David LarsenTheo 228 – Dr. Andrei OrlovFall 2008 Term Paper

And He Departed From the Throne: The Enthronement of Moses in Place of the Noble Man

in Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian

Introduction

The vision of Moses, as portrayed by Ezekiel the Tragedian in Exagôgê, is quite singular

in that it depicts a certain “noble man” sitting on a throne in heaven, who proceeds to pass his

royal regalia on to Moses, and then vacate the throne, placing Moses in the empty seat. Moses is

then described as having god-like omniscience (he is able to see all of creation and number the

stars), and is venerated by the heavenly hosts.

The Exagoge of Ezekiel, although it has received relatively little attention in the past,1 has

more recently been recognized as a very important work,2 not only for its literary value—as the

1 There have been only five major treatments of Exagoge as a whole: M. Wiencke, Ezechielis Judaei poetae Alexandrini fabulae quae inscribitur EXAGOGE fragmenta (Münster: Monasterii Westfalorum, 1931); H. Jacobsen, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); E. Vogt, Tragiker Ezechiel (JSHRZ 4.3; Gütensloh: Mohr, 1983); R.G. Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James Charlesworth; C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. II (4 vols.; Texts and Translations, 30; Pseudepigrapha Series, 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).  2 See R. Baukham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus”, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (eds. C.C. Newman, et al; Leiden, 1999) 43-69. S.N. Bunta, Moses, Adam and the Glory of the Lord in Ezekiel the Tragedia: On the Roots of a Merkabah Text (Ph.D. diss.; Marquette University, 2005); J.J. COLLINS, BetweenAthens and Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, 2000) 224-225; M. Gaster, The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature (London, 1925); I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden. 1980); Y.Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (Jerusalem, 1958-1963) [in Hebrew]; C.R. Holladay “The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian”, SBLSP 10 (1976) 447-452; P.W. van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist”, JJS 34 (1983) 21-29; Idem, “Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel”, Mnemosyne 37(1984) 364-365; L. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia 1988) 58-59; P. Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (SVTP 21; Leiden 2006); W.A. Meeks, “Moses as God and King”, Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (ed. J. NEUSNER) (Leiden, 1968) 354-371; Idem, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (SNT 14; Leiden, 1967); A. Orlov, “Ex 33 on God’s Face: A Lesson from the Enochic Tradition”, SBLSP 39 (2000) 130-147; Idem, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (TSAJ 107; Tübingen 2005) 262-268; Idem, “In the Mirror of the Divine Face: The Enochic Features of the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” The Giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (eds. G. Brooks, H. Najman, L. Stuckenbruck; Themes in Biblical Narrative; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 183-199. Idem, "Moses' Heavenly Counterpart in the Book of Jubilees and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian," Biblica 88 (2007) 153-173; K. Ruffatto, “Raguel as Interpreter of Moses’ Throne Vision: The Transcendent Identity of Raguel in the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian” (paper presented at

1

most extensive example of Hellenistic tragedy available—but also for its theological content—as

a connection between the throne theophanies of the biblical literature and the

apocalyptic/mystical merkabah imagery of later Jewish and Christian writings.3 However,

Exagoge has proven to be a source of some debate as scholars have been divided on both the

identity of the enthroned “noble man” figure and the reason that he vacates the throne in favor of

Moses.

The purpose of my paper will be to research the traditions that feasibly provide

background for the enthronement scene portrayed in Exagoge, with the goal of providing a

possible identity for the figure on the throne. In doing so, I will look at some of the main

theories that have been suggested for identifying the figure: that the figure is God, that he is an

exalted mediatorial figure such as Adam or Enoch, and also the “heavenly twin” theory.4

Furthermore, it will be my purpose to find likely antecedents to the idea of Moses “taking over”

the throne, seemingly displacing the preceding figure. It is contended in this study that, despite

the plausible arguments for alternative explanations, it is not necessary to provide another figure

to substitute for Yahweh in this imagery, nor is it unprecedented in Israelite/Jewish literature for

a superior deity to pass the throne to a subordinate being.

The Identity of the Noble Man

The Text

In the text of Exagoge, we are presented with a drama retelling the story of Moses’

theophanic vision on Sinai. The imagery and events, however, differ quite significantly from the

account in Exodus:

the annual meeting of the SBL, Philadelphia, 22 November 2005); Idem, “Polemics with Enochic Traditions in the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian”, JSP 15 (2006) 195-210; R. Van de Water, “Moses’ Exaltation: Pre–Christian?”, JSP 21 (2000) 59-69.3 This is the conclusion of research by Gilles, Quispel, Gruenwald, van der Horst, Holladay, and Bunta.4 As explained by A. Orlov, see below.

2

68 I had a vision on the top of Sinai of a high throne69 that reached the fold of heaven.70 On it was sitting a certain noble man,71 with a crown and with a large scepter in his 72 left hand, while with the right73 he beckoned me, and I stood before the throne.

The focus of the vision is the “high throne”, upon which is seated a “certain noble man,” dressed

in royal apparel, including crown and scepter. Given the heavenly aspects of the vision and the

kingly attributes, one could quite naturally assume from the given verses that the identity of the

“noble man” is none other than Yahweh himself. In the Exodus account, Moses ascends the

mountain to meet with Yahweh. Comparisons with the oldest strands of the Hebrew Bible can be

found to support such an assumption. Indeed, many scholars5 have readily identified the figure in

Exagoge as Yahweh or “God.” The lines that follow, however, make this conclusion

considerably more complicated. The account continues:

74 He handed me the scepter and told me75 to sit on the great throne, and gave me the royal76 crown, and he departed from the throne.

There is general confusion among scholars as to why the text would depict God as vacating his

throne and putting Moses in His place—a most unprecedented move, some claim,6 in Jewish

literature. For this reason, many have speculated that the enthroned figure must not be Yahweh.

First, we will consider the evidence for a Hebrew tradition of an anthropomorphic Yahweh

seated on a throne.

The Anthropomorphic Figure on the Throne

5 e.g. Pieter Van der Horst (); W. A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 148. Meeks states: “The ‘man’ (φώς) enthroned on Sinai can be no other than God himself…” 6 e.g. Van der Horst, 25.

3

The ancient Israelites, as well as the other peoples of the region, had a long-standing

tradition of depicting their high gods as enthroned, human-like figures. That this tradition was

strong during the monarchic/First Temple period of Israel is supported by many of the oldest

passages in the Hebrew Bible. Yahweh was believed to be enthroned in Israel’s sanctuary.

Although there were later attempts to diminish this belief—King Josiah’s reforms, the

Deuteronomist revisions—the idea persisted through the Exile in the writings of Ezekiel and was

perpetuated in later writings like Daniel. Apocalyptic texts such as 1 Enoch, etc., can be seen as

possible precursors to the “noble man” figure.

Some of the most notable occurrences of this imagery in the biblical literature are found

in Isa 6, Ezek 1 and 10, and Dan 7. Other instances include: 1 Kgs 22:19-22; 1 Sam 4:4; Ex

24:10; Ps 29:10.

One of the most influential of these for Exagoge is likely Ezek, which describes the entity

on the merkabah throne as “something that seemed like a human form” (Ezek 1:26, ~d"²a'

haeîr>m;K. tWmúd ; LXX: o`moi,wma w`j ei=doj avnqrw,pou).

It then goes on to describe this anthropomorphic being in some detail, including the fact that he

was highly luminous, as if he were covered in fire. Many subsequent Jewish and Christian texts

would draw upon the throne theophany imagery found in Ezekiel.

In similar fashion, Isa 6, a pre-exilic text, portrays God as seated on the “high and lofty”

cherubim throne in the temple, paying particular attention to his glorious apparel:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple (Isa 6:1).7

7 A very similar vision, given to the prophet Micaiah ben Imlah, is found in 1 Kgs 22:19:And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left;

4

Dan 7, which arguably dates from roughly the same period as Exagoge, depicts an

anthropomorphic figure sitting on a throne (a merkabah throne as in Ezek), while adding that

both his garment and his hair were exceedingly white.

Ancient Near Eastern Comparable Texts

These passages describing Yahweh sitting on a glorious throne are comparable to

descriptions found in many ancient Near Eastern texts. Both the Canaanite gods ‘El and Baal are

seen as being seated on thrones at the top of sacred mountains. I cite just a few of many

examples:

Puissant Baal is dead;The Prince, Lord of the Earth, is perished.”

Straightway Kindly ‘El BenignDescends from the throne,Sits on the footstool;

From the footstoolAnd sits on the ground;

Pours dust of mourning on his head,Earth of mortification on his pate;

And puts on sackcloth and loincloth.8

‘El is enthroned with Ashtart ‹of the field›;‘El sits as judge with Haddu his shepherd.Who sings and plays on the lyre…9

Baal sits like the base of a mountain;Hadd se[ttles] as the ocean, In the midst of his divine mountain, Saphon,In [the midst of] the mountain of victory.10

8 g. I AB vi. 9-18 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed., ed. J.Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950).9 “Rephaim” cycle, A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963), 20-22. As cited in Cross, 21.10 KTU 1.1-1.6, Die keilalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarits [KTU] (Teil 1, Transkription. Ed. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976).  English translation in N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (Continuum International, 2002), 388.

5

The imagery used to describe the god Baal is similar to the way in which ‘El, his Father, was

depicted. F. M. Cross provides us with a summary of the way ‘El is presented in some ancient

depictions:

The iconography of…Baal Ḥamōn derives directly from older Canaanite representations of ‘El. From Ugarit comes a relief of a male god, with long beard, sitting on a throne with his right hand raised in a gesture of blessing. On his head is a high conical crown below which bovine horns protrude prominently; above is a winged sun disk. A priest is in attendance. From Hadrumetum (Sousse) comes a strikingly similar relief. A long-bearded god is portrayed seated upon a cherubim (that is, winged-sphinxes) throne. His right hand is lifted in the gesture of benediction. He wears a high conical crown. His left hand holds a spear. A priest stands before him. A winged sundisk is in the frieze above.11

Yahweh on the Throne

The foregoing evidence indicates that a vision of Yahweh himself seated on a high throne

on a mountain or in the temple (the man-made model of the sacred mountain) would be very

much in line with pre-exilic Israelite traditions. These traditions, in turn, correspond very closely

to very ancient views of God(s) among Israel’s neighbors. God was seen as sitting on a throne in

an elevated location, acting as King and Judge.

The Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian presents the figure on the throne as “noble man”

who wears a crown and holds a scepter. He is apparently a king. In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh

is certainly depicted as the King. Ps 24, for example, is seen as a procession of the Ark,

representing Yahweh, up Mount Zion (v. 3) to the Temple. Verses 7-9 take place at the gates of

the Temple: “Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of

glory may come in. Who is the King of glory? Yahweh, strong and mighty, Yahweh, mighty in

battle! Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may

come in.” The gates are open for Yahweh, who has come to be enthroned after his victory over

the Waters and his creation of the Earth upon them (v. 2).

11 F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 35.

6

Psalms 29, 95, and 99 depict the enthronement of the victorious Yahweh on his throne,

which was likely represented by the ritualized enthronement of the Davidic king.12 The image of

Yahweh sitting on a throne as King was central to the pre-exilic religion of Israel.

Josiah’s Reform and the Deuteronomist Suppression of the Throne Theophany

Although the throne theophany was an ancient and recurring theme in the royal theology

of the First Temple, later reformers and redactors disagreed with this theology, rejecting such an

anthropomorphic view of Deity and the belief that God could be seen by humans.

A major reform of Israelite religion took place during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs

23), in which many changes were made to religious practice, including cultic worship and the

temple. The religious festivals were also changed.13

The significance of this move for our understanding of the throne vision tradition lies in

the idea that the main subject of the Autumn Festival was the kingship of the Lord. According to

Messinger:

During the greater part of the monarchical period, this festival was the most important of the annual religious celebrations…Later in Jerusalem, the Temple serves from the time of its consecration as the palace of the divine King…it is not without significance that the Temple was consecrated in connexion [sic] with an Autumn Festival.14

The Autumn Festival was likely related to similar Canaanite and Mesopotamian festivals

that celebrated God’s victory over the waters of Chaos, the Creation, and the enthronement of

God as King over the Universe in the Temple. This victory and enthronement is attested in many

psalms, some of which could have been used in the liturgy of the festival (see Pss 24, 48, 82, 92,

93, 94; see also esp. Pss 74:12-17; 89:6-19; 29:10; Zech 14:16-19).

12 Halpern, Constitution, 99.13 Mettinger, Dethronement, 67. One of Josiah’s main purposes was to rid his kingdom of (supposedly) foreign cults and centralize the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Although King Josiah’s reform attempted to do away with the Autumn Festival and its ancient throne-theophany imagery, an emphasis on the kingship of God can still be seen in the celebration of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. See Mettinger, 67-74. For more on this theme, see also Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). 14 Mettinger, Dethronement, 67.

7

The Deuteronomists initiated a polemic against the traditional belief in an

anthropomorphic God who was enthroned in the Temple, which resembled Mesopotamian and

Egyptian beliefs, with a more abstract view of Deity. They emphasized the idea that God only

dwelled in Heaven, and that the Temple was the dwelling place of his Name only.15 In the

sources that pre-date the Deuteronomist, we read about the elders of Israel seeing God directly

on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:9-11) and Moses speaking with God face to face and seeing his form

(Num 12:8), whereas in Deut 4:12 (cf. Exod 33:18-23), the author goes to lengths to inform us

that Moses “saw no form; there was only a voice.” In the Deuteronomic writing, God is not seen,

only heard, and there is no mention of the cherub-throne in the Temple. Whatever the reason,

there appears to be a concerted effort on the part of the Deuteronomists to suppress the Temple

theology that provided the belief in the throne-theophany. 16

Ezekiel Preserves the Throne Theophany

The prophet Ezekiel would have been born at the time of Josiah’s reform, and was exiled

at the time King Nebuchadnezzer was destroying Jerusalem and its Holy Temple. Although his

writing comes from the same general time period as the Deuteronomist school, and could have

been expected to take the same point of view, his visions are very much in line with the ancient

throne theophany type-scene.

Ezekiel saw the essential elements of the First Temple form a mobile theophanic vehicle

which could leave the precincts of the earthly Temple and travel wherever God pleased. In

essence, however, this is the vision of Isaiah—Yahweh seated upon the cherub-throne in the

15 Ibid., 193-198. The Name of God, however, seemed to possess many of the qualities earlier attributed to Yahweh himself. Although it is understood to be used in polemic against the belief in the physical presence of Yahweh in the Temple, the influence of the older traditions is apparent. For an in-depth study of the Name of God, Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985).16 Mettinger, Dethronement, 133. Mettinger refers to the Deuteronomist’s reaction as “cognitive dissonance” arising from the destruction of the Temple where God was believed to have dwelled.

8

Temple setting. Ezekiel was visited by this chariot-throne while in exile in Babylon, and then

sees it return to the Temple in Jerusalem.

There is difficulty, however, in the language that Ezekiel uses to describe the figure on

the throne. Instead of directly stating that he saw Yahweh on the throne, the language we see in

Ezek 1 is reminiscent of the more circumspect approach commonly seen in the priestly writings.

The prophet explains that he saw “something that seemed like a human form” (Ezek 1:26,

~d"²a' haeîr>m;K. tWmúd)). Further on, he says that this was the

“appearance of the likeness of the glory (kavod) of Yahweh” (Ezek 1:28, hw"+hy>-

dAbK. tWmåD> haeÞr>m; aWh§). This use of the term kavod would

become a point of intense debate and theological wrangling for centuries. Some would contend

that Ezekiel had not seen Yahweh himself, but had seen only his kavod.

Much speculation arose in the post-exilic period about what or who the kavod was. Many

documents seem to indicate that the kavod was seen as the anthropomorphic figure seated on the

throne, and that this figure was not God himself, but was an intermediary that appeared as a sort

of representative of Deity. In theory, then, the “noble man” on the throne in Exogoge very well

could have been a depiction of this kavod figure. While the scope of this paper does not allow a

full survey, I will look at some of the recent research that supports this possibility.

Mediatorial Figures Take the Throne

There seems to have been a tendency during the Second Temple period to plug different

mediatorial figures into this role as the figure on the throne. Sometimes the figure was angelic

and sometimes human (or human-turned-divine being). Such figures include Michael, Metatron,

Melchizedek, Jacob, Enoch, Adam, and others. It is difficult to understand why there was so

9

much diversity regarding who exactly should fill this role as kavod/mediator, but the important

point is that the textual evidence makes it clear that many Jewish groups believed that such a role

existed. I will look now at two of the principal figures that were believed to have filled this

position.

Adam on the Throne

In the Testament of Abraham, Abraham is taken into heaven and sees a certain man

sitting on a majestic throne, not dissimilar to Moses’ experience in Exagoge:

11. Michael turned the chariot and brought Abraham toward the east, to the first gate of heaven… And outside the two gates of that place, they saw a man seated on a golden throne. And the appearance of that man was terrifying, like the Master’s…Then Abraham asked the commander-in-chief, “My Lord Commander-in-chief, who is this most wondrous man, adorned with such glory…The incorporeal one said, “This is the first-formed Adam who is in such glory, and he looks at the world since everyone has come from him...17

Here Adam as depicted as the kavod and is described as having a similar appearance to

that of the Lord. Some (e.g. Silviu Bunta) have contended that Adam was long-held as a physical

representation of the deity in ancient Israel and in Second Temple times. Adam was the “image”

of God and was nearly indistinguishable from Yahweh in form.18 There are traditions in which

Adam is venerated by angels and seated upon a heavenly throne. Some ancient commentators

have suggested that Adam participated in the creation of the world and that the figure in Ezek 1

should be identified as Adam.

C. Fletcher-Louis has argued that Adam is associated with the kavod in the Qumran

literature: “…it would be fair to say that…Adam is identified in some way with the Glory

occupying God’s throne in Ezekiel 1.”19 The presence on the cherub throne was also equated

17 E.P. Sanders, trans., “The Testament of Abraham,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (James H. Charlesworth, ed., New York: Doubleday, 1983), 888. 18 See S. Bunta, 87-89. 19 C. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 93.

10

with Adam, who was the image/icon/idol of the undepictable Deity.20 Throughout the literature,

Adam (pre-lapsarian) is depicted as the luminous image of the Godhead, often wearing brilliant

garments of light.21 Later priests and kings would imitate this garment of light, which also

represented the shining robes of God.22 Thus, Adam was the visible representative of the divine

glory, and later humans were engaged in a constant effort to regain the luminous glory of

Adam.23 All this evidence makes Adam a good candidate for the identity of the “noble man.” It

is possible that what we are seeing in Exagoge is an example of Moses taking the place of Adam

as the anthropomorphic figure seated on the divine throne.

The Enoch Theory

Due to descriptions given in documents like 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, it is clear that Enoch-

Metatron was an influential figure that was seen as being enthroned in heaven. It is hard to say

whether this tradition is as old as or older than the Adamic tradition, but it was popular during

the Second Temple period and could have influenced Exagoge just as easily.

In 1 Enoch, we are presented with a figure called “the Son of Man” who appears and

seats himself on “the throne of his glory”:

1 Enoch 69:29 And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible;For that Son of Man has appeared,And has seated himself on the throne of his glory,And all evil shall pass away before his face,And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth…

20 See Nieher, “YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 92. 21 Genesis Rabbah 20.12 indicates that Adam’s garments “were like a torch.” Genesis Rabbah is critically edited by Julius Theodor and Chanock Albeck in Midrash Bereshit Rabbah: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary (3 vols.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1903-1928). English translation H. Freedman, N. Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah (10 vols.; tr. H. Freedman and M. Simon; London: Soncino Press, 1939).22 On the idea that God has garments of light, see Gen. Rab. 3:4; 1:623 See A. Orlov, “In the Mirror of the Divine Face: The Enochic Features of the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” The Giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (eds. G. Brooks, H. Najman, L. Stuckenbruck; Themes in Biblical Narrative; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 183-199; idem., "Moses' Heavenly Counterpart in the Book of Jubilees and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian," Biblica 88 (2007) 153-173; idem., “Vested with Adam's Glory: Moses as the Luminous Counterpart of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Macarian Homilies” in Xristianskij Vostok 4.10 (2002), 740-755.

11

Later, in 1 Enoch 71, the text seems to indicate that this Son of Man is Enoch himself. Although

they don’t initially appear to be the same being, it appears that Enoch later finds that he is, or has

become, the figure on the throne.

In the later text of 2 Enoch, we see this transformation of Enoch in more detail:

2 Enoch 22:8 And the Lord said to Michael: Go and take Enoch from out (of) his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of My glory. 9 And Michael did thus, as the Lord told him. He anointed me, and dressed me, and the appearance of that ointment is more than the great light, and his ointment is like sweet dew, and its smell mild, shining like the sun’s ray, and I looked at myself, and (I) was like one of his glorious ones. 24:1 And the Lord summoned me, and said to me: Enoch, sit down on my left with Gabriel.

The text presents us with the transformation of Enoch into one of God’s “glorious ones,” an

angelic being worthy to sit down near God. Enoch does not sit on God’s own throne, but is

presumably given his own throne near God’s.

In the much later 3 Enoch, or Sefer-Hekhalot, we see the culmination of these traditions,

where Enoch, now specifically associated with the archangel Metatron, is an enthroned vice-

regent figure who represents God. He is above the angels and sits on a throne, similar to the

kavod.

3 Enoch 10:1 All these things the Holy One, blessed be He, made for me: He made me a Throne, similar to the Throne of Glory; And He spread over me a curtain of splendor and brilliant appearance, of beauty, grace, and mercy, similar to the curtain of the Throne of Glory; and on it were fixed all kinds of lights in the universe. 2 And He placed it at the door to the Seventh Hall and He seated me on it.

Enoch-Metatron, in all his glory, is even called “lesser Yahweh,” and represented God by

bearing his name. This tradition seems to clearly identify Enoch-Metatron with the mediatorial

kavod figure. G. Scholem, however, argues that Metatron is not the original figure that bore this

title:

Jewish speculation about Metatron as the highest angel who bears, in a way, the name of God, and who is called [the Lesser YHWH], was preceded by an earlier stage in which this Angel on High was not called

12

Metatron, but Yahoel; a fact which explains the talmudic references to Metatron much more convincingly than any of the older attempts.”24

He also notes that b. Sanh. 38b, which states that Metatron has a name “like the name of his

Master,” is incomprehensible unless it is understood to refer to the name Yahoel.25 The angel

Yahoel, or “Yahweh-El,” who appears in texts such as Apocalypse of Abraham, is an older name

for the mediatorial figure whose role the rabbis assign to Metatron in the hekhalot literature.

I would suggest that Enoch is not being portrayed in this literature as if he were in the

position of the enthroned “noble man” of Exagoge, but as if he were like Moses. Enoch is the

mortal who is raised up to heaven, is glorified and receives a throne. He is not the figure who is

passing on the throne to another.

The Heavenly Twin Theory

Some scholars26 have proposed that the figure Moses encounters may be his own

heavenly counterpart. A number of apocalyptic texts describe a scene in which the visionary

reaches heaven only to find his own image or a heavenly double of himself sitting on the throne

of God. This can be seen in Ladder of Jacob, Jubilees, the Enoch literature, and elsewhere. This

idea is, perhaps, a stronger argument than that of the mediatorial figures mentioned above, as A.

Orlov notes:

An attempt to deal with this enigma by bringing in the imagery of the vice-regent does not, in my judgment, completely solve the problem; the vice-regents in Jewish traditions (for example, Metatron) do not normally occupy God’s throne but instead have their own glorious chair that sometimes serves as a replica of the divine Seat. It seems that the enigmatic identification of the prophet with the divine Form can

24 Scholem, Jewish Gnosticim, 41.25 Ibid. See discussion in A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 139-140.26 A. Orlov, “The Face as the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob,” in From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism: Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 114; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 399-420. See also J. Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God (NTOA, 30; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 135–151.

13

best be explained, not through the concept of a viceregent, but through the notion of the heavenly twin or counterpart.27

In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen 28:12 the following story of Jacob can be found:

He had a dream, and behold, a ladder was fixed in the earth with its top reaching toward the heavens … and on that day they (angels) ascended to the heavens on high, and said, Come and see Jacob the pious, whose image is fixed (engraved) in the Throne of Glory, and whom you have desired to see…28

Orlov explains that there are further implications possible in this imagery:

Besides the tradition of “engraving” on the Throne, some Jewish materials point to an even more radical identification of Jacob’s image with Kavod. Jarl Fossum’s research demonstrates that in some traditions about Jacob’s image, his “image” or “likeness” is depicted not simply as engraved on the heavenly throne, but as seated upon the throne of glory. J. Fossum argues that this second tradition is original. Christopher Rowland proposed that Jacob’s image is “identical with the form of God on the throne of glory (Ezek. 1.26f.)”29

The “heavenly twin” motif depicts the visionary seeing himself seated on the throne of

glory, as if he were the kavod. Perhaps, if Ezekiel the Tragedian was employing this motif, then

our text is depicting Moses as simply trading places/merging with his heavenly counterpart, as

occurs in this tradition. Orlov constructs a persuasive argument based on the recognition of the

heavenly twin idea in both the Enochic literature and the Book of Jubilees, and the fact that these

writings could very well have had an influence on Ezekiel.30 The main reservation that I have

with this theory is that the drama does not expressly portray the “noble man” as the heavenly

twin of Moses. Moses does not recognize himself on the throne, nor does he merge with the

figure on the throne. That does not deny the possibility that this could have been the case, but we

would have to assume that Ezekiel’s audience would have been well-familiar with this motif.

The Idea of God Passing the Throne on to Another

27 A. Orlov, "Moses' Heavenly Counterpart in the Book of Jubilees and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian," Biblica 88 (2007), 153-173 (165).28 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 99–100; Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. IV. Targum Palaestinensein Pentateuchum, 1.195. 29 A. Orlov, From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism, 408. 30 A. Orlov, “Moses Heavenly Counterpart,” 165-171.

14

These preceding theories are highly plausible and many of the texts used as evidence

could very well have influenced the thinking of Ezekiel the Tragedian. However, despite the very

convincing arguments that Moses must be encountering one of these “other” figures on the

throne, there may be evidence for the idea that God himself could pass the throne on to another

individual.

Returning to the Ugaritic myths, ‘El, the Father of the gods, is seen as king. After his

victory over Yamm (the deified Sea, or Chaos), Baal seemingly takes over ‘El’s throne and rules

as king in his place. Baal does not wrest power from ‘El, but seems to be appointed king by

him.31 It is possible that the same transition took place in Israelite religion, where Yahweh is

enthroned and takes over El’s functions. The Psalms repeatedly celebrate Yahweh’s

enthronement. Yahweh is enthroned after He has destroyed Chaos/the Sea/the Dragon. It appears

that Yahweh becomes king at that point in time.

A much later Christian Adamic tradition, preserved by the Armenian church, indicates

that God was once a man, but by partaking of the fruit of the tree in Eden, he became God of all.

Two medieval Armenian texts give us added details concerning what the Serpent told Eve about

God in the Genesis story. The first of these reads:

When Adam departed and was walking around in the garden, the serpent spoke to Eve and said, “Why do you taste of all the trees, but from this one tree which is beautiful in appearance you do not taste?” Eve said, “Because God said, ‘When you eat of that tree, you shall die.’” But the serpent said, “God has deceived you, for formerly God was man like you. When he ate of that fruit, he attained this great glory. That is why he told you not to eat, lest eating <it> you would become equal to God.”32

In Stone’s translation of this text, the serpent’s words read: “God was a man like you.

When he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all.”33 The second text records:

31 This is the argument of John Day in God’s conflict with the dragon and the sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 164-165. 32 W. Lowndes Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature (Armenian Texts and Studies 8,

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1990), 262-264. The Armenian texts used here are based on research by John Tvedtnes and are part of a yet unpublished manuscript of his.

33 Michael E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 25.

15

The serpent said to Eve, “Why do you eat of the fruit from every tree, but you do not eat of this beautiful fruit?” Eve said, “Because the Lord God commanded not to eat of that fruit. He said, ‘When you eat it, you will die.’” The serpent said, “God wants to deceive you, for God was like you, because he had not eaten of that fruit. When he ate it, he attained the glory of divinity. That is why he told you not to eat of that fruit, because you would become equal, sharing the glory and throne of God.”34

The fact that it is the Serpent speaking could cast doubt on the truthfulness of what is

being said; however, a comparison with Gen 3:5, where the Serpent declares that eating the fruit

will make the humans “like God,” and then 3:22, where God himself declares the fulfillment of

the Serpent’s declaration, indicates that this portion of what the Serpent was saying was

supposed to be true. This tradition can be seen as evidence that the idea that Yahweh came to the

throne at a particular point in history persisted well beyond the writing of Exagoge.

Evidence that this theme is not unique to the Armenian tradition can be found in the

much earlier Genesis Rabbah to 19:4, where the Serpent says of God, “Of this tree did He eat

and then create the world; hence He orders you, ye shall not eat thereof, so that you may not

create other worlds . . . Now you were created after everything in order to rule over everything;

make haste and eat before He creates other worlds which will rule over you.”

Reigning in God’s Place

While this latter tradition may seem quite radical, it seems to fit well with the pre-exilic

picture of Yahweh (or his Canaanite counterpart, Baal), having acceded to the throne at a certain

point in history. Yahweh/Baal, through his merits, becomes King and rules over the cosmos in

place of the Father god. It is interesting to note, however, that in the Ugaritic texts, although

Baal is worshipped as god and king, he is still subordinate to his Father, ‘El. It is only ‘El that

makes decrees and judgments. Baal serves as an intercessor or mediator in addressing ‘El. It is

‘El who approves the building of a temple for Baal after his great victory over Yamm.

34 W. Lowndes Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, 120-121.

16

A similar relationship can perhaps be seen between Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh in

the Israelite tradition. While Israel at one time likely recognized a difference between the god ‘El

and Yahweh, at some point the two deities are combined. Yahweh then takes on the functions of

the deity ‘El (as assigned to him in the Ugaritic texts). The functions of Yahweh/Baal then pass

to the Angel of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible.35 In the older tradition, Yahweh is the mediatorial

figure—the kavod.

An example of this transition can be seen in the story of the appearance of Yahweh to

Abraham at Mamre (Gen 18-19). After his visit with Abraham, we are told that: Then the LORD

rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven (Gen 19:24).

Here we seemingly have an angelomorphic Yahweh that is on earth and a Yahweh that is in

heaven. There are other examples of this phenomenon.

The main problem with this whole line of reasoning (i.e., trying to make a connection

between the throne vision in Exagoge and the Canaanite myths) is the immense amount of time

that passed between the writing of each (approx. 1000 years). It is unlikely that the Canaanite

texts could have had any direct influence on Ezekiel the Tragedian.36 However, it is not

necessary to argue for a direct influence, but for the perpetuation of a tradition over time. I

believe that this tradition was preserved in the enthronement ritual of the Israelite kings 35 See J.A. Emerton, “The origin of the Son of Man imagery,” JTS 9 (1958), 225-42. Emerton argues that Yahweh was first identified with Baal, the god who fought the dragon, and later, as Yahweh became identified with ‘El, the high god, the figure Yahweh-Baal was conceived of as an angel, the Angel of Yahweh. The older Canaanite view appears again in Dan 7, where the Ancient of Days is the ‘El figure and the one like a son of man is the Baal figure. See argument in Day, 165. See also Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: Brill, 1977); Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Louisville, KY: WJKP, 1992); Geo Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation in Religious Documents (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1936); Eugene Seaich, A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 13 footnote. Seaich argues that “as late as the Exile, Yahweh was still subordinated to Elyon in parts of the Jerusalem cultus. Even after Judaism declared that Elohim and Yahweh were merely different names for the “One God” (Deut 6:4), the memory of a second deity survived as a ‘manifestation’ of God’s mediating ‘power,’ described variously as his ‘angel’ (Exod 23:20), or as a ‘personification’ of his creative ‘word’ and ‘wisdom’ (Ps 33:6; 136:4).” Seaich also suggests that Danielic “Son of Man,” may have been second in power to the “Ancient of Days.” 36 Although Day, following J.J. Collins, argues that Canaanite mythology was available as late as the Roman period, when Philo of Byblos translates Sanchuniathon’s “Phoenician history” at the end of the 1st century A.D. See Day, 166.

17

performed at the Autumn Festival, and that this tradition can also be seen in the biblical Book of

Daniel, which many scholars date to approximately the same period as Exagoge (second century

BC).

Israelite King as God

This tradition can be seen in the role of the Davidic kings, who seemed to have been

recognized as the representative of Yahweh. In the book of Chronicles, we are presented with

Solomon sitting on “the Lord’s throne.”

1 Chronicles 29:20, 23 Then David said to all the assembly, "Bless the LORD your God." And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads, and worshiped the LORD and the king.23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

According to Mettinger, Ps 110 calls both Yahweh and the king “Lord” and we should

understand that the king was sitting on God’s throne, sharing his power (cf. Rev 3:21; Matt

19:28). The king, he explains, is God’s co-regent, exercising delegated divine power.37 The King

wears regalia that imitates the royal apparel of God.

It is not likely that the people of Judah saw their king as a god, but as someone who

represented God, much like an actor in a play. In fact, there is much evidence that the king led

and participated in a ritualized cultic drama that took place during a yearly celebration of the

New Year–the Autumn Festival, the most important of all festivals. Many scholars, most notably

Sigmund Mowinckel in his The Psalms in Israel’s Worship,38 have seen in the Psalms a liturgy

for a cultic dramatization of the victory of Yahweh over the forces of Chaos, his creation of the

cosmos, and his enthronement as King in the temple, which is paralleled and represented by the

victory and enthronement of the earthly king.

Daniel 7: The One Like The Son of Man Made King

37 Mettinger, King and Messiah, 264-265.38 Sigmund Mowinckel. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Trans. D. Ap-Thomas. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

18

The perpetuation of this ancient enthronement imagery by the Israelite kings makes a

connection between the theme of ‘El enthroning Yahweh-Baal and Moses’ enthronement in

Exagoge more plausible. The presence of such imagery in the Book of Daniel increases the

effectiveness of this theory. As mentioned above, Daniel and Exagoge are both dated by

scholars to around the second century B.C.

In Daniel 7, a figure called the Ancient of Days sits on a throne as judge. A second

figure, one like the Son of Man, comes like a god riding upon the clouds. The Son of Man figure

is then appointed king by the Ancient of Days and acts as his vice-regent.39

Although the identities of the two main figures in Dan 7 have been the subject of much

debate, Emerton concludes that this story has its origins in the Canaanite myths regarding ‘El,

the “Father of Years” who passes kingship on to Baal, the “Rider of the clouds.”40 While Baal is

appointed king, he rules under the direction of the high god, ‘El. As discussed above, early

Israelites probably saw this exchange as El-Elyon transferring kingship to Yahweh, and later on

as Yahweh-El to a lesser anthropomorphic divine/angelic being. Thus, in Exagoge, we see

similar imagery of Yahweh passing on kingship to Moses, who is then invested with divine

attributes.

Moses as King and God

The image of God himself allowing Moses to sit on the throne as king, to reign in God’s

place, thus becomes a viable one. That Ezekiel the Tragedian used the image of God leaving the

throne does not necessarily mean that we are to understand that God was demoted, lost his

position, or that he was taking a vacation. Along the trajectory of this tradition, the high god

continues to rule, although perhaps indirectly through his new vice-regent. Like Solomon, Moses

39 Day, 162.40 Emerton, p. 232.

19

could be depicted as sitting on God’s throne and ruling in his stead, although God was still the

true King and Occupier of the throne.

Certainly, this is the position that the Adamic and Enochic traditions claim for their

heroes. However, as Van der Horst argues, instead of being given a separate throne

(metathronos) that is similar to God’s, as depicted in these traditions, Moses is described, in the

tradition of the Monarchy, as synthronos theou, sharing the throne of God.41

The fact that Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew almost contemporary to the writing of

Exagoge, can call Moses both “god and king” is evidence for this interpretation.42 When Moses

went up on Sinai, he saw Yahweh himself and came down from the mountain as god and king of

Israel, the representative of Yahweh.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have endeavored to answer the question of the identity of the enthroned

“noble man” in Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian, while also attempting to understand why this

divine figure would remove himself from the throne and put Moses in his place. Although many

of the foregoing theories are plausible and are demonstrably present themes in Second Temple

literature, and thus, possibly available to Ezekiel, I have attempted to demonstrate that it is not

necessary to see the “noble man” as anyone other than God. As Exagoge was a theatrical

production of Exodus and faithful to the biblical narrative on most points, it would be most

natural for the “noble man” on Sinai to be God.

The theory that the figure on the throne is a mediatorial vice-regent, namely Adam or

Enoch, is not as likely, as both are exalted mortals and would fill the position of Moses in our

story, and not the divine being on the throne. While the heavenly twin theory is more fitting, I

41 P. W. Van der Horst, "Moses' Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist," JJS 34 (1983), 21-29 (26-27).42 Mos. i. 158f. As cited in W. Meeks, The Prophet-King, 110-11. Meeks cites a number of other texts which support this recognition of Moses as god and king.

20

imagine that there would be more of an emphasis on the recognition of the figure as Moses’

counterpart or a merging of the two “versions” of Moses. So, while the theory is very plausible

and certainly possible, there is nothing in the text of Exagoge that would indicate that this,

indeed, is what Ezekiel has in mind.

The most straightforward response to the initial question is that the “noble man” is God

and that he is placing Moses on the throne to rule in his stead as king and god under him. This

motif is of unknown antiquity, being a major theme in the Ugaritic texts, found also in the

Hebrew Bible, perpetuated by the Monarchy, and found surviving in literature contemporary to

Exagoge, like Daniel 7. Just as Yahweh became King after he defeated Chaos, and was

appointed king by his Father, ‘El, so Moses is being made king by God in Exagoge.

Selected Bibliography Barker, Margaret. Temple Themes in Christian Worship. London: T&T Clark, 2007.

Bunta, Silviu. Moses, Adam and the Glory of the Lord in Ezekiel the Tragedian: Roots of a Merkabah Text. Dissertation. Milwaukee: Marquette University, 2005.

Cross, F.M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Day, John. God’s conflict with the dragon and the sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

Emerton, J. A. “The origin of the Son of Man imagery,” JTS 9 (1958)

Holladay, Carl R. "The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian." Society of BiblicalLiterature Seminar Papers 1976. Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1976, 447-52.

Jacobsen, Howard. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.

21

Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden:Brill, 1967.

Niehr, Herbert. “In Search of YHWH’s Cult Statue in the First Temple,” in K. van derToorn, ed. The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: Peters, 1997, 73-96.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Golden Garments of the Gods.” JNES 8 (1949): 172-193.

Orlov, Andrei. “In the Mirror of the Divine Face: The Enochic Features of the Exagogeof Ezekiel the Tragedian.” The Giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. eds. G. Brooks, H. Najman, L. Stuckenbruck; Themes in Biblical Narrative; Leiden: Brill, 2008, 183-199.

_______. "Moses' Heavenly Counterpart in the Book of Jubilees and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian." Biblica 88 (2007): 153-173.

_______. “Vested with Adam's Glory: Moses as the Luminous Counterpart of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Macarian Homilies.” Xristianskij Vostok 4.10 (2002).

Robertson, R. G. “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” in Charlesworth, James H., ed. The OldTestament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday, 1985, 803-819.

Van der Horst, Pieter. "Moses' Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist," JJS 34 (1983): 21-29

________. "Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel.”Mnemosyne 37 (1984): 354-75.

22