You are on page 1of 5
USP 21 (2000) 19-26] Notice: This material may be protected by copyright law {Title 17 U.S. Code). ‘THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME ‘METATRON" AND THE TEXT OF 2 (SLAVONIC APOCALYPSE OF) ENOCH! ‘Andrei Orlov Abilene Chistian University ACU Station, Box 27873, Abilene, TX 79699, USA ‘The history of scholarship on 2 Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch (hereafter 2 En.) has produced no real consensus concerning the possible prove- rience of this apocalypse.? Rather. there are numerous scholarly posit- ions. These conclusions are most likely the consequences of the differ 1. This study has benefited considerably from the comments and kindnesses of the following scholars who read the MS and preliminary materials at various stages: Professors Christfried Botrich, James Charlesworth, John Collins, April De Con- nick, Ian Fair, Everett Ferguson, Daniel Matt, André Resner, EP, Sanders, Alan Segal, Carolyn Thompson, James Thompson, James VanderKam, Ben Zion Wa- ‘holder. 2, Fl. Andersen in his English translation of 2 Enoch notes that ‘there must be something very peculiar about a work when one scholar concludes that it was written by a hellenized Jew in Alexandria in the first century BCE while another argues that it was written by a Christian monk in Byzantium in the ninth century CCE". See Fl, Andersen, "2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch’, in OTP, I, p. 95. 3. See Andersen, ‘2 Enoch’; F. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967); C. Botrich, Das slavische Henochbuck (Guterstoh: Guterstoher Verlaghaus, 1995); C. Bottrich, Weirweisheit, Menschheit sethik, Urkult: Studien sum slavischen Henockbuch (Tubingen: Mohr, 1992); C. Bur. kitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (London: Oxford University Press, 1914); RAL Charles, “The Date and Place of Writings of the Slavonic Enoch’, JTS 22 (1921), p. 163; JH. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (Missoula, MT: Scholar's Press, 1976); J. Collins, ‘The Genre Apocalypse in Hel- Tenistic Judaism’, in D, Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypricism in the Mediterranean World dnd the Near East (Tubingen: 1.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1983); L. Cry, “Quelques 20 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 21 (2000) ent backgrounds and perspectives which scholars have brough study of 2 Enoch rought to their One of the important insights of research on 2 Enoch is the view that the text has deep connections with so-called Merkabah mysticism.* noms anges oes mysteries en IL Henk R49 (940, pp. 195: ‘Danilo, The Teloy of Jewish Christian (Chicago: Hey Repacry Com, pany. 19:1 Rum, Casas 115 180m te Liao Myton Grosicisn. NS 39 (989, pp 183.201 K Lakes "Toe Da of he Slovene Boch’, TR 16 (1923), p.397 9; M. MeNarara ntertenental Litera (Witmingion, DE: Michal Clase 1983; NA. Meschery.Sledy Fay. Ano Karrine sony deers eae Rc ‘ki veri ih Eoha, Tr oder tery 19 9) pp 47, WA, Mescehersy,K ort savyanso) bg End (Sey pay stow Kunans vss strstr Vatu rene rik 21968), pp9-108;8.A, Messer, "Kops ob acca slag ‘hk Eno, Kr sobuhchene Ista troy Ai 8698S) py 8 in Russian I. Mil, The Boots of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Caed (Oxford Clendon Pes, 176.6 WE. Nektar The Book of Ech inRecent Reser ASR (981) op, 210-17; 1 debe Brcko te Hebrew Book of Enah ew Yr: Ki 197); Me Pilko, a comogoie du Le des eres Dench” in Religions en Egypte: Helesique ct Romane (Pars Presses Univesttes de France, 148). Pes, acotogy and te Cone of ‘Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch’, in RJ. Zwi Werblowsky (ed.), Types of Re- deption.(eider Ell, 1970 TL, Rowley (el), Conponion othe Bie (Cainbrgh TT. Clk, 1963; A Robin, “Otervaton one Slvoic Book of Enoch 15 (196) p21, 6. Scholem, Majo Tren Jewish My tic (ew Yok: Shaken Books, 195) G.Scholem, Org of the Kabbalah (Pinson PrintonUnverty Pres, 1987); ME Soe, Jens ring the Second Temple Period (hill: Fontes Pres, 1984), Tp. a0 408: A Wallon, Le ire desserts Hench Pete lve et raduton nate (ai {insta Eudes Slave, 1952; rp Par 1970). Wik, The Decne of od inthe Jewih Apocrypha and ApocipeLieranre New York Kia, 11) 4 The tem Meshal iscosely connected with the term which designates the mystical inerettion CMa ae Mehab—"The Aout ofthe Cato ot "The Work ofthe Divine Chariot) ofthe ist cape of aril East aces of tbe Mera ation ae sited in pocaypc and Qumvan erature However, 2 Grenwa ose ain cops te Merkaba erate var compe Isl in te pros 20-70 ce. Some ferences tos tation en nd sl ine teatro Geman Hai (wah othineenth cetares and metal Cabalistic writings (the Zohar). The teeta (Dive Fale) designates he aps of ert that fot gives a flscale presentation of Merabah mote (ie begining the vadion scone hth cleo Rata Yohanan ben Zi shin pp ORLOV The Origin of the Name ‘Metranon’ a ‘Among the leading pioneers of this approach stand Gershom Scholem and Hugo Odeberg.’ Odeberg may well be the first scholar who pointed ‘out that the descriptions of celestial titles for Enoch in 2 Enoch are the most important evidences of possible connections between it and texts of the Merkabah tradition In these descriptions of celestial titles, one may find the origin of an- other image of Enoch, quite distinct from early Enoch literature, which ‘was later developed in Merkabah mysticism—the image of the angel Metatron, “The Prince of Presence’. The Slavonic text provides rudi mentary descriptions of several traditional Merkabah titles of Metatron- Enoch, (e.g., ‘the Lad’, ‘the Scribe’, ‘the Prince of the World’, ‘the Prince of Presence’).® Keeping these manifestations of Merkabah sym- ‘According to Gruenwald the main subjects dealt within the Hekhaloth literature are hheavenly ascensionsand the revelation of cosmological secrets. 1. Gruenwald, Apoe- ‘alyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980). The term “Metkabah ‘tive Chariot) can be used also in its technical Kabbalistic meaning as the link be- tween the physical and the divine worlds or as one of the upper worlds. On the Merkabah and the Hekhaloth traditions, see the following sources: D. Blumenthal, Understanding Jewish Mysticism, a Source Reader: The Merkabah Tradition and the Zoharic Tradition (New York: Ktav, 1978); L Chemnus, Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1982); M. Cohen, The Shi'ur Qomah: Liturgy and “Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham: University Press of Amer- ica, 1983); 1. Gruenwald and M. Smith, The Hethaloth Literature in English (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983); D. Halperin, The Faces of Chariot: Early Jew ish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tubingen: MohutSiebeck, 1988); D. Halperin, ‘The Merkavah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980); M.Idel, ‘Enoch is Metatron’, Immanuel 24-25 (1990), pp. 220-40; L. Jacobs, Jewish Mystical Testimonies (New York: Schocken Books, 1977); N. Janowitz, The Poetics of Ascent: Theories of Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989); M. Morgan, Sepher ha-Razim: The Book of “Mysteries (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983); P. Schiffer (ed.), Synopse zur Hek- halot-Literatur (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981); P. Schafer, The Hidden and Man: ifest God (Albany: Stale University of New York Press, 1992); G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish The- ological Seminary of America, 1965); G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysti- cism (New York: Schocken Books, 1954); M. Swartz, Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma’aseh Merkavah (Tabingen: MohriSiebeck, 1992). ‘5. H.Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: Ktav, 1973): G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1954); idem, Origins ofthe Kabbalah (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987). 6. See A. Orlov, **Merkabah Stratum” of the Short Recention of 2 Enoch’ (Brown Library, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, 1995). 22 Journal forthe Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 21 (2000) Sots in mind this nce wil foes upon only one of these tes ot och, namely, "The Prince, or the Governor, ofthe World’. The article will also explore some Slavonic terminology related to this title which ‘may yield insight into the origin of the name “Metatron’ s The Merkabah tradition stresses the role of Metatron a5 the “govern- ing power over the nations, Kingdon nd roles on earth”? Sefer et loth pictures Metatron as the Prince of the World, the leader of 72 princes of the kingdom of the world, who speaks (pleads) in favor of 2 Enoch and a similar passage of the text of 2 Enoch in the Slavonie co lection “The Just Balance’ ® reveal Enoch in his new celestial role. Both txt aine Enos instructions oh chile, daring his ie ret tothe ean which he menons his ne role asthe Gover othe Bleeds be who understand works fhe Lad (and lis Hin) because of Hs Wek, kas th Crt. And bid my hile, am the Governor!” ofthe eat, prometaya I wrote them) down, Ad the whole year combined and he hors ofthe da. Ande hour nen suredand wrote wn every eed on ea And I compared srey mes ‘sure and the just balance I measured." “vues ‘An important aspect of both passages is assages is the Slavonic term prometaya, Which follows Enoch’s tit, “The Governor of the World Ths tem ca deliberately left in its original Slavonic form in order to preserve its authentic phonetic image. Prometaya represents an etymological enigma for experts in Slavonic, since itis found solely in the text of 2 Enoch. It 1. Odeberg, 3 Enoch, .81 A._Here and late ave ated Anerens English wansaion and follow his vision in chapters (Andeen, 2 Enoch p. 102-221. 2, Teta’ ero raved) the Soni coleton of thi ngs in wih he existence of 2 Each at mae ble Se MM, Tchni feria cee eres XIV veka (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1961). : ndersentrandatsthe ile ‘manager am the manager ofthe ara ments on eat (Ander, Eno. 21), rez nh onary eles lamictsie te Grek wd Bevis aia Seer lovar’ drevnerusskogo yazyka (Moscow: Kniga, 1989), I[1l}, p. 1410) 7 fried Botrich, Das Slavische Henochbuch (Gut Gir eee tie buh (Guero: Giersoher Veraghaus, 11” Andersen, "2 Eno’ pp 217-19. 12 Andersen sates the tile a Th Andersen, ‘2 Enoch’, p. 217, " ™ " " ‘ORLOV The Origin of the Name ‘Metranon’ 23 should be stressed again that there is no other Slavonic text where the word prometaya is documented. Prominent Russian linguist I. Sreznevsky, in his Slavonic dictionary, which is still considered by experts as a most reliable tool of Slavonic ‘etymology, was unable to provide a definition for prometaya.'? He sim- ply added a question mark with the meaning for the word.'* The variety of readings for this term in the manuscripts of 2 Enoch'* shows similar “Jinguistic embarrassment’ among Slavic scribes who most likely had some difficulties discerning the meaning of this ambiguous term. The readings of other manuscripts include promitaya, prometaemaa, pome- taya, pametaa. One possible explanation for the singular occurance of prometaya is that the word may actually be a Greek term that was left untranslated in the original text for some unknown reason. In fact, 2 Enoch contains a number of transliterated Hebrew and Greek words preserved in their original phonetic form (e.g., Grigori, Ophanim, Ragia Araboth). When I started to investigate the term prometaya more closely, what drew my attention was the root meta, which necessitated further examination of the relationship between the words promeraya and metatron. Contemporary scholarship does not furnish a consensus conceming the origin of the name ‘Metatron’. In scholarly literature, there are sev- eral independent hypotheses about the provenance of the term. 1 want to draw our attention to one possible interpretation, which could be con- nected with some materials in 2 Enoch. According to this interpretation, the name ‘Metatron’ may be derived from the Greek word wéxpov (mea- sure, rule). Adolf Jellinek may well be the first scholar who suggested étpov as an alternative explanation of Metatron, on the assumption that Metatron was identical with Horos.'° Gedaliahu Stroumsa in his article, “Forms of God: Some Notes on Mefatron and Christ’, gives some con- 13. On the other hand, Vaillant in his edition states that promeraya could be identified as arare verb corresponding to the Greek Baoavitay. The linguistic source of this suggestion remains unknown, Andersen criticizes this transation, pointing ‘ut that the meaning is not quite suitable and does not correspond to earlier mate- rials, See Andersen, °2 Enoch’, p. 217. 14, promitati,promitaya—?1, Seznevsky, Slovar’ dremerusskogo yazyka (Mos- cow: Kniga,1989), HD, p. 1544. 15. Andersen stresses that the variations show ‘theological embarassment” among the Slavie scribes ('2 Enoch, p. 217). 16, Odeberg, 3 Enoch, p. 134