Tacan. 26b.

[30] Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813.

[31] On Noachic traditions, see: M. Bernstein, “Noah and the Flood at Qumran,” in: The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (eds. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 199–231; D. Dimant, “Noah in Early Jewish Literature,” in: Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (eds. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998) 123–50; F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 24–44; idem, “Interpretation of the Flood in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in: Interpretations of the Flood (eds. F. García Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen; TBN 1; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 86–108; Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 33ff.; R.V. Huggins, “Noah and the Giants: A Response to John C. Reeves,” JBL 114 (1995) 103–110; H. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man (WMANT, 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988) 242–54; J. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1968); G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Patriarchs Who Worry About Their Wives: A Haggadic Tendency in the Genesis Apocryphon,” in: Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. E. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ, 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 137–158; J. Reeves, “Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?” JBL 12 (1993) 110–15; J. M. Scott, “Geographic Aspects of Noachic Materials in the Scrolls of Qumran,” in: The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (eds. S. E. Porter and C. E. Evans; JSPSup, 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 368–81; R. C. Steiner, “The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a ‘Lost’ Work,” DSD 2 (1995) 66–71; M. Stone, “The Axis of History at Qumran,” in: Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. E. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ, 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 133–49; M. Stone, “Noah, Books of,” in: Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971) 12.1198; J. VanderKam, “The Righteousness of Noah,” in: Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (eds. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; SBLSCS 12; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980) 13–32; J. VanderKam, “The Birth of Noah,” in: Intertestamental Essays in Honor of Józef Tadeusz Milik (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Qumranica Mogilanensia, 6; Krakow: The Enigma Press, 1992) 213–31; Cana Werman, “Qumran and the Book of Noah,” in: Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. E. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ, 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 171–81.

[32] 1 Enoch 106:5 “... his eyes (are) like the rays of the sun, and his face glorious ....” M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 2.244-5.

[33] 1QapGen 5:12-13 “... his face has been lifted to me and his eyes shine like [the] s[un...] (of) this boy is flame and he ....” F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997) 1.31.

[34] A similar tradition is reflected in 1Q19. 1Q19 3: “... were aston[ished ...] [... (not like the children of men) the fir]st-born is born, but the glorious ones [...] [...] his father, and when Lamech saw [...] [...] the chambers of the house like the beams of the sun [...] to frighten the [...].” 1Q19 13:”[...] because the glory of your face [...] for the glory of God in [...] [... he will] be exalted in the splendor of the glory and the beauty [...] he will be honored in the midst of [...].” García Martínez and Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1.27.

[35] C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 33ff.

[36] Crispin Fletcher-Louis notes parallels between this scene and the description of the ideal high priest from Sirach 50. He argues that “in Sirach 50 the liturgical procession through Simon’s various ministrations climaxes with Aaron’s blessings of the people (50:20, cf. Numbers 6) and a call for all the readers of Sirach’s work ‘to bless the God of all who everywhere works greater wonders, who fosters our growth from birth and deals with us according to his mercy’ (50:22). So, too, in 1 Enoch 106:3 the infant Noah rises from the hands of the midwife and, already able to speak as an adult, ‘he opened his mouth and blessed the Lord.’” Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 47.

[37] Fletcher-Louis argues that “the staging for [Noah’s] birth and the behavior of the child have strongly priestly resonances.” Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 46.

[38] The cluster of the Noachic motifs takes place in the last chapters of the Slavonic apocalypse (chs 68-72). In this section of the pseudepigraphon we learn that, immediately after Enoch’s instructions to his sons during his short visit to the earth and his ascension to the highest heaven, the firstborn son of Enoch, Methuselah, and his brothers, the sons of Enoch, constructed an altar at Akhuzan, the place where Enoch had been taken up. In 2 Enoch 69 the Lord appeared to Methuselah in a night vision and appointed him as priest before the people. Verses 11-16 of this chapter describe the first animal sacrifice of Methuselah on the altar. The text gives an elaborate description of the sacrificial ritual during which Methuselah slaughters with a knife, “in the required manner,” sheep and oxen placed at the head of the altar. All these sheep and oxen are tied according to the sectarian instructions given by Enoch earlier in the book. Chapter 70 of 2 Enoch recounts the last days of Methuselah on earth before his death. The Lord appeared to Methuselah in a night vision and commanded him to pass his priesthood duties on to the second son of Lamech, the previously unknown Nir. The text does not explain why the Lord wanted to pass the priesthood to Nir instead of Noah (Lamech’s firstborn son), even though Noah is also mentioned in the dream. Further, the book tells that Methuselah invested Nir with the vestments of priesthood before the face of all the people and “made him stand at the head of the altar.” The account of the sacerdotal practices of Enoch’s relatives then continues with the Melchisedek story. The content of the story is connected with Nir’s family. Sothonim, Nir’s wife, gave birth to a child “in her old age,” right “on the day of her death.” She conceived the child, “being sterile” and “without having slept with her husband.” The book narrated that Nir the priest had not slept with her from the day that the Lord had appointed him in front of the face of the people. Therefore, Sothonim hid herself during all the days of her pregnancy. Finally, when she was at the day of birth, Nir remembered his wife and called her to himself in the temple. She came to him and he saw that she was pregnant. Nir, filled with shame, wanted to cast her from him, but she died at his feet. Melchisedek was born from Sothonim’s corpse. When Nir and Noah came in to bury Sothonim, they saw the child sitting beside the corpse with “his clothing on him.” According to the story, they were terrified because the child was fully developed physically. The child spoke with his lips and he blessed the Lord. According to the story, the newborn child was marked with the sacerdotal sign, the glorious “badge of priesthood” on his chest. Nir and Noah dressed the child in the garments of priesthood and they fed him the holy bread. They decided to hide him, fearing that the people would have him put to death. Finally, the Lord commanded His archangel Gabriel to take the child and place him in “the paradise Eden” so that he might become the high priest after the Flood. The final passages of the story describe the ascent of Melchisedek on the wings of Gabriel to the paradise Eden.

[39] See M. Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JSJ 2 (1971) 129; idem, “La naissance merveilleuse de Melchisédeq d’après l’Hénoch slave,” Kecharitomene. Mélanges René Laurentin (ed. C. Augustin et al.; Paris: Desclée, 1990) 217-229; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 185; A. de Santos Otero, “Libro de los secretos de Henoc (Henoc eslavo),” Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento (4 vols.; ed. A. Díes Macho; Madrid: Ediciones Jesusiandad, 1984) 4.199; R. Stichel, Die Namen Noes, seines Bruders und seiner Frau. Ein Beitrag zum Nachleben jüdischer Überlieferungen in der außerkanonischen und gnostischen Literatur und in Denkmälern der Kunst (AAWG.PH 3. Folge 112; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 42-54.

[40] Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 207.

[41] Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 129.

[42] George Nickelsburg observes that the miraculous circumstances attending Melchisedek’s conception and birth are reminiscent of the Noah story in 1 Enoch, although the suspicion of Nir is more closely paralleled in the version of the Noah story in the Genesis Apocryphon. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 188.

[43] García Martínez and Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1.29.

[44] Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 205.

[45] García Martínez and Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1.29

[46] García Martínez and Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1.29-31.

[47] Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 205.

[48]1 Enoch 106:16-18 - “And this son who has been born unto you shall be left upon the earth, and his three sons shall be saved when they who are upon the earth are dead.” 2 Enoch 71:29-30 - “And this child will not perish along with those who are perishing in this generation, as I have revealed it, so that Melchisedek will be ... the head of the priests of the future.” It is noteworthy that this information is given in both cases in the context of the revelation about the destruction of the earth by the Flood. Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 208.

[49] Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 51-52.

[50] G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. Second Revised Edition (SBLEJL, 17; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999) 24-24E. See also Armenian and Georgian versions of LAE: “Then, when she bore the child, the color of his body was like the color of stars. At the hour when the child fell into the hands of the midwife, he leaped up and, with his hands, plucked up the grass of the earth...” (Armenian). “Eve arose as the angel had instructed her: she gave birth to an infant and his color was like that of the stars. He fell into the hands of the midwife and (at once) he began to pluck up the grass....” (Georgian). A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, 24E.

[51] Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52.

[52] “He was born circumcised; and the Sages declare, At the time when Moses was born, the whole house was filled with light – as it is written here, ‘And she saw him that he was good’ (Ex 2:2), and elsewhere it is written, ‘And God saw the light that it was good’ (Gen 1:4).” Sotah 12a.

[53] “...she saw that the Shechinah was with him; that is, the ‘it’ refers to the Shechinah which was with the child.” Midrash Rabbah (trs. H. Freedman and M. Simon; 10 vols.; London: Soncino, 1961) 3.29-30.

[54] “Moses replied: ‘I am the son of Amram, and came out from my mother’s womb without prepuce, and had no need to be circumcised; and on the very day on which I was born I found myself able to speak and was able to walk and to converse with my father and mother ... when I was three months old I prophesied and declared that I was destined to receive the law from the midst of flames of fire.’” Midrash Rabbah, 7.185.

[55] “Rabbi Nathaniel said: the parents of Moses saw the child, for his form was like that of an angel of God. They circumcised him on the eight day and they called his name Jekuthiel.” Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (tr. G. Friedlander; 2nd ed.; New York: Hermon Press, 1965) 378.

[56] “She saw the light of the Shechinah playing around him: for when he was born this light filled the whole house, the word ‘good’ here having the same reference as in the verse ‘and God saw the light that it was good’ (Gen 1:4).” The Zohar (trs. H. Sperling and M. Simon; 5 vols.; London and New York: Soncino, 1933) 3.35. See also Samaritan Molad Mosheh: “She became pregnant with Moses and was great with child, and the light was present.” Samaritan Documents Relating to Their History, Religion and Life (tr. J. Bowman; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977) 287.

[57] Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52.

[58] Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52.

[59] Fletcher-Louis reminds that “the illumination of the house through Noah’s eyes and the comparison of the light to that of the sun are specifically priestly features of Noah’s birth.” Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52-53.

[60] Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 53.

Семинар Еноха в Неаполе

2009-06-07T03:22:57Z

В пятницу отбываю на семинар Еноха в итальянском уездном городке Неаполе который я готовил последние два года. Семинар будет посвящён Славянскому Еноху - будет много интересных докладов включая презентацию посвящённую недавно открытым фрагментам 2 Еноха на копском.
Эта конференция Семинара Еноха замечательна ещё тем что на ней будут представлены несколько исследователей так или иначе связанных с русской академией, в их числе проф. Александр Кулик (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), о. Григорий Лурье (Scrinium), проф. Людмила Навтанович (University of Barselona) и ваш покорный слуга.
Постараемся не опозорить нацию (укладывая литровые бутылки Jack Daniels в мой чемодан - понимаю что это будет нелегко).
Полная программа здесь:

SCHEDULE

Fifth Enoch Seminar Enoch, Adam, Melchizedek: Mediatorial Figures in 2 Enoch and Second Temple Judaism
Naples, June 14-18 2009 Cappella Cangiani Chair: Andrei Orlov, Marquette University, USA

Day 1 – Sunday June 14, 2009
Arrivals at Cappella Cangiani
5:00-5:30pm – Meeting of participants and Greetings – Andrei Orlov – Antonio Vincenzo Nazzaro – Giancarlo Lacerenza – J. Harold Ellens
5:30-6:00pm – The Fifth Enoch Seminar at Naples: Mediatorial Figures in Second Temple Judaism. Introductory Remaks – Gabriele Boccaccini
6:00-6:30pm – Two New Fragments of 1 Enoch from Qumran – Esther Eshel
6:30-7:30pm – No Longer Slavonic Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia – Joost L. Hagen
8:00pm – Dinner

Day 2 – Monday June 15, 2009
8:00am – Breakfast
SESSION 1 – THE TEXT OF 2 ENOCH
8:30-9:45am – Discussion Groups
Provenance, transmission history, integrity, interpolations – Christfried Böttrich [Respondent: Ludmilla Navtanovich]
Manuscripts, recensions, original language – Grant Macaskill [Respondent: Alexander Kulik]
Date – Andrei Orlov [Respondent: David Suter]
A Hapax Legomenon PROMETAYA and the Date of 2 Enoch – Basil Lourié
10:00 – 11:15am – Plenary meeting
Opening Remarks – Böttrich – Macaskill – Orlov
General Discussion
SESSION 2 – THE CONTEXT OF 2 ENOCH
11:30-12:45am – Discussion groups
Enoch’s Roles and Titles in Early Enochic Booklets and 2 Enoch – Andrei Orlov [Respondent: Kelley Coblentz Bautch]
2 Enoch and 3 Enoch – Rachel Elior [Respondent: Daniel Boyarin]
Noah as Eschatological Mediator Transposed: From 2 Enoch 71-72 to the Christological Echoes of 1 Enoch 106:2-3 in the Qur’an – Carlos Segovia [Respondent: Daniel Assefa]
1:00pm – Lunch
3:30 – 4:45pm – Plenary Meeting
Opening Remarks – Orlov – Elior – Segovia
General Discussion
SESSION 3 – THE CONTENT OF 2 ENOCH
5:00-6:15pm – Discussion groups
Fallen Angels in the Enochic Literature – Marianne Dacy – Ida Fröhlich – Andrei Orlov
Calendrical Elements in 2 Enoch – Basil Lourié [Respondent: Steven Fraade]
Halakhic Elements in 2 Enoch – Larry Schiffman [Respondent: Daniel Stökl Ben-Ezra]
6:30-7:45pm – Plenary Meeting [Chair: TBA]
Opening Remarks – Dacy – Lourié – Schiffman
General Discussion
8:00pm – Dinner

Day 3 – Tuesday June 16, 2009
SESSION 4 – THE ADAMIC TRADITION
8:30-9:45am – Discussion Groups
Adamic Traditions in Early Judaism (Qumran, 1 Enoch, Sirach, Philo, Jubilees, Josephus, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch) – Jack Levison [Respondent: Lester Grabbe]
Adamic Traditions in Early Judaism and Christianity (Books of Adam and Eve) – Johannes Magliano Tromp [Respondent: Gabriella Gelardini]
Adamic Traditions in Early Christian and Rabbinic Literature (from NT to the Cave of Treasures) – Alexander Toepel [Respondent: Michael Stone]
10:00 – 11:15am – Plenary Meeting [Chair: Darrell Bock]
Opening Remarks – Levison – Tromp – Toepel
General Discussion
SPECIAL SESSION – SHORT PAPERS
11:30 – 12:45pm – Discussion groups
Adam Traditions – Florentina Badalanova Geller – Silviu Bunta – Anissava Miltenova
Melchizedek Traditions – Emmanouela Grypeou – Lara Guglielmo
Messianism in the Enochic Literature – Luca Arcari – Rivka Nir
1:00pm – Lunch
Afternoon – Guided Tour of Herculaneum and Mount Vesuvio
8:30pm – Dinner

Day 4 – Wednesday June 17, 2009
8:00am – Breakfast
SPECIAL SESSION – THE ENOCH SEMINAR
8:30-9:45am – Plenary Meeting [Chair: Loren Stuckenbruck]
The Enoch Seminar Website – Gabriele Boccaccini – Pierpaolo Bertalotto
General Discussion
SESSION 5 – THE MELCHIZEDEK TRADITION
10:30-11:15am – Discussion Groups
Melchizedek at Qumran and Early Judaism – Eric Mason [Respondent: Devorah Dimant]
Melchizedek in Hebrews and the New Testament – Harold Attridge [Respondent: Hanan Eshel]
Melchizedek in early Christian literature – Pierluigi Piovanelli [Respondent: Grypeou]
11:30am-12:45pm – Plenary Meeting [Chair: Claudio Gianotto]
Introductory remarks – Mason – Attridge – Piovanelli
General Discussion
1:00pm – Lunch
SESSION 6 – INTERACTION: ENOCH, ADAM, MELCHIZEDEK
3:30-4:45pm – Discussion groups
Adam and Enoch – Crispin Fletcher-Louis [Respondent: Lutz Doering]
Enoch and Melchizedek – Charles Gieschen
Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, and Eve – Daphna Arbel [Respondent: James Davila]
5:00-6:15pm – Plenary Meeting [Chair: Esther Eshel]
Opening Remarks – Fletcher-Louis – Gieschen – Arbel
General Discussion
WRAP-UP SESSION – WHERE DOES 2 ENOCH BELONG
6:30 – 7:45pm – Plenary Meeting [Chair: Hanan Eshel]
Final remarks on the conference – Andrei Orlov – Christfried Böttrich – Michael Stone
General Discussion
8:00pm – Dinner

Day 5 – Thursday June 18, 2009
8:00am – Breakfast
8:30-9:30am – Assembly of Participants: The Future Sessions of the Enoch Seminar (2011, 2013, and beyond)
10:00-11:00am – Visit to the Archaeological Museum of Naples
1:00pm – Lunch
Afternoon – Optional visit to Puteoli and Campi Flegrei

Богоявления в Славянских Ветхозаветных Апокрифах

2009-05-20T03:53:15Z

Предисловие к новому сборнику моих статей выходящему в Горгиас Пресс в серии Orientalia Judaica Christiana (главный редактор серии о. Григорий Лурье)

… Then the old man stood up and stretched his hands towards heaven. His fingers became like ten lamps of fire and he said to him, “If you will, you can become all flame.”
Apophthegmata Patrum, Joseph of Panephysis, 7.

Abba Bessarion, at the point of death, said, “The monk ought to be as the Cherubim and the Seraphim: all eye."
Apophthegmata Patrum, Bessarion, 11.

The Kavod and Shem Paradigms and Divine Manifestations in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha

Silvanus and Anthony

In the collections of the sayings of early desert Fathers known as the Apophthegmata Patrum, one encounters a series of short narratives about distinguished monastics that have inspired and encouraged many Christian ascetics throughout history. These fragmentary stories from the earliest monks’s lives, which sometimes take the form of folk-anecdotes, often strike readers with their unpretentious simplicity. Behind unassuming, almost primitive narrations in these collections, however, lurks a panoply of complex esoteric practices and traditions carefully transmitted and cultivated by generations of adepts.

While the Apophthegmata Patrum offer a wealth of spiritual exercises of the ascetic and mystical mold, several stories in the collections seem to exhibit traces of the peculiar ancient apocalyptic praxis in which a human being is able to access the heavenly realm in order to obtain a vision of the Form of the Deity. One of the adepts engaged in such visionary practice in the Sayings of the Fathers is Abba Silvanus, an enigmatic ascetic allegedly born in Palestine and flourishing in Syria at the end of the forth century and the beginning of the fifth century. In one of the stories Abba Silvanus is taken to heaven to behold the Glory of God. The Apophthegmata Patrum (Silvanus, 3) offers the following depiction of this remarkable spiritual endeavor:

Another time his disciple Zacharias entered and found him in ecstasy with his hands stretched towards heaven. Closing the door, he went away. Coming at the sixth and the ninth hours he found him in the same state. At the tenth hour he knocked, entered, and found him at peace and said to him, “What has happened today, Father?” The latter replied, “I was ill today, my child.” But the disciple seized his feet and said to him, “I will not let you go until you have told me what you have seen.” The old man said, “I was taken up to heaven (h(rpa&ghn ei)j to_n ou)rano_n) and I saw the glory of God and I stayed till now and now I have been sent away” (Silvanus, 3).[1]

Here an adept is depicted as being grasped in an ecstatic vision of heaven where he beholds nothing less than the Glory of God. Alongside ministering angels participating in celestial liturgy he is standing before the divine Kavod. After the visionary encounter the seer safely returns back to his cell where he conveys his apocalyptic experience to a disciple. It is obvious that the ecstatic experience is placed in the story within the distinctive realities of monastic life carefully pinpointed, among other peculiar features, through references to specific chronological divisions of the day.

Yet it is also clear that the mystical praxis of encountering God in a vision reflected in the story of Abba Silvanus is not simply an ascetic novelty that originated in the cells of the first Christian monks; rather it is a custom deeply rooted in the ancient Jewish and Christian apocalyptic traditions that stem from the biblical and extra-biblical accounts. In these materials one can encounter a distinguished row of paradigmatic visionary figures who in the distant past, many centuries prior to Abba Silvanus, ascended into heaven and approached there the Glory of God. It is thus no coincidence that, when mentioning that Abba Silvanus “was caught up into heaven” (h(rpa&ghn ei)j to_n ou)rano_n), the authors of the Apophthegmata Patrum seem to be making a subtle terminological connection with the mystical encounter of another prominent visionary who, according to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, also “was caught up into paradise” (h(rpa&gh ei)j to_n para&deison).[2]

Another fragment from the Sayings of the Fathers, also devoted to Abba Silvanus, appears to make the connection with the formative biblical accounts even more transparent. The Apophthegmata Patrum (Silvanus, 12) describes a striking luminosity of Silvanus’ face and body, the motif which in several biblical materials is closely linked with the theophanic paradigm of the vision of the divine Glory:

The Fathers used to say that someone met Abba Silvanus one day and saw his face and body shining like an angel and he fell with his face to the ground. He said that others also had obtained this grace (Silvanus, 12).[3]

It appears that some details of Abba Silvanus’ remarkable metamorphosis, namely the seer’s shining visage, invoke not only the event of Christ’s transfiguration but also the memory of Moses’s luminous face after his encounter with the Glory of God on Mt Sinai. This peculiar feature of Mosaic typology, which often serves in various Jewish and Christian materials as a theophanic sign of paradigmatic visionary praxis, looms large in the Apophthegmata Patrum. The stories of two other distinguished desert ascetics, Abba Pambo and Abba Sisoes, also contain specific references to their shining visages. Pambo 1 reads:

There was a monk named Pambo and they said of him that he spent three years saying to God, “Do not glorify me on earth.” But God glorified him so that one could not gaze steadfastly at him because of the glory of his countenance (Pambo, 1).[4]

Here again the tradition of the seer’s glorified countenance, which plays such an important role in the formative biblical and extra-biblical theophanic accounts, is placed in the context of his encounter with the Deity. Although the vision of the divine Glory is not explicit in Pambo 1, another passage in the Apophthegmata Patrum makes the theophanic connections more obvious:

They said of Abba Pambo that he was like Moses, who received the image of the glory of Adam when his face shone. His face shone like lightening and he was like a king sitting on his throne. It was the same with Abba Silvanus and Abba Sisoes (Pambo, 12).[5]

In this passage that compares Abba Pambo with Moses, the seer is also portrayed as a replica of the Glory of God, an anthropomorphic royal figure sitting on a throne. The transformed adept’s appropriation of the attributes of the divine Kavod is a common feature of the visionary accounts found in the Jewish pseudepigraphic and Hekhalot materials.

The passage also invokes the motif of the prelapsarian glory of Adam, an important theophanic symbol prominent in the anthropomorphic ideology of the divine Kavod found in the Book of Genesis and the Book of Ezekiel.

It is also noteworthy that the aforementioned passage from Pambo 12 refers to a distinguished cohort of glorified practitioners, a group that, besides the already known to us Abba Silvanus and Abba Pambo, also includes Abba Sisoes, a desert monk known for his visionary praxis of the heavenly ascent. The Apophthegmata Patrum (Sisoes, 14) offers a striking account of the final hours of this ascetic culminating in the adept’s approaching the divine Glory and his luminous transformation at the point of his death:

It was said of Abba Sisoes that when he was at the point of death, while the Fathers were sitting beside him, his face shone like the sun. He said to them, “Look, Abba Anthony is coming.” A little later he said, “Look, the choir of prophets is coming.” Again his countenance shone with brightness and he said, “Look, the choir of apostles is coming” … Once more his countenance suddenly became like the sun and they were all filled with fear. He said to them, “Look, the Lord is coming and he’s saying, ‘Bring me the vessel from the desert.’” Then there was as a flash of lightening and all the house was filled with a sweet odor (Sisoes, 14).[6]

Here the final entrance of the seer into heaven corresponds to the progressive transfiguration of his body hinted at through the gradual glorification of his countenance. The seer’s report to his companions during his ascent is also noteworthy in invoking the memory of some later Jewish visionary accounts found in the Hekhalot tradition in which mystical adepts often report to their colleagues and disciples details of their gradual progress into the Merkabah.[7]

It is possible that the practice of the ascent and the vision of God’s Glory, combined with the glorification that occurs either at the point of the adept’s death, as in the case of Abba Sisoes, or during his lifetime, as in the story of Abba Silvanus, was understood by the authors of the Apophthegmata Patrum as the climax of the monastic vocation unfolding in the desert cells.[8] This paramount importance of the mystical practice in the life of a monk appears to be enigmatically summarized by Abba Bessarion in his famous saying uttered at the point of his death:

Abba Bessarion, at the point of death, said, “The monk ought to be as the Cherubim and the Seraphim: all eye.” (Bessarion, 11).[9]

In this respect it does not appear coincidental that Abba Bessarion’s affirmation of the significance of the visionary praxis in monastic life — in which a monk is compared with the highest angelic servants beholding God’s Glory — occurs at the moment of Bessarion’s death — an important crux of transition that seems to be pointing, as in the case of Abba Sisoes, to a unique opportunity of the final ascent, vision, and glorification.

Despite the importance of visionary experiences in monastic life in the aforementioned collections of the desert fathers’ sayings, the Apophthegmata Patrum does not offer a single, monolithic model for the encounter with the Deity but open to many other forms of spiritual exercises. Thus, some traditions found in the Apophthegmata Patrum reveal another mode of divine communication that emphasizes the aural rather than visual aspect of the interaction between the Deity and the adept. The Sayings of the Fathers (Anthony 26) reads:

The brethren came to Abba Anthony and laid before him a passage from Leviticus. The old man went out into the desert, secretly followed by Abba Ammonas, who knew that this was his custom. Abba Anthony went a long way off and stood there praying, crying in a loud voice, “God, send Moses, to make me understand this saying.” Then there came a voice speaking with him. Abba Ammonas said that although he heard the voice speaking with him, he could not understand what it said (Anthony, 26).[10]

Here, in contrast with the previous visionary accounts, Abba Anthony receives no visual signs; the divine is manifested only through a heavenly voice. The passage also underlines the aural praxis of human prayer that in many ways mirrors and re-affirms the auditory revelation of the Deity.

Although Abba Anthony’s revelation of the heavenly sound appears on first look to be very different from the visionary praxis of Abba Silvanus and Sisoes, it should not be conceived as completely divorced from them. Rather it can be seen as situated in dialogue, or maybe even polemic, with these traditions.

In this respect it does not seem coincidental that, as in the previously mentioned visionary accounts, the account of Abba Anthony also invokes the memory of Moses, a hero of the visionary paradigm who is posited here as an interpreter of aural revelations. This reference to various theophanic offices of the son of Amram brings us again to the formative accounts found in the biblical books of Exodus and Deuteronomy where the Israelite prophet was privileged to encounter God both through vision and sound.

Moses and Elijah

As has already been suggested, the aforementioned theophanic traditions found in the monastic Christian accounts did not originate in the abodes of the desert ascetics but rather are examples of the ancient mystical praxis with roots in the biblical and extra-biblical accounts.

Already in the Hebrew Bible one can find complex and elaborate descriptions of various ways of communication between humanity and God. Scholars have long noted that one of the traditions emphasizing the visual aspect of the divine-human interaction, with its keen attention to the anthropomorphic manifestations of the divine Form, received its conceptual crystallization in the Israelite priestly ideology known as the Priestly source. Moshe Weinfeld points out that the liturgical traditions delineated in the Priestly ideology attempt to depict the Deity in “the most tangible corporeal similitudes.”[11] The extensive protological speculations found in the Priestly source also try to advance the anthropomorphic understanding of God, a feature crucial for the subsequent elaborations of this theophanic current. Thus, in the Priestly ideology God is understood to have created humanity in his own image (Gen. 1:27) and is thus frequently described as possessing a human-like form.[12]

Scholars contend that the anthropomorphic understanding of the Deity was not entirely an invention of the Priestly tradition but has its roots in early pre-exilic sacral conceptions about divine corporeal manifestations found in Mesopotamian literature.[13] The priestly understanding of the corporeal representation of the Deity finds its clearest expression in the conception of the “Glory of God” (hwhy dwbk)[14] – a portentous theophanic symbol that will become an object of aspiration for the subsequent generations of visionaries in various religious traditions. One of the paradigmatic accounts of the portrayal of the divine Kavod[15] can be found in the first chapter of the Book of Ezekiel where the seer receives the vision of an enthroned human form enveloped by fire.[16]

Alongside forceful anthropomorphic ideologies promulgating the possibility of encountering the Deity in a vision, the Hebrew Bible also attests to another important theophanic current that emphasizes auditory revelations of God. Often these two trends are in competition with each other. Scholars have long noted a sharp opposition of the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic school to early anthropomorphic developments. In fact, the Deuteronomic school is widely thought to have initiated a polemic against anthropomorphic and corporeal conceptions of the Deity and the possibility of encountering the divine Form in a vision.[17] Thus, Weinfeld argues that

…Deuteronomy has … taking care to shift the centre of gravity of theophany from the visual to the aural plane. In Exod. 19 the principal danger confronting the people was the likelihood that they might “break through to the Lord to gaze” … Indeed, the pre-deuteronomic texts always invariably speak of the danger of seeing the Deity … The book of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, cannot conceive of the possibility of seeing the Divinity. The Israelites saw only “his great fire” … God himself remains in his heavenly abode. The danger threatening the people here, and the greatness of the miracle, is that of hearing the voice of the Deity: “Did any people ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and survived?”[18]

In an effort to dislodge ancient anthropomorphism, which represented the core of the visual theophanic paradigm, the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic school promulgated the anti-corporeal theology of the divine Name with its conception of sanctuary (tabernacle) as the exclusive dwelling abode of God’s Name.

Tryggve Mettinger argues that the Deuteronomic theology was …

… programmatically abstract: during the Sinai theophany, Israel perceived no form (hnwmt); she only heard the voice of her God (Deut 4:12, 15)… [its] preoccupation with God’s voice and words represents an auditive, non-visual theme.[19]

One of the early examples of polemics between the visual ideology of the divine Form (Kavod), which is often labeled in the theophanic accounts as the divine Face (Panim), and the aural theology of the divine Name, or the divine Voice, can be found in Exod 33 where, upon Moses’ plea to behold the divine Kavod, the Deity offers an auditive alternative by promising to reveal to the seer his Name:

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory (Kdbk).” And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name (M#b yt)rqw), the Lord, in your presence... but,” he said, “you cannot see my face (ynp), for no one may see me and live.”

This account appears to highlight the opposition between visual and aural revelations, focusing on the possibility of encountering the Deity not only through form but also through sound. One mode of revelation often comes at the expense of the other—the idea hinted at in Exod 33 and articulated more explicitly in Deut 4, “You heard the sound of words, but saw no form (hnwmt).” Scholars point to a paradigm shift in Deuteronomy’s switch of the revelatory axis from the visual to the aural plane.[20] In this new, theo-aural, as opposed to theo-phanic, understanding, even God’s revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai in Exod 19, an event marking a vital nexus of the visual anthropomorphic paradigm, becomes now reinterpreted in the terms of its aural counterpart. Deut 4:36 describes the Sinai theophany as hearing of the divine Voice:

Out of heaven he let you hear his voice that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire.

Here the revelation is not received in the form of tablets, the media that might implicitly underline the corporeality of the Deity; rather “the commandments were heard from out of the midst of the fire... uttered by the Deity from heaven.”[21] This transcendent nature of the Deity’s revelation that now chooses to manifest itself as the formless voice in the fire eliminates any need of its corporal representation in the form of the anthropomorphic Glory of God. A classic example of this imagery can be found in the account of God’s appearance to Elijah on Mount Horeb in 1 Kings 19:11-13:

He said, “Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. Then there came a voice to him that said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

The depiction of the Deity’s activity and presence as the voice in the fire became one of the most distinctive features of the aniconic Shem theology[22] found in the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic materials that would play a very important role in later Jewish pseudepigraphical and targumic accounts.

Enoch and Abraham

Despite the notable prominence of theophanic symbolism in the materials associated with the Hebrew Bible, arguably the most profound conceptual expressions of the visual and aural manifestations of the Deity were developed in the extracanonical accounts of the so-called pseudepigraphical writings. In these apocalyptic materials the already familiar patriarchs and prophets of the Bible were portrayed as recipients of the most recondite revelations of the Divinity manifested in both visual and in aural form.

Similar to later rabbinic and patristic writings, the pseudepigraphical accounts stir their readers’ imagination with a rich tapestry of theophanic trends and currents. For a focused overview of the Shem and Kavod conceptual developments in the extra-biblical pseudepigraphical accounts, two early Jewish apocalypses are instructive. These writings are 2 (Slavonic) Enoch and Apocalypse of Abraham, texts where the ideologies of the divine Form and the divine Name possibly come to their most paradigmatic expressions. It is noteworthy that both of these important specimens of Jewish apocalyptic thought were preserved in the Slavonic language and circulated in the eastern Christian environment. Despite that both writings share a similar transmission history, their theophanic language, however, is strikingly different as they strive to convey manifestations of God in the peculiar symbolisms of their unique theophanic paradigms.

Thus, 2 Enoch, can be seen as the apex of the visual theophanic paradigm in which the Kavod theology receives possibly its most elaborate articulation. The apocalypse depicts the heavenly tour of the seventh antediluvian patriarch Enoch during which he receives revelations from angels and God. In accordance with the conceptual matrix of the visual theophanic praxis, the revelation of the divine Form, labeled in the text as the divine Face, is envisioned in 2 Enoch as the pinnacle of the exalted seer’s revelatory experience The authors of the Slavonic apocalypse use even the structure of the text to underline the importance of this disclosure: the information about the divine Face comes in the central section of the narration. In fact, 2 Enoch, contains not one but two theophanic descriptions involving the motif of the divine Countenance. The first occurs in 2 Enoch 22 that portrays Enoch’s dramatic encounter with the Glory of God in the celestial realm. Enoch recounts:

I saw the view of the face of the Lord, like iron made burning hot in a fire and brought out, and it emits sparks and is incandescent. Thus even I saw the face of the Lord. But the face of the Lord is not to be talked about, it is so very marvelous and supremely awesome and supremely frightening. And who am I to give an account of the incomprehensible being of the Lord, and of his face, so extremely strange and indescribable? And how many are his commands, and his multiple voice, and the Lord’s throne, supremely great and not made by hands, and the choir stalls all around him, the cherubim and the seraphim armies, and their never-silent singing. Who can give an account of his beautiful appearance, never changing and indescribable, and his great glory? And I fell down flat and did obeisance to the Lord (2 Enoch 22:1-4, the longer recension).[23]

The importance of the vision of the divine Form for the distinctive theophanic ideology in 2 Enoch is also highlighted by the fact that the seer’s encounter of the divine Face becomes one of the central points of his revelation to his children.

In chapter 39 Enoch reports his theophanic experience to his sons during his short visit to earth, adding some new details. Although both portrayals show a number of terminological affinities, the second account explicitly connects the divine Face with the divine anthropomorphic “Extent,” known also as the Glory of God or Kavod. 2 Enoch 39 reads:

And now, my children it is not from my lips that I am reporting to you today, but from the lips of the Lord who has sent me to you. As for you, you hear my words, out of my lips, a human being created equal to yourselves; but I have heard the words from the fiery lips of the Lord. For the lips of the Lord are a furnace of fire, and his words are the fiery flames which come out. You, my children, you see my face, a human being created just like yourselves; I am one who has seen the face of the Lord, like iron made burning hot by a fire, emitting sparks. For you gaze into my eyes, a human being created just like yourselves; but I have gazed into the eyes of the Lord, like the rays of the shining sun and terrifying the eyes of a human being. You, my children, you see my right hand beckoning you, a human being created identical to yourselves; but I have seen the right hand of the Lord, beckoning me, who fills heaven. You see the extent of my body, the same as your own; but I have seen the extent of the Lord, without measure and without analogy, who has no end... To stand before the King, who will be able to endure the infinite terror or of the great burning (2 Enoch 39:3-8, the shorter recension).[24]

In both theophanic descriptions the notion of the divine Face plays a crucial role. It is no coincidence that in both of them the Countenance of the Deity is associated with light and fire. In this respect the descriptions found in the Slavonic apocalypse represent a continuation of biblical theophanic currents. Already in the biblical theophanic developments found in the Hebrew Bible, smoke and fire are understood as a divine envelope that protects mortals from the sight of the divine Form. Radiant luminosity emitted by the Deity fulfills the same function, signaling the danger of the direct vision of the divine Form. In some cases luminosity also represents a screen that protects the Deity from the necessity of revealing its true Form. In some theophanic traditions God’s Form remains hidden behind his light. The hidden Kavod is revealed through this light, which serves as a luminous screen, the Face of this anthropomorphic extent. 2 Enoch’s theophanies, which use the metaphors of light and fire, may well be connected with such traditions where the divine “Extent” is hidden behind the incandescent “Face” that covers and protects the sovereignty of the Lord. It is clear that in 2 Enoch 39:3-6 the Face of the Deity seems to be understood not simply as a part of God’s body (his Countenance) but as a radiant façade of his entire anthropomorphic Form. This identification between the Lord’s Face and the Lord’s Form is reinforced by an additional parallel pair in which Enoch’s face is identified with Enoch’s form:

You, my children, you see my face, a human being created just like yourselves; but I am one who has seen the face of the Lord, like iron made burning hot by a fire, emitting sparks... And you see the form of my body, the same as your own: but I have seen the form (extent) of the Lord, without measure and without analogy, who has no end (2 Enoch 39:3-6).[25]

The association between the divine Face and the divine Form in 2 Enoch 39:3-6 also alludes to the aforementioned biblical tradition from Ex 33:18-23 where the divine Panim is mentioned in connection with the glorious divine Form - God’s Kavod:

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory (Kdbk).” And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence... but,” he said, “you cannot see my face (ynp), for no one may see me and live.”

In light of this account, it becomes clear that in 2 Enoch, like in the Exodus, the impossibility of seeing the divine Face is understood not simply as the impossibility of seeing a particular part of the Deity but rather as the impossibility of seeing any part of his glorious Body. It is therefore possible that in 2 Enoch 39:3-6, like in Ex 33:18-23, the divine Face serves as the terminus technicus for the designation of the divine anthropomorphic extent – God’s Kavod.

One can see that the traditions identical or similar to those found in Ex 33 or 2 Enoch 22 and 39 may have exercised a formative influence on the later Jewish and Christian theophanic currents comparable to those found in the Apophthegmata Patrum. The early desert fathers too were privileged to receive a vision of the divine Form and, as a result, underwent the glorious transformation of their countenances and bodies. One encounters the same luminous metamorphosis in 2 Enoch where the body and face of seventh antediluvian hero is depicted as covered with light.

Like in the accounts of the desert fathers who were glorified by the divine presence, in the Slavonic apocalypse the luminous metamorphosis of the seer takes place in front of the Lord’s glorious “Extent” labeled in 2 Enoch as God’s Face. In 2 Enoch 22 the vision of the divine Face has dramatic consequences for Enoch’s appearance. The patriarch’s body endures radical changes as it becomes covered with the divine light. This encounter transforms Enoch into a glorious angelic being “like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.”[26] This phrase describes Enoch’s transition to a new celestial identity as “one of the glorious ones.”

Similar to the accounts of the ascetics in the Sayings of the Fathers, the Slavonic apocalypse also hints to the glorification of the patriarch’s countenance. Thus, in 2 Enoch 37, similarly to the divine Countenance, Enoch’s face acquires a degree of luminosity that poses danger for ordinary creatures of flesh and blood. In 2 Enoch 37 the Deity must call one of his special angelic servants to chill Enoch’s face before his return to earth. The angel, who “appeared frigid,” then chilled Enoch’s face with his icy hands. Immediately after this procedure, the Deity tells Enoch that, if his face had not been chilled, no human being would have been able to look it. The chilling procedure indicates that Enoch’s metamorphosis near the Face involves the transformation of his human face into a fiery, dangerous entity that now resembles the Kavod. These strange rituals surrounding the seer’s face bring to memory the familiar biblical traditions of Moses’ luminous countenance and his protective veil.

All these peculiar details of the seer’s metamorphosis show that the Slavonic apocalypse represents a new formative stage in the development of the visionary paradigm where the symbolic features of this theophanic trend receive their long-lasting epitomic expressions.

In contrast to 2 Enoch, another Jewish apocalypse preserved in the Slavonic environment, the Apocalypse of Abraham, exhibits striking features of a different theophanic trend. Unlike 2 Enoch, the Abrahamic pseudepigraphon emphasizes the aural aspect of the encounter with the Deity, while, at the same time, engaging in polemics with the anthropomorphic theology of the Divine form.

Although the apocalyptic imagery found in the pseudepigraphon appears to stem from the theophanic paradigm of the early Merkabah speculations similar to those found in Ezek 1, 1 En. 14, and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian, the authors of the Apocalypse of Abraham appear to consistently re-fashion this traditional theophanic imagery in accordance with a new aniconic template that insists on expressing the divine Presence in the form of the Deity’s Voice.[27] In his comparative analysis of the accounts from Ezekiel and the Apocalypse of Abraham, Christopher Rowland notes that, while preserving the angelology of Ezekiel’s account, the author of the Slavonic apocalypse carefully avoids anthropomorphic descriptions of the Kavod substituting them with references to the divine Voice.

These aniconic tendencies can be observed already in the very beginning of the second, apocalyptic section of the work. The very first manifestation of the Deity to the seer found in chapter 8 takes the form of theophany of the divine Voice that is depicted as coming from heaven in a stream of fire.

And as I was thinking about these things, here is what happened to my father Terah in the courtyard of his house: The voice of the Mighty One came down from heaven in a stream of fire, saying and calling, “Abraham, Abraham!” (Apoc. Ab. 8:1).[28]

The divine Voice appears continually in the narrative. More notably, in Apoc. Ab. 9:1 the voice of “the primordial and mighty God” commands Abraham to bring sacrifices, and in chapter 10 it appoints the angel Yahoel as a celestial guide of the exalted patriarch.

This peculiar expression of the Deity as the voice erupting in fiery stream will subsequently become a customary theophanic expression appearing multiple times in the apocalypse, including the climatic account of the revelation given to Abraham in the seventh firmament. There, in his vision of the throne room, which evokes memories of Ezekelian angelology, the hero of the faith sees not the human-like form of God but the Deity’s formless voice:

And above the Wheels there was the throne which I had seen. And it was covered with fire and the fire encircled it round about, and an indescribable light surrounded the fiery people. And I heard the sound of their qedusha like the voice of a single man. And a voice came to me out of the midst of the fire, saying, “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “Here am I!” (Apoc. Ab. 18:13-19:2).[29]

This tendency to substitute the anthropomorphic depiction of the Deity with expressions of the divine Voice or Name is, of course, not a novel development of the Apocalypse of Abraham authors but a specimen of the long-lasting tradition the roots of which can be seen seen in the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic biblical materials.

In the Apocalypse of Abraham the aural symbolism of divine disclosures constitutes the basis for a new theophanic praxis that is now opposed to the visionary paradigm. The center of this mystical experience consists in the mutual aural communication between the Deity and the adept that, like in the case of Abba Anthony, involves the practitioner’s prayer and praise.

The identification of divine manifestation with the Voice or the Sound in Apoc. Ab. thus underlines the importance of praise as a parallel process of the aural expression of creation in relation to its Creator. The authors of the Apocalypse of Abraham seem to view praying to and praising of God as a mystical aural praxis that in many ways mirrors the visionary praxis of the Kavod paradigm.

In conclusion it should be noted that the consequences of the polemical interplay between the two revelatory trends in 2 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Abraham appear to have exercised a lasting influence on the development of future Jewish and Christian theophanic traditions.

The purpose of the current collection is to explore the formative theophanic patterns found in such pseudepigraphical writings as 2 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Ladder of Jacob where the visual and aural mystical trends undergo their creative conflation and thus provide the rich conceptual soil for the subsequent elaborations prominent in later patristic and rabbinic developments.

The visionary and aural traditions found in the Slavonic pseudepigrapha are especially important for understanding the evolution of the theophanic trends inside the eastern Christian environment where these Jewish apocalyptic materials were copied and transmitted for centuries by generations of monks. As has been shown, the mystical testimonies reflected in Christian ascetic literature, including the aforementioned accounts from the Apophthegmata Patrum, show remarkable similarities with the transformational accounts found in these Jewish pseudepigraphical writings. These early apocalyptic specimens of visual and aural traditions that were carefully copied, translated and preserved in the monastic environments seem to have had profound influence on the form and content of the theophanic symbolism of the eastern Christian tradition. The extent of these influences, however, has never been explored in any systematic way. Moreover, despite a renewed scholarly interest in the doctrine of the theosis, almost all recent studies of this important tradition have been reluctant to include any discussion of these Jewish pseudepigraphical writings.[30] Yet, the distinctive pursuits in the attainment of immortality on display in these transformational accounts where the heroes acquire their new heavenly identities during their initiation into the celestial community appear to point to the very roots of the ancient praxis of deification.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection (rev. ed.; tr. B. Ward; CS, 59; Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1986) 222-223; PG 65, 409A.

[2] On this terminological connection, see A. Golitzin, “‘The Demons Suggest an Illusion of God’s Glory in a Form’: Controversy over the Divine Body and Vision of God’s Glory in Some Late Forth, Early Fifth Century Monastic Literature,” in: The Theophaneia School: Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism (Scrinium, III; eds. B. Lourié and A. Orlov; St. Petersburg: Byzantinorossica, 2007) 49-82 at 72.

[3] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, 224.

[4] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, 196.

[5] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, 197.

[6] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, 214-215.

[7] Thus, for example, in the Hekhalot Rabbati, R. Nehuniah ben ha-Qanah reports to his disciples and colleagues, in a state of mystical trance, what he encounters during his celestial tour. Cf. P. Schäfer, with M. Schlüter and H. G. von Mutius., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (TSAJ, 2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981) §§ 224-228.

[8] Another passage found in the Apophthegmata Patrum (Joseph of Panephysis, 7) understands the transformational praxis of glorification also as a pinnacle of the monastic journey: “Abba Lot went to see Abba Joseph and said to him, ‘Abba, as far as I can I say in my little office, I fast a little, I pray and meditate, I live in peace and as far as I can, I purify my thoughts. What else can I do?’ Then the old man stood up and stretched his hands towards heaven. His fingers became like ten lamps of fire and he said to him, ‘If you will, you can become all flame.’” The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, 103. It is noteworthy that this passage shares some similarities with Silvanus’ ascent through a reference to a praxis of stretching hands towards heaven.

[9] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, 42.

[10] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, 7.

[11] M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 191.

[12] Ludwig Köhler and Moshe Weinfeld argue that the phrase, “in our image, after our likeness” precludes the anthropomorphic interpretation that the human being was created in the divine image. L. Köhler, “Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei Lehre, Genesis i, 26,” ThZ 4 (1948): 16ff; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 199.

[13] Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 199.

[14] Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 200-201.

[15] The term dwbk can be translated as “substance,” “body,” “mass,” “power,” “might,” “honor,” “glory,” “splendor.” In its meaning as “glory” dwbk usually refers to God, his sanctuary, his city, or sacred paraphernalia. The Priestly tradition uses the term in connection with God’s appearances in the tabernacle. P and Ezekiel describe dwbk as a blazing fire surrounded by radiance and a great cloud. M. Weinfeld, “dwbk” TDOT, 7. 22-38.

[16] Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 201.

[17] Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 198.

[18] Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 207-208. For criticism of Weinfeld’s position, see I. Wilson, Out of the Midst of Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (SBLDS, 151; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 90-92.

[19] T. N.D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth. Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series, 18; Lund: Wallin & Dalholm, 1982) 46. See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 193.

[20] Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 207.

[21] Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 207.

[22] Mettinger notes that “it is not surprising that the Name of God occupies such central position in a theology in which God’s words and voice receive so much emphasis.” Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 124.

[23] F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.136.

[24] Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.163.

[25] Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.163.

[26] Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.139.

[27] On hypostatic voice of God, see J.H. Charlesworth, “The Jewish Roots of Christology: The Discovery of the Hypostatic Voice,” Scottish Journal of Theology 39 (1986): 19-41.

[28] A. Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham (TCS, 3; Atlanta, 2004) 16.

[29] Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, 24.

[30] Thus, for example, a recent study by Norman Russell [The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004)] does not even mention 2 Enoch and Apocalypse of Abraham – two pivotal apocalyptic accounts circulated in the eastern Christian environment for millennia.

"Ахеревший" Гершом Шолем?

2009-05-13T16:48:35Z

В ответ на мой передыдущий пост о четырёх идеальных типах интерпретаторов и на мой вопрос о том кто может претендовать на роль Ахера - была предложена кандидатура Гершома Шолема. Но в чём же был его иконоклазм? Честно говоря я не вижу в нём и его исследованиях черт Ахера. Он по моему начинал как такой стандартный Бен Азай - собирая каббалистические книжки по немецким магазинам (Гигапедии тогда ещё не было) и систематизируя их в библиографии. Один из его первых научных трудов в этом смысле показателен - это издание каббалистической библиографии. Потом его систематизаторский талант вышел на новый уровень - когда он из кусочков разрозненных текстов и традиций - слепил великую "историю" еврейской мистики. Как он говорил в своей речи по поводу получения Ротшильдовской Премии: "Я нашёл только разрозненные фрагменты - и я превратил их в историю." Но даже и здесь он остается тем кем он был вначале - Бен Азаем. Это был такой немецкий учёный, совершенный продукт немецкого философского рационализма, с налётом гегельянства, перенесённый на еврейскую национальную почву - но мистико-методологически так и не ставший "евреем." Многие глубинные аспекты иудейской мистики так и остались недоступны его методологическому вИдению. Индикатором этого служит его неспособность осмыслить наиболее архаические корни иудейской мистики - заложенные в ранних псевдоэпиграфах - он всегда себя более уверенно чувствовал в поздней аристотелизированной и платонизированной иудейской мистике которая была более "рациональна."

Так что Шолем для меня был и остаётся даже не Бен Зомой - а Бен Азаем правда иногда с такими неожиданными понтАми в сторону р. Акивы как например вот в этом пассаже из его книги. В свой автобиографии "Из Берлина в Иерусалим: Воспоминания моей юности" [Von Berlin nach Jerusalem (Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1977)] он говорит следующее об истоках его интереса к еврейской мистике:
.... Мой интерес к Каббале и к еврейскому мистицизму проявился очень рано и возможно очень разные мотивы были ответственны за это. Возможно я был НАДЕЛЁН СПОСОБНОСТЬЮ К ТАКОГО РОДА ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯМ, СПОСОБНОСТЬЮ КОТОРАЯ, КАК ГОВОРЯТ КАББАЛИСТЫ, ПРОИСХОДИЛА ИЗ "КОРНЯ МОЕЙ ДУШИ".....

Эволюция Экзегета: Четверо которые вошли в Небесный Сад

2009-05-12T03:18:18Z

Равви Акива сказал: Нас было четверо кто бросили взгляд в в Небесный Сад: Один взглянул на это и умер, один взглянул на это и сошёл с ума, один взглянул на это и покинул свою традицию. Но я взглянул на это и и обрёл мир.... И вот те кто вошли в Небесный Сад: Бен Азай, и Бен 3ома, Ахер и рабби Акива. Сказал им рабби Акива: "Когда вы приблизитесь к камням прозрачного мрамора (из которых сделан высший из небесных дворцов и который выглядит как вода), не говорите: "вода, вода", ибо сказано: "говорящий ложное не устоит перед глазами Моими» (Псалмы - 101:7). Бен Азай вошёл в Небесный Сад и взглянул на сияние мраморных камней (небесного дворца) и его тело не могло вынести этого и он открыл свои уста и признёс: «Эти воды – какова их природа» - и умер;

Бен 3ома вошёл в Небесный Сад и взглянул на сияние мраморных камней (небесного дворца) и помыслил что это воды – но его ум не выдержал этого – и он сошёл с ума; Ахер вошёл в Небесный Сад и взглянул и увидел то что заставило его покинуть свою традицию – он увидел великого ангела Метатрона которому было дозволено воссесть на небесном престоле (рядом с Богом) – увидев это он воскликнул – воистину - две силы существуют в небесах и таким образом стал отступником..... Но Рабби Акива - вошел с миром и вышел с миром.

Хекхалот Зутарти - Малая Книга Небесных Дворцов, в сокращённой форме эта традиция также отражена в Вавилонском Талмуде (Хагига 14б)

Может быть эта великая история - это не только символ четырех стадий интерпретации, но также и символ четырёх стадий развития самого интерпретатора. Небесный Сад, поэтому, предстаёт как глубочайшая метафора богословской науки и тех кто в ней обитает.

С первой стадией не так уж всё сложно. Учи языки, читай тексты, собирай электронные издания книг, в тайне надеясь что количество когда-нибудь перейдёт в качество – но если ты только лингвист, ты как Бен Азай – умер, заоодно ещё и умертвив текст своим банальным вИдением. И 99 процентов учёных заканчивают(ся) на этой стадии. Позитивистская научная модель научилась размножать Бен Азаев в огромных количествах. Их так много что уже не хватает железных прутьев для их ритуального забивания у входа в Седьмой Небесный Дворец.

Но если тебе дано проскользнуть по мраморному полу к состоянию Бен Зомы здесь тебя тоже подстерегают опасности. Бен Зома – это персонаж глаза которого приоткрыты и он видит «детали». Как сказал недавно один коллега – за что нас ценят в научном сообществе – за «детали». Можно сказать что в образе Бен Зомы – мы встречаем первый образ настоящего интерпретатора. Детали так просто, изучая только словари, не увидишь – здесь надо немного «съехать». И если на уровне Бен Азая все умирают одинаково – то на уровне Бен Зомы все «съезжают» по разному. Некоторые прямо таки хрестоматийно. Как когда-то мне сказал Алан Сегал об Дэвиде Халперине, об ученом который так много посвятил исследованию Меркавы и истории четырёх вошедших в Пардес – «парень совсем съехал - стал как Бен Зома».

Но самое сложное для понимания, во всяком случае для меня, это третья стадия – стадия Ахера – того великого визионера который согласно Вавилонскому Талмуду «обрезал корни». Для Бен Азаев и Бен Зом – он - еретик который разрушает Традицию - но в логике истории о четырёх вошедших в Сад - он представляет из себя неоходимое звено которое связывает их уровни с уровнем рабби Акивы. Здесь мы в первый раз встречаем замечательно неординарного интерпретатора осмелившегося превозмочь и деконструировать свою Традицию....

.... В связи с Ахером однако возникает вопрос на который мне трудно ответить – существуют ли в современной науке индивидуумы сопоставимые с этим идеальным типом? Кто способен сейчас «резать корни» в институционвальной науке? Могут ли личности типа Мортона Смита претендовать на эту роль? И есть ли отечественные инварианты этого идеального типа?

О р. Акиве поговорим в другой раз....

Переворачивание Символа: Инверсия литургии как её демонизация

2009-05-10T02:53:02Z

И Бог сказал своим ученикам ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8acyyW51fZk

.... Я дал вам заповедь молится Господу за благодать, жизнь, мир, здоровье, спасение ... и прощение грехов сынов Божьих. Тех, кто пребывают в молитве и тех, кто проявляют заботу об этом святом месте ....

... Auov uad auon acnurop ias iicinecu ertac iulunmod asiz... Aiutseca iulusacal iulutnafs ia irotacafenib is irotiulim irotanihcni.
Uezenmud iul rolibor roletacap aeratrei is aerasal aeratecrec aeriutnam aetatanas aecap ataiv alim urtnep magur en as iulunmod. Auov uad auon acnurop ias iicinecu ertac iulunmod asiz...

Зачатие через Архангела Гавриила

2009-05-06T18:41:12Z

Попалась тут на глаза интересная история из раввинистического мидраша "Легенда Десяти Мучеников":

" ... It was said about Rabbi Ishmael, the high priest, that he was one of the seven most handsome men in the world, and that his face resembled an angel. When Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Ishmael’s father, reached the last days of his life, his wife said to him, “My dear husband and master, why do I see that many people manage to have children, while we have not? For we have no heir, neither a son nor a daughter.”

Rabbi Yose replied, “The reason is this: When other men’s wives leave the ritual bathhouse, they watch themselves very closely. If anything unseemly happens to them, they return to the bathhouse and immerse a second time, and so they succeed in having children.”

His wife said, “If this is what has prevented me, then I promise to be very scrupulous in these matters.”

The next time she went to immerse herself, after she left the ritual bathhouse, a certain dog crossed her path. So she returned to the bathhouse, and re-immersed herself. [But when she left] the dog crossed her path again; she returned once more and re-immersed herself. Eight times this happened, until the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel,

“How much trouble this righteous woman takes upon herself! Go and appear to her in the form of her husband.”

Gabriel immediately went and sat at the door of the ritual bathhouse, where he appeared to the woman in the form of her husband, Rabbi Yose. He took her [by the hand] and led her home. That same night she conceived Rabbi Ishmael, and he was as handsome as Gabriel himself.

For this reason, Gabriel encountered Rabbi Ishmael when he ascended to heaven. The angel said to him, “Ishmael, my son, I swear to you that I overheard from behind the heavenly partition that ten sages are to be handed over to the wicked kingdom to be executed.”...

(Translated by David Stern)

"Болезненная апокалиптика": Что это такое?

2009-05-05T17:39:08Z

В своей речи от 5 Мая 2009 года Святейший Патриарх Кирилл употребил термин "болезненная апокалиптика":

"К сожалению, самые покупаемые книги — это самые сомнительные с точки зрения духовной пользы. Чем больше писать о суевериях, баснях, болезненной апокалиптике, тем больше будет спрос."

Не может ли мне кто объяснить что понимается здесь под термином "болезненная апокалиптика" и чем этот тип апокалиптики отличается от "здоровой апокалиптики"?

И может ли кто мне подсказать - а "здорова" ли и румянна та апокалиптика которую я исследую?