HANNAH, Darrell D. (1999), Michael and Christ. Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Mohr Siebeck

DARRELL

D. HANNAH

Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions

and Angel Christology in Early Christianity

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen

Testament 2. Reihe

109

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament - 2. Reihe Herausgegeben von

Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius

109

This

One

HANAN UAT X1A5-ZB9-9AF2

Darrell D. Hannah

Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions

and Angel Christology in Early Christianity

Mohr

Siebeck

Darreci

D. HANNAH

was born 1962; Bachelor of Arts (Magna cum Laude), Grand Canyon

College, 1985; Master of Divinity, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989; Master of Theology, Regent College, 1992; Doctor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, 1996. Sir Henry Stephensen Research Fellow, University of Sheffield, 1996-98; New Testament Research Fellow, University of Birmingham, Westhill, from 1998.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - C1 P-Einheitsaufnahme: Hannah, Darrell D.: Michael and Christ : Michael traditions and ange! christology in early Christianity / Darrell D. Hannah. - Tibingen : Mohr Siebeck, 1999 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament : Reihe 2 ; 109) ISBN 3-16-147054-0

1999 by J.C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.O. Box 2040, 72010 Tiibingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. This book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tubingen on non-aging paper from Papierfabrik Niefern and bound by Buchbinderei Heinr. Koch in Tiibingen. Printed in Germany. ISSN 0340-9570

For

Perry and Charlotte, Darla and Daniel

Acknowledgements

The present work began life as a doctoral thesis submitted to the Faculty of Divinity of the University of Cambridge in 1995. It appears here in a slightly revised form. It was a great privilege to live and work in the town of Cambridge and its historic university for the period of four years. A generous gift from Paul and Hannah Gay made this possible, as did the awards of an Overseas Research Studentship, for the period 1992-1994, and

the Crosse Studentship, for 1994-95. Perry Hannah’s gift of a lap top computer at the outset of my doctoral studies proved indispensable and demonstrated avurdxpitog didadeddia. The Rev'd. Dr. David Hoyle, and his wife Janet, welcomed me into their home during the last months of revision before submission of the thesis. Their hospitality and understanding

made this tedious task almost pleasant. My thesis supervisor, Dr. Markus N. A. Bockmuehl,

first suggested an

examination of Michael traditions when I was searching for a specific approach to the general area of "angel Christology". His insights, encouragement and gently administered criticisms have contributed greatly to my own formation as a scholar and theologian.

It is a pleasure to here record

in print my thanks and gratitude. To Profs. Hermann Lichtenberger and William Horbury additional thanks and gratitude are due. Both of these gentlemen, in the most literal sense of that word, supervised my work for short periods,

the former

during

a five month

period

when

it was

privilege to study in the Universitat Tiibingen and the latter for shorter periods during my time in Cambridge. versations

with

a number

of other

I have, in addition, benefited from conscholars,

including

especially

Profs.

Larry W. Hurtado and Richard Bauckham, and Dr. Andrew Chester. The latter two served as my examiners during my viva. I have in the revisions of the thesis responded to a number of their criticisms and, consequently, the present work is stronger and more tightly argued than the thesis.

Vill

Acknowledgements

The question of “Angelmorphic Christology” has in recent years experi-

enced phenomenal growth within the disciplines of New Testament studies and Christian Origins. I have profited from the contributions of many, including especially Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, Alan Segal, Christopher Rowland, Andrew Chester, Peter Carroll, Cnspin H. T. Fletcher-Louis and Loren Stuckenbruck. Even where I have disagreed with these scholars, I have learned a great deal from all of them. I have also

benefited from discussions with others, among whom Charles Gieschen must be mentioned. Unfortunately, his book on the subject appeared too late to be taken into account. I, however, look forward to continuing the dialogue with him, and all of the others, in the future.

] would like to register my thanks to Prof. Martin Hengel for accepting my book for publication in the WUNT series, and to Herr Georg Siebeck for his patience acceptance and and duties, first kept intruding.

during the rather long period between the work’s initial the final arrival of my manuscript. Other academic work in the University of Sheffield and then at Westhill College It was my privilege to serve as the Sir Henry Stephenson

Research Fellow in the Department of Biblical Studies of the former institution from 1996 to 1998. That department provided a stimulating academic environment in which to work. It was there I began the revisions, but the lion share was done at Westhill College, where I have received the warmest

of welcomes.

To my colleagues in both institutions I offer my thanks.

Finally, my parents, the Rev’d Harry and Grace Hannah introduced to me

the art,

nay

life, of theological

reflection.

Their love and encour-

agement means more than I can possibly express. My four siblings, to whom this work is dedicated, have taught me again and again that theological reflection must take place in community, never in isolation. It is in the hope that it may be of some profit to the wider community of faith that this work is published.

Holy Week,

Birmingham

1999

Darrell D. Hannah

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

.........cccccccec cesses eeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeneeeeeteeeneteeenes

vii

AbbreviatiONS 2.0.2... cece cece ence ence cence ee nee erence terse eneneteenetereeaeneeees

Part I: Introduction:

Angels, Michael and Christology .................665

1. Angel Christology:

A History of Research ............cccceeeneeee ee

&. Pre-H1stOry ........cccecceeeceeeceeneee ceeeneteaneeeeetenenenes fo tea b. The First Period: Angel Christology . ..........sceeceeeee eee e ee C. Interlude ........ ccc ceeeececee cece eee eens eee seen eenaeeeeeeeaaenenee nes d. The Second Period: Angelomorphic Christology...............

2 3 5 6

©.

cece ce cece e eee e tenet ee neeeeeeenneeeeeeeneneneeees

Plan for this Study ..........cccecceeceece ene eee eee eneeeeeeaneneeeneeens Terminology... cccceccee cece ence tence eeenetetneeeeneneteeneeeeenanees

12 12

Michael in Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period.....

Chapter 1: The 7179? 4X9 and Other Antecedents in the OT............. 1. Angels in the Old Testament...............ccceesceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees a. Prevalence of Angels in Ancient Near East ................0000 b. Terminology ...........ccccececcecereeenenseneeeenseneeteneeeneeners c. Themes and Motifs in OT Angelology................:.eeeeeeees

15 15 15 16 17

2. The Ti? N20 (Q°TON INDI) oo ceecccecceceeeceeeeseesecceeuseuaees

a. The 117° JN? of the Patriarchal Narratives ............00..064.

The Angel of the ExoduS..............cccccceceeeceteeeeeeeneeeeees

c. Later Developments.............cccesceeeceeecceeeeeeeeteaeeneeenes d. Related Themes..............cccecccec eee eee ee eeee ere eesenneeeaeene ©. SUMMALY «20... cece eee ese e cere cree eee eee serene eeeaeeteneneneenees

22 23 24

2. 3. Part II:

SUMIMATY 2.0... cece

Chapter 2:

The Archangel Michael in Jewish Apocalyptic and Related Literature...........cccecceeceecceceeeeneteneeeeeeees 1. Jewish Apocalyptic Literature ........... cece ese r eee e nsec nee eeeee ees

25 26

Table of Contents

The a. b. c.

Angelology Messengers Archangels The Angels 1) Agents

of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature................... and Servants of God.............ecceeeeeeee ence eeenes and the Angelic Hierarchy...............sceeeeeeeees and Humanity .............. cc cceeceeeeceeeeeseeerenens of Revelation.................000. cae eee ee eeeenneenaes

28 28 29 30 30

Guardians of Nations.............cccceeceeeeeeeeeueeesneeenenes

3) Intercessors and the Heavenly Cultus..................0e00e: 4) Angelic PsychopompS..........cccccesceereeeeenereeteeeeeeeees Michael in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature ...............ccceeee econ: a. Special Relation with Israel .............cccceeseeenceeeeeeeeeeeeees 1) Angelic Guardian of Israel .............ccceeceeeeee een eeeeees

32 32 33 33 33

Leader of the Heavenly Host (Apxtorparnyos).........+.

3) Israel’s Legal Advocate and Opponent of Satan............ Israel’s Intercessor and Heavenly High Priest ...............06.

40 42

Michael as Psychopomp.............cc cee eeseeeceeeeeeeeneneeereaes

d. Michael as Angelus Interpres............c.ccceacceeeneeeeeeeeeeues e. Michael as Highest Archangel...............cccceseeeeeeenneeeeees f. Michael as the Angel of the Name..............ccceeeeeeeeeeenees @. SUMMALY 20... eee e eect eee e eter reece ene ence nesta sere eeae reas

47 48 51 54

Chapter 3: 1. The 2. The a. b. c.

3. 4. 5.

55 56 59 59 60

The Four and/or Seven Archangels.............:ccceeeeeeeeeneee

d. Cosmic Muchael and Michael and CONcluSIONS

Dualism: The Spirits of Light and Darkness ......... the Prince of Light................cccceceeceeeeeeeeneennes Melchizedek ..............ccesceeceesceneeneeeseneeeeeeeaes 0... ccc ecce cece eee ee ence eee e cease neeeeeeeneetneeeeneeeaeees

62 64 70 75

Michael and Philo’s Logos Doctrine.................cceeeeeeees

Philo’s Doctrines of God, the Logos, and angels...............0000

a. Philo as Monothelst .............ccceseeeeneeenceeeseeeeeneseneeeens b. The Logos of God: The relationship between God

Chapter 4: 1.

The Archangel Michael in the Literature of Qumran......... Qumran Community. . oo... cece eee e eee cece ee eeeeeeeeeeeres Angelology of QuMran........... cc ceecce cece seer eee e ne eeeereenens Communion with the Angels ...............cccccee seeeeeeeeeenees The Angels as a Heavenly Priesthood................ ccc eee enone

and His LOGOS

2.2... ce eceee cece ee ceena eee eeeeeeeeeeseseseeeeunees

c. The Logos as Hypostasis .......... ccc cee ecee cece ress eeeeneeeeneeees d. Philo’s Doctrine of Angels ..............cccceseeseeenseeeeveneees The Logos and Michael in Philo ............ cscs eeceeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeees

81 84 85

The Logos as archangel ..............cccccceecscceeeeseseeeeeneees

The Logos as High Priest ...............ceccceeenesenceeeeeeeeeenes

Table of Contents

c. The Logos as the Exodus Angel and Angel of the Name...... d. The Logos and Israel .......... cece cece cece cece ence ee eeneenenenes e. The The Prayer of JOS€Dh........cccccccecececcenccereeeneneneneees f. COomclusiOns..........cceeceece scene eee eee eee e nee eneteeeeeee eran reeees

87 88 89 90

The Logos and Sophia in the Wisdom of Solomon..................

Chapter 5: The Archangel Michael in Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature 1. Rabbinic Literature.............cecceececc cece eee eeeteceenereeeeuaeeneenas a. The Angelology of the Rabbis...............cccceceeeeceeeereneees b. Michael According to the Rabbis ................cesceeeeeeneeees 1) Continuity and Change............ccccccsseeceeereeseeneeeaeess a) Highest Archangel..............ccccceeeeeeeeeeeeenereneers b) Protector of Israel and Military Commander...........

93 93 95 97 97 97 99

c) Heavenly High Priest .............. cc ecece sense eee ee neeeees 100 d)

Michael’s Eschatological Functions .............0seeeeee 102

©) SUMMALY......... cece ccc ec cece eect eee eee eee eeeeeneeeneen tees 102 2) Rabbinic Evidence for a Michael Cult.............. .ccceeeee 104

3) Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis of 717? X27

PASSAQES 0. .ec ec cece cet ee eset eet e eee renee eneeeneseneeeeteee tees C. CONCLUSIONS .......... cece cece eee ee ec eee eee cents es eeeeeeeeeees nee Hekhalot Literature. .......... cece ccc cece ener eee eneeeeneeeeseneneee anes a. Purpose of Hekhalot Literature............. ccs ce ece eee eee rene ees b. Angels in Hekhalot Literature... 2. oo. eee eee ener eee eee 1)

Traditional elements..............cccccecceeneeeeeeeeeeneees eens

111 114 115 115 116 116

2) God and angels...........ccccccescceeeeeceeeeeeeseeeeeeeeee tens 117 3) Metatron .........ccccceccecesceeeseeeeneeevessetesueeeseneee ees 118 c. The Michael-Metatron Identification .............. 2 eee eeee ee eens 119 CG.

Part III:

Conclusions 2.0... . cc ccccce eee e een ec cece cree eneeeeeeeeesetenerereeens 121

Muchael in Early Christian Literature.............c cece eee eee ees 122

Chapter 6: 1. The a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Michael and Angelic Christology in the New Testament .... Angelology of the New Testament Authors.................0068 Michael and Gabriel ...............cccescceeeeeeeneeneeeeeeneeee sees Angelic Roles...........cccccesceeeceeceteceteessesssteceeevenenesers The Superiority of the Righteous over angels.................6. Heavenly Cultus ........ cece cece cece cnet ee seeeeeneee eens Guardian-Angels..........ccccccccceseceesseeeeeseeesereeeseeeeenaes Angels and Resurrection............ccccceeeeeeeseeetseeeeenenee tees Angels and the Eschaton .............ccceeeeeceeeeeceeeeeeeeeen ees

122 122 123 123 124 124 125 126 127

xii

Table of Contents

Michael in the New Testament ............... 0 cee cece e nese teen ee eee anes a. Revelation 12 2.0.0... ccc cece e cece ence tenet eects eens ee nneee tees Db. JUde 9 oe cece ener eee eee scenes ee enee eens eteneeeee nen enes C. Other Passages ..........ccseceeece eee eeeene eee eeeeeeeseeseneeenee anes 1) 2 Thessalomians 2.6-7 ..........0cceeeeees wuts eeeeeeeneneeenuees 2) Galatians 3.19... cece cece cence reset eeeeeeeenseereeneees 3) Revelation 8.3 and 20.2 ..........ccceeceeeceeneeensereenenenes 4)

d. 3.

127 127 130 132 132 134 135

The Johannine Paraclete .............cccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ees 135

SUMMALY 0.0...

cece ee cece eee ee eee ea eee ees ene edeneeeeeeeeneee eens 136

Angel or Angelic Christology in the New Testament ............... 137

Christ as an Angel in the New Testament Period............... 1) The Epistle to the Hebrews............cccccesceeeeeee renee eres 2) JUde 5-6 oo eee ccc cece ence teeta eeeeeneensenseeseeneeeree bees b. Principal Angel Speculation and New Testament ChristOlogy........cccccccceecce enact etaeeeneeeeeeeetensetevenees aes 1) Christ as the Angel of the Name ................ceeeeeeeeeees A) Phil. 2.9 ooo ecc ccc ceee cece eeeeeeeeeeeteeneeeaeere cease b) Rev. 19.11-16 wo. cece ence eee ener eee eeeeeneen eens C)

John 1711-12

Rev.

142 142 143 144

cece cece sence eee eeeeeeeen eens 145

2) John 8.56, 12.41... ccc cece cece eeeeeneeeeeeeeeeee anes c. Principal Angel Roles attributed to Christ ................cee eee 1) Christ as Leader of the Heavenly Hosts..............000 eee 2) Christ as the Gate Keeper of Paradise ...........-:0ceeee ees 3) Christ as Heavenly High Priest ............cccceceseceeeee eens d. Dissimilarities ..........ccceece eee eeec eee eeneeeeseeaeetseeeuseeenens 1) Christ never called or portrayed as an angel in the New Testament ............ceseeeseeececceeeeneeeeeteeeeee cers a)

137 137 139

1.12-18 and 10.1.0...

146 148 148 149 150 151 151

cece cece eee ee ce ee 151

b) Rev. 14 14-15 occ eee ee cence rece eeeeeeen eens 154 0) 1 155 2)

d) The Son of Man ........c.ccceccceeececeeeeeeeeeeeeereeeaues 156 Christ Superior to angels in the New Testament........... 158

Conclusions: Use and Transformation of Principal Angel Traditions .... 0c. ccc ece cece eee ee cece eee ee ene rene ene eae eeeeeeeaeeaneea tens 161

Chapter 7°

Michael and Angelic Christology in Second

and Third Century Christianity...........ccccceee scene eneenee eee 163

1. Michael in Second and Third Century Christianity.................. 163 a. Leader of the angels ...........ccccccccceceeeeerseeteeeeteneeeen eres 164 b. Protector of the People of God and Opponent of Satan ....... 165

c. Heavenly Priest ..........ccsceeeeceseseeeeeeeeeeeetestetaeneen veeaee 166

Table of Contents

d. Eschatological Roles..........ccccce eee eeeeeeee ence eens seeeenen eens 167 e. Gnostic Michael Traditions ...........cc ce ccee eee e ene e enon ence ees 169

f, SUMMATY....... 2.

eee ee cece eee e econ ees t eset ences oneness ee eneent ne sees 170

Angelic Christology in Second and early Third Century Christianity 2.0.0... e eee eeee eee cece eee e nero re eeeeeeneeeensaeecee ees 171 a.

Christ as an archangel .............ccseeseecc eee eneeeeeeenerccee tere 171

"Heretical Angel Christologies” ............c.cccseeeeenee cues a) Ps-Cyprian De Centesuma 2... ccc ccc cece eee eece nee anes b) Epzphamus, the Ebiomites and the Elchasites........... c) Tertullian and Valentinian Christology.............. 000 d) The Testament of Solomon and Magical Texts......... 2) Other examples of angel Chmistologies ................00 00

171 171 173 179 181 183

Possible Jewish Precursors ............cceeccecesceeeeceeee aes 184

a) The Prayer of JOS@Dh oo... ccccc cece csccnccenncteneeenne eens b) The Pre-Existent Angel of the Magharians............. A) SUMMATY .. 0. eee cece eee e tener cena eee enone ees seeenseneeaes Christ as Michael.............c:cccecseeeeeneeeceeeeeneceneeaeeee ees 1) The Shepherd of Hermas ...............ccceceeeceeeeeeenee cues a) The Glorious angel .............ccceceeceeeeeeeeneeeeeeaees b) The Glorious angel: Michael ...............ccceeeneee eee c) The Glorious angel: the Son of God................. 0085

184 185 186 186 187 187 187 188

d) The Pneumatological Christology of Hermas.......... 189 e) The Status of the Shepherd in the Early Church....... 2) P. Oxy. L152 cece cece cence ence eee eeeeneeeeeeenee noes 3) Gospel of the Hebrews ....... 2.0. ccc ence esc e ene teneeeenee ens 4) Epiphanius Pan. xxx.16.2 and the Dualism Of QUMIAN 20... eee eee ees e cece ee eneteeneeereeseeesegneneun tees 5) The Pseudo-Clementines .......cccceccecccenccneeeeeeneeseeuaes 6) Gabriel, the angel of the Holy Spirit? .................ce eee c. Christ disguised as an Angel.................ceecceeeeeeeecee ee eens 1) The annunciation...........cccccceseceeeeseeeeeeseeeeeeneeee teas 2)

Chrrist’s descent ..........ccc cece ce eeeseeeeeesaeeeeeteeeeeee cess

191 192 193 193 194 195 196 196 197

The tradition behind the Ascension of Isaiah..........0c.cc eee 199

The "Theophanic" Angel Christology of the Fathers .......... 202

1) Justin Martyr ...... eee cece eee cence eee eeteeeeneetaee cae a) The OT Theophamntes...............ccceeeceeseeeneeeeee eens b) The Philonic Logos .............cccceneeeeeeeeeteeeeeee eres c) The Platonic Doctrine of God’s Transcendence........ d) The Relation of the Logos to the Father ................ e)

202 202 203 204 204

The Logos as the Angel (Messenger) of God .......... 205

XIV

Table of Contents

2) Theophilus ...........cccccece ec eseeceeeeneetceeeeeseeeneeeeee sees 3) Iremaeus ......... cc cece cece eect ence een eenceeeeeesesenseeeesee anes 4) The Angel of Great Counsel ..............ccceeeeeeseteeee eens a) The Origin of the Phrase .............cccceeeseeeeeeeee noes b) The Popularity of the Title...........c.ce ce eeeeeeeee ee ees c) Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian............ G) OFIQOD. oo... eee cec cece scene eect ene ree rneeeneeeeteneen eens e)

206 207 209 209 209 210 210

Heretical Use of the Title ............cccccceeseeeeenee eens 211

5) COnclusions..........cccsceescccsceeneeneeetseevansesesetseee anes 212 Conclusions ..........ccccecceeee teen ete e nese neces eeeseeseneeesseneeen tees 212

Part IV:

Michael and Christ ...........cccccce ees escenceseeeeseeeevereseeen ses 214

Conclusions:

Michael and Christ............ccsceceseecenceeeeeeeeeeneeaee cues 214

Summary:

Michael and Christ ..........cccccccccceecceeceeereeeeeeereeeeseeeueee tees a. Theophanic Angelic Christology .............ccesceseeeeeeeeee eens b. Angel Christologies ............ccceeceeneeesenceeeenneenseeeeena eens c. Angelic Christology: Transformation of Michael Traditions .......cccecccesee ese e ence eee eeeeeteceeeeteseeeeneeneeen cas 1) Usefulness and fluidity of Michael Traditions.............. 2)

Three Forms of Angelic Christologies .................. 214

215 216 216 217 217

Angelomorphic Christology as a reaction against Angel

Christology .......:.cceecencceeeeeeeseeeeeteeeaeeenensenseere ena 218

3. A Conjectural Synthesis ...........ccccceeceeeneeeeeeneeeseeneenenaen cease 219 Bibliography ...........:cecce eee eecee nce eeee ees eeeerencenseeeseerereseeeeesene sens 221 Primary Literature .......... cee eeeee cence tee ne eee ee eee eeeees enone eeseneee cease 221 Secondary Literature ..........csceseesceneeeeeeseeseenesseteeeeaeeneteeen ness 227 Index of Modern Authors ..........ccccsceceseeneececeneeeetaeeeeneeneaeeren sees 251 Index of References .........cceccece ccc ece eee eee e ene rneteaeeaeeneeneeneeene ces 256 Index of Subjects 0.0... ccc ec eee eee cece eee en eran eeeeeseeeeseseueeeeceae nas 284

Abbreviations

General abbreviations are as follows:

LXX MT

Septuagint Masoretic Text

MajT

Majority Text of Greek NT manuscripts

NT OT Veg

New Testament Old Testament Vulgate

All abbreviations of works from the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and NT Apocrypha follow those used by Charlesworth, O7P I.xlv-xlviii, except

the following: AssMos. EpApos. InfGThom. Vita Adae _

Assumption of Moses Epistula Apostolorum Infancy Gospel of Thomas Life of Adam and Eve

Abbreviations of Qumran manuscripts follow Vermes Complete DSS in English, pp. 601-619. Abbreviations of Philo’s works follow those found in the Loeb Classical Library’s edition of Philo, I.xxili-xxiv.

Abbreviations

of Rabbinic works are according to Strack-Stemberger’s /ntroduction, pp. 401-403. Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference works,

and Serials follows the

Journal of Biblical Literature’s "Instructions for Contributors".

Introduction.

Angels, Michael, and Christology

-OTt QPXNY Tee TavTwy ray xriopaTwr o bed¢ yeyévenxe Stvapiv twe ef gavrou hoyiany, Arig Kai Sofa xKuplov uxO TOU AvEvpatog Tov aryiov KadeiTat, ToTE 58 WWOG, TOTE 5E Godia, TOTE 5E Ayyedos, ToTE 5s Beds, more 58 Kipiog Kai hOyo>g, ToTe b& APKXLOTPaTHYOV EaUTOY AéEyEL, EV aviparov popdn gavévTa ty Tov Navn Inoov (Justin Martyr, Dial 61 1)!

This passage from Justin illustrates the ease with which some early Chnstians identified Chnst as an Angel

However, given that Justin adds

$e6¢ directly after Gyyedoo in this list of chnstological titles, the queshon ansesWhat did he mean in asserting that the Holy Spint, 1e, the inspired Scriptures, called Chnst an angel? Did he understand Chnst to possess an angelic nature? Or did he believe that Chnst shared in the divine nature? Are these categories not mutually exclusive for Justin? Justin was by no means alone in using the appellation a@yyedo¢ to describe

the significance of Christ

It was used by very different Chnstrans

throughout the first two Chmstian centuries and beyond

At times, even

when the word &yyedoe 18 not used with reference to Chnist, the influence of angelological traditions can be detected The questions asked above of Justin can, of course, also be asked of the other theologians and authors in early Chnstianity who descnbed Christ as an angel or used the ttle

oyyedog for him In the past twenty-five years a number of NT scholars have argued that Jewish behefs and traditions about angels, particularly the principal angel or angels, hold the key to understanding why early Chnstians came to make such

exalted claims about Jesus of Nazareth,

This conception

is by no

! God begat from Himself {as a) “Beginmng" before all creatures a certain rational power, who 1s once called by the Holy Spint “Glory of the Lord", and (in another place)

“Son", and then "Wisdom" then “Angel”, then "God", then "Lord" and "Word", and once called tumsclf "Commander-in-Chnef™ when he appeared in the form of a man to Joshua the son of Nun

Part!

Introduction

means new to New Testament scholarship As long ago as 1898 Wilhelm Lueken argued that speculations which surrounded the archangel Michael 10 ancient Judaism

greatly influenced the early development of Chnstology

Lueken was mght to focus on Michael, for he 1s the most significant figure in several ancient Jewish and early Chnstian angelologies. The present study aims to re-examine Lueken’s arguments tn Ihght of the current debate,

with due attention to the mass of evidence which has come to light in the course of the last century, and with a more ngorous cnittcal methodology than that used by Lueken, especially in regards to late sources.

1. Angel Christology: a

A History of Research

Pre-History

Before embarking, a bnef historical survey of the scholarly study of angelic Christology? is in order. The year 1898 saw the publication of Lueken’s

Marburg

dissertation

in which he took up Bousset’s

suggestion

that in Jewish traditions about Michael might be found “Spekulationen vorbildhch fir die Entwickelung (sic) der Christologie" 3

Lueken argued that

there was a direct relationship (direkte Beziehungen) between the Jewish

portrait of Michael and the Chnstian belief in the exalted Chnist, in that both are depicted as a heavenly advocate for Israel/The Church, as the heavenly high priest, and as the commander of the heavenly hosts4 Lueken’s work 1s proneernng, even ground breaking, but suffers from methodological errors First and foremost, Lueken draws evidence from

heterogeneous sources to construct a untfied portrait of Michael which may never have existed in ancient Judaism, In addition, Lueken uses both early and extremely late sources with little or no attention to their date To be sure, all of the elements which Lueken believes constructive for Chnstology are attested in Jewish Michael traditions However, a “direct relationship" between Michael speculations and Christology 1s called into question by the fact that no single pre-Chnstian document or tradition can be found in

2 Here | use the term “angelic Chnstology" mm the widest sense possible, including as a calepory within it the currently popular term “angelomorphic Chnstology” At the end of

this chapter | will offer a number of terms and definitions for the different posions which can be subsumed under this umbrella term.

3 Cited by Lucken Michael, v * Lueken

Michael, 164

History of Research

which all these motifs are attributed to Michael.

Finally, Lucken fails to

grapple with the significant differences between early Chnstian confessions of Christ and beliefs about Michael in ancient Judaism This leads him to conclude that the only sigmficant difference between Jewish Michael

speculation and early Christology was that the former onginated because of Judaism's emphasis on the transcendence of God, while the latter testifies to

the sense of the nearness of God in emerging Chnistianity.* Between Lueken and the first extensive defence of angelic Chnstology in early Chnstianity, that of Martin Wemer, there were a couple of voices

which suggested that early Chnstology was in some way indebted to Jewish angelology. First, G H Dx 1n two articles® argued that some Jews expected not a human, but an angelic Messiah who was none other than the OT “Angel of Yahweh" This figure was identical with Daniel's "man clothed in linen” (10 5-12 13) and “one like to a son of man" (7 13) 7? This

orginal conception was lost when this figure was transformed, first into Une} and later Michael Nonetheless, in its final “Michael” stage it had some influence on early Christology, particularly in the Fourth Gospel and the Revelation of John.*

Five years after Dix’s second article, A

Bakker

appealed to an early “Testimony Book" known to Josephus,’ Hebrews 1-2, and the Shepherd of Hermas, in order to show that Chnst was understood by some Christians as an angel !°

b The First Penod

Angel Chnstology

With Martin Werner’s Die Entstehung des chnsthchen Dogmas,

pub-

lished in 1941,'' we have the first sustarned argument that early Chnstology

developed out of Jewish angelology Werner had as his starting point the apocalypuc and eschatological nature of earliest Chnstiamty On the basis

of the then widely accepted interpretation of the Danielic and Enochic Son of Man

as a heavenly

being,

argued

that

the

earlest

Chnistians

5 Lueken, Michael, 166

6 Dix's “Babyloman Ideas” appeared in 1925, his “Seven Archangels” in 1927 ? Dix, “Babylonian Ideas", esp 245-248, and "Seven Archangels”, 241

8 Dix, “Seven Archangels", 243-244

9 Bakker refers here to the Slavomec version of the Testrmonum Flavianum For the difficultes in accepting either the Greek or Slavonic versions of the Testinonmem Flavianum in their entireties as authentic, see Schirer/Vermes, History

| 60-61, 428-441

10 Bakker, "Chnst an Angel?” 1! & second revised edition appearedin 1954, an English translation in 1957

Part]

Introduction

understood this title as a reference to an angelic being, whom

appointed as an eschatological judge.

God had

In Werner's words, “for Primitive

Chnistianity, Christ was, in terms of late-Jewish apocalyptic, a being of the

high celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the end of the ages, against the damonic-powers of the existing world, the new aeon of the Kingdom of God" |? According to Werner's reconstruction, the earliest stage of Christology was adoptiomstic 71,

Werner

On the basis of passages hike Acts 2 32-36 and J Enoch

concludes

that

the

man

Jesus

was

understood

to have

been

exalted to the heavenly position of Chnst and Son of Man because of his death and resurrection |} At a later stage, the Apostle Paul introduced the idea of pre-existence into Christology '* Nonetheless, this pre-existence ts not to be understood as an eternal pre-existence, but the pre-existence of an angel who was a creature of God Wemer argues from James | 7 that for the Judaism of the penod a transformation of divine nature into human was

impossible

However, "the possibility of such a transformation was truly

the pecultar property of the angels” '*

It is only with the “process of de

eschatologising” that the Church moved away from its conviction that the Messiah 1s a created and angelic being With this process came a new

Christology which took the title "Son of God" literally and thus held that the "Son"

must be “in some manner

generated by the Father and like to

Him in Nature and substance” '§ This new Chnstology comeided with, and was dependent, upon the Hellenization of the early Church '? angel Christology,

Werner's

then, can be seen as the identification of Chnst with an

angel At an earlier stage Christ was held to be a human who had been exalted to angelic status Later this developed into the view that he was an angel who had been incarnated in the man Jesus of Nazareth

The response to Werner was swift and decisive

A year after the pub-

lication of Entstehung, Wilhelm Michaelis released a monograph entitled Zur Engelchristologie im Urchnstentum Abbau der Konstruktion Martin Werners

As the title indicates, Michaelis set out to overthrow Werner's

theory Concentrating on the NT passages appealed to by Werner, Michaelis opposes his exegesis point by point and concludes, "early Christianity had known

no ange! Chnstology”

12 Werner Formation, 125 13 Werner, Formanon, 126 ‘4 Werner, Formanon, 127-128

\S Werner Formation, 127 128 \6 Wemer, Formation, 131-132 1? Werner, Formanon, vu

18 Michaelis, Engelchnstologie, 187

Although Michaelis has

History of Research

been criticized for "“over-shooting hts goal" and for not always percetving

the “full weight" of his evidence,'® his position won the day, at least im regard to the earliest chnstological formulations *° In the same

year as Werner's

Entstehung,

Joseph

Barbel

published

thorough examination of the "angel Christology” of the early Fathers ?! His purpose differed from that of Werner or Michaelis He did not examine the NT evidence and was not concerned with the earliest attempts

at Christology

Rather, he sought to understand the Patnstic chnstological

usage of the term a&yyehos § In 1964 Barbel added an appendix?? in which he addresses the question of "Engelchristologie” in the NT He is

impressed with the evidence Werner marshals for the influence of “the conceptions and notions of late Jewish beliefs about angels on Christology" ,?+ but in the end Barbel concludes that no angel Chnstology can be detected in the NT itself *4

Interlude

Werner's argument, then, that the earliest Christians understood Christ to have been an angel by nature and that the omginal Chnstology was an angel

Christology,

was almost

universally

rejected

Twenty

years after

Barbel’s appendix, James Dunn could dismiss Werner's thesis as a curiosity of NT scholarship 25 For Dunn the debate 1s a settled 1ssue In short, the thests that an angel chnstology was entertained in some parts of earliest Christianity has little or nothing to sustain it, and the suggestion that any NT author maintained an angel christology runs

clearly counter to the evidence ** However, Dunn oversimphfies matters Barbel was not the only scholar who, while rejecting Werner’s main thesis, also expressed admiration for

'9 Barbel, Christos Angelos 342 343 20 Barbel, Christos Angelos 2 Barbel, Chnstos Angelos 22

"Die

frihchnsthche

343

und

Daniélou, Theology patnstische

Forschung”

23 Barbel, Christos Angelos, 343 24 Barbel, Christos Angelos 348-349 25 Dunn, Christology

322-323, n 106

26 Dunn, Chnstology

158-159

118

n.3

Engelchnstologie

Licht

der

neueren

Part!

Introduction

the many parallels between Jewish angelology and early Chnstology that Werner put forward.

Kretschmar, for example, asserts that while Werner

"has made irrefutably clear" that notions and conceptions from the "late Jewish doctrine of angels” influenced Chnstology, "he was unable to show that (it) was the intention of the New Testament authors” to identify Chnst

with an angel 2’ Werner’s

In other words, although scholars are united in rejecting

assertion

that the

authors

attmbuted

to Chnst

angelic

nature, a number suggested that speculations about angels may have influenced the NT authors, and other early Chnstians, as they sought to express

their

faith

the

exalted

Chmst

addition

Barbel

and

Kretschmar, Damélou speaks of Jewish Chnstians borrowing “terms . from the vocabulary of (Jewish) angelology to designate the Word" ** Daniélou, who appears to have been the first to use the term "angelomorphic Chnistol ogy”,?° asserts that while this terminology often 1mphed a "subordinationist tendency", it "in no way” suggested that Christ was understood to possess an angelic nature On the contrary, the term "angel" was “the old fashioned equivalent" of what later theologians meant by *pdéawzaov and persona *

d The Second Period Kretschmar

and

Angelomorphic Christology

Dantélou,*!

post-NT evidence

like Barbel,

were

chiefly

concerned

with

From 1968 to the present there has been an increasing

interest in the question of Jewish speculation about angels influencing the Chnstology of the NT authors Richard Longenecker finds such influence in Gal 4 14, as well as in the groups opposed at Col, 2 18 and Heb, 1-2,32 Martin Hengel, in his essay The Son of God, points to the angelic Metatron in 3 Enoch, Israel in the Prayer of Joseph, and Michael-Melchizedek in sectarian literature from Qumran as possible Jewish preparations for the early Christian understanding of the pre-existent and exalted Christ 3) A

27 See esp

28 2? 3? “|

Kreischmar, Trinitdtstheologie, 221-222

Damélou, Theology, 117 Damélou, Theology, 146 Damélou, Theology, 118-119 Kretschmar s work was published in 1956, Damélou’s in 1958 and then again, in a

revised English translation, m 1964

32 Longenecker, "Distinctive" 528, and Christology, 26-32 in 1968

The article was published

the book in 1970

33 Hengel, "Son", 44-46 version followed a year later

75-81

The German original dates from 1975, the English

History of Research

year after Hengel’s work appeared in English, Alan Segal published a com-

prehensive study of the "Two Powers heresy" in Rabbinic Judaism

In Ins

argument that elements within NT Christianity represent one of the earliest examples of the “Two Powers heresy", Segal concludes that early Christians

identified a number

of "human

figures in heaven

and angelic

mediators” with Jesus * In a manner approaching that of Werner, Segal places a great deal of emphasis on the use of the “Son of Man” ttle in both Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel tradition.2* Even more Wemer-like, Segal at times appears to suggest that Jesus was held to possess an angelic

nature 36 The same year that Segal’s Yale dissertation appeared also saw the heation of Baihner’s Tiibingen dissertation.7”7 An examination of the ceptions of agency and mission in Johannine Chnstology, Bihner behind the Fourth Gospel's éya sie and #A@ov-statements Ancient

pubconfinds Near

Eastern assumptions concerning the role and practice of a messenger, conceptions which also inform Jewish angelology (e.g. Raphael in Tobit) Biihner argues that Johannine Christology ts indebted to Jewish notions of agency and mediation, particularly the rabbinic concept of the M°9Y 38 addition,

Biihner finds behind the Johannine

apocalyptic Son of Man

Son of Man

the Danielic and

Postulating a two-part development,

argues that the Johannine community

first, on the model of Enoch

Bibhner tradi

tions, identified Jesus as a human exalted to become the angelic Son of Man, Later there evolved the complimentary conceptions of pre-existence

and Jesus as a heavenly angel incarnated in a human being, on the model of the angel Israel in the Prayer of Joseph This, according to Bihner, places Johannine Chnistianity in the same trajectory as Jewish Christianity

Clearly, at the very least, shades of Werner are to be found in Bihner’s interpretation of Johannine Christology, indeed it would appear that Bihner has returned to the position of Martin Werner with the important difference that Werner’s claims were made for the whole of NT Chnstology, while

Biihner's concern 1s merely Johannine Christology 34 Segal, Two Powers, 208 35 Segal, Two Powers, 205 210

36 E.g , “Jesus ts not called an angel in the New Testament because he was not believed to be merely an angel” (7wo Powers, 210; emphasis 1s Segal's), and "

it seems safe to

consider that many Christians identified the Christ with God’s principal angel, who carned the divine name, because of his resurrechon” (213) 1992), Segal 1s more circumspect in this regard

Ina Jater publication (“Risen Christ*

37 Der Gesandte

38 John Ashton, for one, bas been greatly influenced by Biihner’s reading of the Fourth Gospel

See Ashton, Understanding, 101, 184-189, and esp 308-328

Part!

Introduction

In a monograph®® and a senes of articles, Chnstopher Rowland has drawn attention to the imagery used to describe angels and other heavenly beings.

He sees great significance in the similarity of the 1magery used to

describe the risen Christ in Rev

1 12 18, the angelic figure of Dan

9, the divine figure(s) of Ezek

10 5-

| 26-28 and 8 2-4, the angel in JosAsen

14 1-10, and Yahoel in ApAb 11 1-3 This similarity of imagery, according to Rowland, demonstrates that angelological conceptions influenced the Chnistology of the Apocalypse

In keep»ng with this emphasis on imagery,

Rowland, 1n his last and most carefully worded contribution on the subject, rejects the term “angel Chnistology” for “angelomorphic Chnstology” Contrary to Werner, he argues that the use of angelomorphic imagery "1n no way implies that Chnst was identified entirely with the created order" 4)

In 1985, Jarl Fossum published his monograph on the omgin of Gnosticism, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord Here Fossum emphasizes the role of speculation surrounding the Name of God and the angel of the Name (Ex 23 20-21) in early Chnstology. He suggests that Christianity was only one of many Jewish sects which identified its "hero" with God's principal angel **

Fossum equates possessing the divine name

with possessing the divine nature or mode of being 4?

Fossum thus sees in

the angel of the Name, a figure around whom revolved no little speculation in Second Temple Judaism, an tmplicit binitarianism already evolving either prior to, or simultaneous with, the beginnings of Chnstianity “ Not long after Fossum’s work, Larry Hurtado produced a slender

monograph in which he examined the development of early Christology in light of Jewish beliefs about "divine agents", including, in addition to angels, exalted patnarchs and personified divine attributes 45 Hurtado

believes that early Chnstians found in Jewish speculation on divine agents “a conceptual framework" for understanding the exalted Chnst * In line with Segal, Hurtado emphasizes early Chnstianity’s borrowing from van ous Jewish

traditions

Nowhere

in pre-Christian

Judaism

divine agent with such an accumulation of divine honours

do we

find a

The subtitle of

Hurtado’s work, Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism,

39 Open Heaven (1982) ® *Vistons of God" (1979), "Vision of the Rasen Chnst™ (1980), and "Man Clothed in Linen™ (1985) 41 Rowland, “Man Clothed in Linen” 100

42 Fossum, Name of God, 333 43 Fossum, Name of God, 310, 333 44 Cf also Fossum's “Jewish-Chnstian Christology"

45 Hurtado, One God (1988) 46 Hurtado, One God, 21

History of Research shows

the other pole around

which

Hurtado’s

argument

revolves

The

"cultic devotion” which early Chnstians directed to the msen and exalted Christ constitutes an innovation, in Hurtado’s words “a mutation", of ancient Jewish Monotheism, He contends that in the ancient world, and especially in Judaism, the difference between a heavenly being, such as an

angel, and a divine being (or the Divine Being) was most clearly expressed

in the realm of cultic devotion,

In Judaism--Hurtado argues--God was wor-

shipped, while divine agents were not’ In early Christianity, however, Christ was an object of worship and consequently must not be understood

as merely a divine agent +?

This mutation allowed the first Christians to

worship Chnst monotheism.“

chief

God’s

agent

without

compromising

Hurtado’s work has occasioned a number of responses

their

Paul Rainbow,

for example,

while accepting the main

thrust of his position, cniticrzes

Hurtado

placing

within

for

the

resurrection experiences, Another

contribution

“mutation”

early

Christians’

post-

rather than in the teachings of Jesus himself 4°

indebted

to Hurtado

is a recent article

Davis *° He examines divine agents and mediators in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period "on the basis of whether they operate in the past, present or future with respect to the wnters of the literature in question and their intended audiences".5! Significantly for the argument of this thesis, he finds only three, other than the Christ of the NT, which function in past, present, and future Michael in the "Book of Watchers” and the Adam hterature, the Prince of Light in the sectanan works from Qumran, and Enoch in the literature associated with his name

Hurtado’s assertions of the complete absence of veneration directed toward angels in the Second Temple penod has been recently challenged in a monograph and an article by Loren Stuckenbruck 52. Stuckenbruck con cludes that while Hurtado may be nght 1n asserting that there was no “angel cult” in ancient Judaism, some texts “suggest that

to a lesser degree, angels

could be made objects of veneration as beings aligned with and subordinate to God" % This “lesser” veneration of angels may have provided a model

47 Hurtado 1s here building on the argument of Richard Bauckham s article "Worship of Jesus“ Cf also “Jesus” 48 Hurtado, One God, 82 4° Rainbow, “Jewish Monotheism*, 88

52 Angel Veneration, and “Angelic Refusal” 53 Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 270

Part I

Introduction

for the worship of Chnst in the Book of Revelation * Following Rowland’s exegesis of Rev 1 12-18, Stuckenbruck argues that Revelation may be a subtle critique of a “shared tradition” which understood Christ m terms of an angel

although Christ appears

in the opening

vision in the

form of an angel he is not an angel, for he 1s worthy of worship while angels must refuse it (19,10, 22,8-9) 55 Another recent work on angelic Chnstology which focuses on the Book

of Revelation 1s Peter Carrell’s monograph Jesus and the Angels *© Carrell takes as his starting point Rowland’s suggestion that since the imagery sur-

rounding the Risen Chnst in Rev | 12-18 1s dependent on the descmption of the pmncipal angel found Dan 105-9, the Apocalypse’s Chnstology must be indebted to Jewish angelology After examining in detail the Chnistophanies

in Rev

| 12-18,

14.14,

and

19 11-16,

Carrell concludes

that an angelomorphic Chnistology 1s to be found in the Book of Revelation On the basis of an interesting parallel in the Ascension of Isatah, Carrell makes the intmguing suggestion that in these three visions Christ temporanly takes on the outward form of an angel *’ Carrell, however, also emphasizes that Revelation portrays Chnst as an ontologically divine

figure, who “participates in the eternal being of God” “8

In addition,

Andrew

Chester,5?

Michael

Mach,

Robert

Gundry,®!

Crispin Fletcher-Louis® and John Ashton,® to name just a few of the more important other recent contnbutions, have all found Jewish angehc categories behind the Christologies of various NT authors All of the above works since Barbel, Kretschmar and Daniélou, although diffenng an many respects, agree that traditions about angelic figures in Second Temple Judaism were useful to early Chnstians in their attempt to understand and

elucidate the significance of Chnst. With the possible exceptions of Bithner and Fossum, they all differ from Werner in that they do not find in early Chnistianity the belief that Christ possessed an angelic nature Many these scholars, then, prefer the term “angelomorphic Chnstology"

Werner's

“angel

Chnstology”

One

exception

$4 Stuckenbruck Angel Veneration 272-273 53 Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration

258 261, 271 272

56 Published in 1997 5? Carrell, Jesus, 172 173, 192 195, 224-226 58 Carrell, Jesus, 117 118 59 "Messiame Expectations”, esp 75-78 © Enmucklungsstadien 287-291

$! *" Angelomorphic*

62 Luke-Acts 63 "Bndging Ambiguities", esp 87-89

to this trend,

of to

however,

History of Research

should also be noted Margaret Barker has argued that Palestinian Judaism prior to Christianity continued to believe in the ancient Israelite conception of one "High God"

and many sons of God

of whom was known as Yahweh

(or angels), the most important

In other words, pre-Christian Judaism

was already essentially ditherstic Jesus was understood, by early Chnstians, to be “a manifestation of Yahweh", the second God of Judaism * This is, in one respect, essentially the position of Werner

Christ 1s an incarnation of an angel. as none other than Yahweh himself, in Barker’s understanding, 1s not the of the sons of God, the highest of the

However, here the angel 1s understood with one important caveat Yahweh, High God of the Jews, but the greatest angels.

e. Summary Angelic Chnstology in modern scholarship began with Lueken's devel opment of Bousset’s suggestion of a connection between Jewish Michael traditions and early Chnstology Some forty years later Werner argued that the onginal Christology of early Chnstianity understood Chrst as an angelic being Scholarship universally, or nearly universally, rejected Wemer’s conclusion, but many scholars took up his many parallels between Jewish angelology and early Chnstology to posit some influence from the

former on the latter,

Recent years have witnessed a virtual explosion of

studies on this relationship There

is, then,

an important

stream

of thought

in current

scholarship

which, while rejecting Werner's identification of Chnst with an angel, places a great deal of rmportance on ancient Jewish conceptions and beliefs about angels in the development of the earliest Christology In addition to rejecting

Werner’s

position,

the

scholars

exemplifying

thought tend to avoid Werner’s term “angel Chnstology" speak of “angelomorphic Chnstology” *

this

stream

and prefer to

64 Barker, Great Angel, 3 5 So e.g , Longenecker, Rowland, Stuckenbruck, Gundry, Fletcher-Louss, and Carrell

Partt

Introduction

2. Plan for This Study This

study

returns

to the

supposition

Lueken,

and

Bousset,

that

Michael traditions influenced early Christology If angelological conceptions did indeed influence the earliest attempts at Christology there 1s bound to be some trace in the portrayals of Michael in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, for Michael 1s consistently depicted as the pre-eminent angel in many of these sources

ogy

regularly

mentioned

Recent examinations of angelic Christol-

Michael

as a significant figure ®

however, has appeared which deals entirely with Michael

study,

Given the meth

odological errors and the age of Lueken’s work, one 1s certainly needed This investigation is offered to supply this deficiency In the interest of historical and methodological clarity 1t will review all the relevant data, Jewish

and Chnstian, from the period c 200 BC toc

AD 200

It will open with a

bnef overview of OT angelology, before examining, in turn, Michael tradi

tions in Jewish apocalyptic and related literature, the sectaman works from Qumran, Philo, Rabbinic and Hekhalot literature, the NT, and the Christian

literary remains of the second and third centuries My purpose throughout is not merely to write a history of Michael traditions in ancient Judaism and early Chnstiamty, but to examine such traditions in light of the current ferment in scholarship regarding Christology and its debt to Jewish angelolog: cal speculation Filling this gap, I hope to make a contnbulion to our understanding of the ongins and early development of Christology

Terminology

The above brief history of this stream of thought in scholarship has indicated the importance of precise terminology

I propose to use four terms,

each one indicating a distinct conception or range “angelic Chnstology"” is an umbrella term for Christologies influenced, at least to some degree, This is the broadest of my four categones and 1s

of conceptions First, the whole compass of by angelological ideas equivalent to the most

common

usage

among

Second,

"angel

“angelomorphic

Chnistology"

Christology"

scholars

indicates the identification of Chnst

today with an

angel, either as an incarnation of an angel or an exaltation to angelic status and nature It defines Christ as an angelic being. Third, the term

6 Soe.g

Hengel, Fossum

Rowland, Hurtado, Chester, Davis, and Carrell

History of Research

“angelomorphic Christology“ ts phenomenological

portrayals of Christ in form of an angel

It refers only to visual

This, more precise use of the term

than that found in many recent studies, confines the word to tts literal meaning, Christ in the form (uop¢m) of an angel To be sure, the fast two categories are not mutually exclusive--they could coincide However, a

description of Christ which uses angelic imagery need not imply that Chnst possessed an angelic nature nor does the supposition that Christ was an ontological angel necessarily imply that he actually looked hke an angel. Finally, "theophanic angel Christology" very specifically denotes the

Patnistic identification of Christ with the Old Testament 7177 4X90.

Copyrighted material

Chapter |

The 717° 4X29 and Other Antecedents in the Old Testament Before examining Michael traditions as they appear in the Judaism of the Second Temple and of the early Rabbimc pemods and in emerging Christianity, 1t will be necessary to first consider the Old Testament view of

angels, particularly the 717" JX?2

The OT documents are the authonitative

sources for the vamous groups which we will be considenmng tn the follow ing chapters Thus, many of the angelological themes which we find in

Jewish apocalyptic sources, the wntings of Qumran,

Philo, Rabbinic and

Hekhaloth documents, as well as early Chnstian sources, arise from interpretations of OT passages However, any companson of the earliest

angelological conceptions of the OT and those which emerged later must also emphasize a certain discontynutty as well

1 Angels in the Old Testament! a The Prevalence of Angels on the Ancient Near East The idea of heavenly beings “who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being,"* of God or the gods and who functtoned as servants

or messengers of God or the gods was prevalent in the ancient Near East It 1s, therefore, not surprising that ancient Israel shared this belief in angels

It 1s possible that the OT belief in angels onginated from the domestication

! The angelology of the Book of Damel will not be considered in this chapter, it must await Our cxamunation of the angelology and Michael traditions found in Jewish apocalyptic literature

2 Russell, Method and Message, 235

Part Il

Michael in Jewish Literature

of the pagan gods of Canaan, or the star-gods of Mesopotamia, or even the gods from the pre-mosaic penod } From Ugantic texts we learn that the Canaanite pantheon was pictured as a council of gods, organized around the Father of the gods, Ei; a nohon not unlike what we encounter in a number of texts scattered throughout the OT. Similarly, some texts seem to imply a telation between the angelic hosts and the heavenly bodies,® a link which

may point to Mesopotamian influence.’ However, regardless of these foreign “influences”, von Rad has quite rightly emphasized that in the OT, as we now have it, angels never become autonomous

of worship alongside Yahweh cendence of Yahweh" ® Thus,

from Yahweh

or objects

They never violate “the absolute trans while ancient Israelite religion may have

borrowed from Canaamte and Mesopotamian religrons, it did not do so uncritically and also contained elements which were genuinely Israelite. Pre-eminent here 1s that fact that the earliest material,

1 e , the Patriarchal

narratives, speaks of angelic beings most often in the singular 77" XID or OT9N 4X22 Finally, the OT documents do not contain a well developed or uniform angelology As we shal] see, particularly when discussing the 717° 7X30, speculation about the heavenly world increases and

becomes more detailed in the later books of the OT '°

b Terminology A number of terms are used in the O'1 for angels

The "sons of God" of

Gen 6 2, 4 (OANA 733) in no way implies genealogical descent and ts best understood as analogous to the Hebrew term “the sons of the prophets”, the

"sons of God” belong to the heavenly realm, just as the sons of the prophets belong to the sphere of the prophets '' Most other appellations are primary functional or descriptive These include “holy ones” (O°O 7), 3 See Fichrodt

Theolozy

I 195 197

+ Eichrodt, Theology, I 196-97

SE.g, Gen 2812, 1 Kgs 22 19ff, Jer 23 18, Job 1 6-12, 15 8, Pss 29 t, 82, and $9 6-9 {ET 5-8)

®E.g

Deut 419; Jos 5 14-15, Judg 5 20; Job 38 7, Isa 24.21 and 40 26

? Eychrodt Theology, H 196

5 Von Rad, “dryyedoc", TDNT1 78 So also Bietenhard, "&yyehoc", NIDNTT I 101 9 Although, to be sure, even the Patriarchal narratives on occasion assume a plurality of

angels {e.g

Gen. 62,4, 191, 1S 28 12, 322}

lS Cf Newsom “Angels”, ABD | 249 'l So von Rad, TDNT, 178 020 Cf the NRSV transiation of OFX 33 in Ps “heavenly beings”

89 6 as

The 213° JR Ps. 89 6,8); “mighty”

and Other Antecedents tn OT

or “vahant ones”

(O°3X

Ps. 78 25); "high ones"

(O°D5, Job 21.22), and "ministers" (O°70%, Ps 103 21) military connotations: “hosts” or “armies” (MNIZ, Ps 22.19) and “commander” or “prince” (UV, Josh

A couple have 148.2; 1 Kgs

5.14; Dan

most common word used for angels in the OT ts 7899

1013)

The

It dernves from

3X7, a root which 1s not found in the Hebrew Bible or later Hebrew Interature, but can be found in Arabic, Ethiopic and Phoenician with the meamng "to send” '2

In addition, Arabic, Ethiopic and Ugantie all have a noun for

"messenger” built on the consonants "mlk".'? Thus 4X99 means “one who is sent” or “messenger” 4 JN, then, 1s primarily functional, and can be used of men as well as of heavenly beings '* It follows from this that angels were thought to be divine servants sent by God to accomplish His will in the world It seems to have been a common assumption in ancient Israel that these divine messengers were present in the world even if unseen (Gen 28 12, Num 22 31,2 Sam 5 22 25,2 Kgs 6 15-17) '®

¢ Themes and Motifs in OT Angelology The OT depiction of the angels’ service to God in many ways parallels the human servants of an ancient oriental potentate '’ For example, a num ber of OT passages represent the heavenly court after the pattern of the

royal courts of the ancient Near East, with the angelic host encircling Yahweh 18 In | Kgs 22 19 22 and Job | 6 12, 2 1 7 the angelic host serve as counselors to Yahweh In Ps 82 the heavenly court 1s a place of judge ment, in which God condemns angels for their unjust dealing with

(2 BDB, 521 Hoth Boren, 23 (3 Mach, Enturcklungsstadien 39-40 and Freedman-Wilioughby ThWAT IV 888 8389 '4 Newsom ABD 1 248, Heidt Angelology 8-9 and von Rad TONT 176 Note the Septuagint’s standard translation of JXID dyysdkos, which also means messenger Indeed the LXX translators often rendered other terms such as O'U9R and OR 433 with &yythko,

when they believed angels were intended

IS See esp

Mach

Ennucktungsstadien

37-43

47 51

'6 In Cherubim and Seraphim we have a special case

They are

descnbed as “the ammmals of the heavenly world" They, at any rate widest sense of the term See Newsom ABD, 1 251 and von Rad

Bietenhard

NIDNTT

7 Cf Newsom

101

Etchrodt

Thevlogy Il 202-205

best

and Morenz, “Der Seraph*

“Angels” ABD1 249

IS Eg, Gen 28 12, 1 Kgs 2219-22 29 1, 82

perhaps

are angels only in the TDNT, [ 80; cf also

and 89 6-9 (ET 5-8)

Isa 61-8 Jer 2318, Job 1612, 158, Pss

Pan fil) Michael in Jewish Literature

humamty The heavenly council ts also a place of worship (Isa 6 1 4,'9 Pss 29 |-2 and 148 2) Similarly, just as kings of the ancient Onent had tn their service generals and soldiers as well as counselors and courtiers, angels formed the armies

of Yahweh (Deut 33 2, Jos 5 13-15, 2 Kgs 617, 1935 = Isa 37 36, Ps 68 18) This military understanding 1s probably reflected in the term MINI and the frequent utle for God MRI Ai (e g , | Sam 44, 1 Kgs 18 15, Isa 63,5) As his armies, angels could be called upon to execute Yahweh's judgements (Ps 78 49, 2 Sam 24 15-17 = ] Chron 2] 14 16) While it 1s not a common motif in OT angelology we do on occasion

encounter angelic intercessors and mediators on behalf of humanity (Job 51, 1619, 33 23 28, Zech 11213) This also seems to fit the royal court pattern, angels intercede for men and women just as members of the

royal court could intercede with the Monarch for those outside the court {cf Esther 4) This theme will find a great dea) of development in Jater, especially apocalyptic, literature 7° On the other hand just as an ancient court might contain those who would intercede and defend commoners so they could also include those who would serve as public accusers We find this reflected in the folk tale which frames the book Job (1 2 and 42 7 17)

The

“Accuser”

or “Adversary”

(]0@7)

here will later develop

embodiment of evil known as Satan or the Devil

into the

a process already under

way in Zech 3 and] Chron 2) | 2! Finally, just as an ancient king would divide the administration of hrs kingdom among governors and other officals, so some OT texts appear to suggest the belief that God

Such

had appointed angels to rule vanous

1s the case with the onginal text of Deuteronomy

328

nations

The MT

reads "When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according fo the number

of the sons of Israel” (9NV9" 732 WO)

=~ But the LXX replaces the last

phrase with = xata apibpor ayyéAwr Peot

The LXX 1s now supported by

4QDeut which reads 9X 73222 So the onginal probably read either 723 2X or O°9N 732 Most modern commentators see the MT as a later correc tion of a theologically offensive text *?

The original text appears to imply

19 The LXX smplies that there 15 a host of seraphim since it translates 7939 with xvnkw The Hebrew however ts more ambjguous and may denote either a host or merely two Seraphim

20 See below p 32

2L Cf Russell Method 237 and Fichrodt Theology | 205 22 Skehan “Song of Moses” 12 and Ulnch et al DJD, XIV [41 142 23Eg Dnver

von Rad

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy, 356

196

n.2

and Craigie, Deuteronomy,

378 80

Contra

The AVY RID and Other Antecedents in OT

that an angel has been appointed over every nation, except Israel, who were “the Lord’s own portion" (vs 9) 24 This same idea seems to lie behind Pss 58 and 82, where “the gods", that 1s, angels, are condemned for not render-

ing justice to the oppressed and downtrodden of humanity

As we shall

see, this concept of angels set over the nations will be greatly developed in

Jewish apocalyptic *5

2 AW NI (O'TPN INI) a. The 071? 4X2 of the Patriarchal Narratives As intimated above, the patnarchal narratives only rarely speak of angels in the plural

Instead

in these stories from Genesis we encounter the enig

matic “angel of the Lord” (7177 4X22) or, less frequently, “angel of God" (a°n2N X7D)

In nearly every case when one of these terms appears in a

patriarchal narrative there 1s a curious oscillation between the angel and Yahweh, at times the 711" JNM

speaks not as a messenger, but as if he 1s

to be tdentified with Yahweh ** angel with Yahweh the former,

him:

seems explicit, as in Gen

Jacob recounts how

"I am the God of Bethel,

24 Cf heaven"

also Deut

In some cases the identification of the

4.19

in a dream

“2?

3] 10-13 and 48 15 16 the angel of God

had said to

In the latter, O°T2NA and RDM are

where God has “allotted” to the nations to serve the “hosts of

25 See below pp 31 and 33-38 26 E.g , Gen

16 7-16, 21 8-19, 22 9-18, 32 22 32

also Gen

1833

31-15,

and perhaps, 4.24-26 (LXX) should also be included here even though they do not strictly belong to the “patnarchal narratives” Cf E:chrodt, Theology, II 25

27 The MT reads 9 9X 13 RT 793K which many interpreters (¢.g , BDB Wenham

Genests, I] 263, von Rad, Genests, 303) understand as a construct’

42b, NRSV, “The God of

Bethel”. But a word in the construct state cannot take an article Thus a marginal note in the NRSV indicates that the meaning of the Hebrew 15 uncertain and that the translation 1s a cortecion The LXX and both the Gemza fragmentary Targum and Targum Ps Jon sug

gest the original text may have read

9x7" ‘POR nb

“23K

This 1s followed by

Westermann, Genesis Il 491-492, Speiser, Genests, 244, and, tentatively, Skinner, Genesis, 395 However, the reading of the LXX and Targums are probably corrections of a difficult text

Part li

parallel;?4 the God

Michael in Jewish Literature

before whom

Abraham

and

Isaac walked

and

who

shepherded Jacob his whole life is the “angel” called upon to bless the sons

of Joseph This 77° 4K?

significantly differs from later Jewish angelology

a separate being does not appear to be in view

Here

The variation between the

7177 X?D and AM in the texts appears to have onginated from the theological paradox which sought to express both Yahweh’s presence and

the impossibility for humans of unmediated access to God ** Thus, the 717° X92 appears to be in some sense an extension or manifestation of Yahweh ® It has been noted that the 717° 4x2”, at least m the patnarchal narratives and in Genesis-Judges generally, always acts to protect or guide Israel or an individual patnarch, and never acts to punish or judge *!

Westermann emphasizes that the 717? 4X90 belongs to the religion of the patnarchs and that after the earhest penod of Israel's history, while the term continues to be used, a profound development takes place in the concept #2 As we shall see, this development begins within the Pentateuch m narratives concerning the Exodus angel In the narratives from the Books

of Samuel and Kings, we no longer encounter the oscillation between Yahweh and His angel and references to a plurality of angels increase By the time of post-exilic writings an interest in individual angels begins to appear

_———

*8 The Sam

Pent

reads 7707 rather than [X77

but the MT (and LXX) is surely to be

preferred as the lectio difficaltor

29 Newsom Hirth

"Angels" 48D

Boten, 83 84

1250,

Freedman Willoughby,

Westermann, Genests

JAWAT

IV 90]

9 Cf

i] 242-243

30 Eychrodt Theology, [1 27, Frost. OT Apocalyptic, 23 24 von Rad TDNT, 1 77 78, idem, OT Theology | 285 287 Rottger (Mal'ak, esp 274 282) disputes this He argues that the 710° JR7D was a temporary phenomenon which spent itself ferschopft sich) in tts particular mission and was

always thought to be distinct from 717", it was only the "perplexed" who confused them Even ef Réttger’s umque reading 1s accepted, thiy does not speak against my main point te the distinctiveness of the 71" XD over against all later Jewish (and Chnstian} angelologies

3] Von Rad OT Theology, 1286

Cf also Freedman Willoughby, JaWAT JV 897

898

32 Westermann, Genesis, 11243

Cf also von Rad, OT Theology 1 286

The 7¥0 [X7D and Other Antecedents in OT

b The Angel of the Exodus I turn now to the tradition about the angel who led the people through the wilderness This angel ts mentioned in Ex 14.19, 23 20-33, 32 34, 33 2f; Num 2016, Judg 21-5, and perhaps Num 22 21-35 and Jos

$13.15.

That this was understood as the angel of Yahweh ts shown first,

by the designations given the angel 177 4RN2M at Judg 21-5, Jeon onoxn at Ex 14 19 and °x70 at Ex 23 23 and 32 34,33 and second, by the presence of the customary oscillation between the JX99 and 7177 44 Just

as the 1? N70 expressed the presence of God in the patriarchal narratives, so in Ex. 23 20-21 the Exodus angel carnes the divine Name The Name of God was a way of affirming God's presence, especially in the Tabernacle or Temple * To say that God’s Name dwells in this angel affirms the divine presence in a umique way Further, in Ex 14 19-20 “the angel of God" ts associated with the pillar of cloud, which was another way of speaking about God's presence with His people (Ex 13 21 22, 14 24) However, the Exodus angel also becomes to some extent an expression of the divine absence in that he 1s a substitute for Yahweh (Ex 3313) Asa replacement for the divine presence, 1t would appear that the angel of the Exodus 1s beginning to have a quasi-individual existence Significantly,

unlike 717? 4X9” in the patnarchal narratives, the Exodus angel 1s spoken of by God in the third person (23 20-21, 32 34 and 33 2-3)

angel seems to betray a certam development

So the Exodus

in the ‘07° 4X72 concept,

away from an extension or manifestation of the divine presence and toward an individual existence However, it 1s only the beginning of this process and was by no means complete until much later The oscillation between Yahweh and His angel is still encountered in the Book of Judges (6 11-24,

13 1-23)

33 There was a tendency in the textual tradition to make the sdentification with the ange! of the Lord specific in those passages where st is not

Thus, the Samantan Pentateuch, the

LXX, and the Vulgate all presuppose *2N77 at Ex 23 20 and the LXX again at Ex Only Num 20 16 has no textual witness supporting such a reading

33 2

34 Note Ex 23 23, 332 and esp Judg 21-5 Note also the parallels between Jos $13 15 and Ex

35 Deut 12.5

3 1-6

11, 21

14 23f, 16.2, 6, 11 26.2, 1 Kgs

Cf Exchrodt, Theology, I] 41-43, Rose, “Names “Deuteronomy'’s Name Theology” But note

11 36, 14.21, 2 Kgs

21.4.7

of God", IV 1003 1004, von Rad the important qualifications to a

Deuteronomstic theology of the Divine Name tn Wilson, Divine Presence

Part ll

Michael tn Jewtsh Literature

Later Developments

It appears that the 717° 4X70 as an expression of the divine presence 1s

hmited to the period before the monarchy After that Yahweh's presence among His people was expressed in terms of the cultus and the prophetic movement °° When the phrase does re-occur it 1s not used to indicate the presence of Yahweh Rather, from the time of the monarchy the term 1s used for individual angels, though there is not yet the kind of interest in these angels which we will find later in the Jewish apocalyptic wntings

None are named

between Yahweh

they are merely called 717° 4X9

and His angel

= The oscillation

so prominent in the pre-monarchy

narra-

ves, no longer occurs and for the first ume the 717° N28 1s described as God’s agent by whom Israel 1s pumshed (2 Sam 24 = 2 Chron 21) This development toward an individual angel continues in the exilic and postexilic periods The 1177 4X90 of 2 Kgs 19 35 becomes merely an angel

sent by God in 2 Chron 32 21 With Zechanah 1-8 and the Book of Danie] we arrive at the end of this process In the latter, angels are even given names 3?" In the former, the 717 JINB clearly indicates an individual angel not an extension of Yahweh and expression of His presence Zechanah's “angel of the Lord" has a definite personality and shares far more with angels of Jewish apocalyptic literature than with earlier portions of the OT He functions as an angelic interpreter and guide (1 9) answering the prophet’s quernes he intercedes

on behalf of Jerusalem and Judah (1 1217) the heavenly (1 11) and

armies

in Zechanah

he tssues orders

for "the angelic patrol”

to it (6 7)

onginal text of Zechanah 3.15

and he may be the leader of

Finally,

reports to him

it 1s possible that in the

the 71M" 4N2% functioned as the angelic

public defender, defending Joshua the High Pnest before God and silencing Satan 3* As we shall see, all these roles, angelus imterpres, intercessor for CF Eichrodt Theelogy OT 37 See the next chapter

38 Although the MT “Was

II 29

followed by the LXX

one would expect from the context

Peshitta, which has “angel of the Lord* and

Mitchell, Hagzar

Zechariah

& Zechanah

in verse 2 reads 1"

the onginal reading may be that of the Synac

So also Petersen 149

rather than [X7%

153

Contra

Haggai & Zechanah Meyers and Meyers

187, 191, Haggar

185

Although quite speculative, it 1s possible that TY? 7X7 also stood behind the text found in the Greek scrol!] of the Minor Prophets found at Nahal Hever The line in ques tion (31 21) as reconstructed by Tov Kraft and Parsons reads“ xla: ewer [ ~ (D/D VHE?2 23) The editors would fill the lacuna of the rest of the line with only the paleo Hebrew characters for T9? This however makes for a rather short line a line of only 27 letters compared with 31 before it and 34 after ut and an average of 32 22 letters per line in

this column

If, on the other hand

Te, a line of 34 letters would result

dyyzdoc were added after or before the paleo-Hebrew Thisis

admuttedly, a speculative suggestion and 1s

The W0" TR

and Other Antecedents in OT

humanity, leader of the heavenly armies, judicial defender and opponent of

Satan will become important themes in the angelology of Jewish apocalyptie Indeed, in the following chapter we shall see how each of them are attnbuted to Michael] in various apocalypses

Related Themes

The OT authors had other means by which to express the divine presence

other than the Ti" J2N2 = These include the Glory of Yahweh and the Name of Yahweh

They are only tangential to this investigation and, there

fore, they occasion only bnef comments

The Glory and Name of Yahweh,

to some degree, parallel the 717° 4X7 in that they also appear to be not separate beings, but extensions of Yahweh For example, the phrase 1133 Ti" appears to have been used as a techmcal term expressing the “vtsible

and mobile presence of Yahweh" which was associated in the Priestly tradi tion with both the tabernacle and temple, on the one hand, and with the pil

lar of cloud and the pillar of fire, on the other 3% This 417° T2123 seems to take on a near hypostatic existence in the visions of Ezekrel,# which had an immense influence on later apocalyptic literature *! Similarly, in the Deuteronomic tradition God was present in the sanctuary and the Holy City by means of His ineffable Name 717° * As already stated, both conceptions appear to have been related to 17 JOR In Ex 23 20-21 the Exodus

angel

bears

the

divine

crossing of the Red Sea (Ex cloud

Both conceptions

Jewish tradiuons

Name,

while

in narrative

concerning

the

14 19 20) the Exodus angel ts in the pillar of also appear,

with

great

particularly Rabbinic hterature

modifications,

in later

The 1132 seems to have

been the basis for speculattons about the Shekinah,** while the divine Name

played an important role in Jewish apocalyptic and Rabbinic theology “4

put forward only tentatrvely

39 See Newman IV 23-40 49 Esp

“Cf

12628

Rowland

[tis a pity that this umportant manuscmpt ts so fragmentary

Paul s Glory-Chnstology 323

824

1015

2024

1859

and Weinfeld

“1193"

THWAT

1] 22 24, 43 1-9 and 44 4

Open Heaven, 95 98

42 See above p 21

43 Cf Kittel "Soka", TDNT [1 245-247 “4 For Jewish apocalyptic see below pp 51-54 110 Lit and Urbach

Sages

124 134

For Rabbinic theology see below pp

Part I}

Michael in Jewish Literature

e Summary

The term 717? 4X29, then, underwent a profound development dunng biblical history In the earliest texts 1t denotes, not a separate being, but an extension of Yahweh, an expression of the divine presence By the last

books of the OT, the 717° 4x>D has become an individual angel among other angels and a member of the heavenly host, even their leader in Zechariah 18 This process, of course, has been sketched only in the

roughest of outlines here

It mdicates, however, that the movement was

away from understanding the 719" 4X20 as an extension of Yahweh and toward an understanding of him as an individual member in the heavenly host

By the time of Zechanah

the onginal

conception

appears to have

been lost *

45 One very late survival or

more probably, mutation of this early concept of the [R92

V7" as an expression of Yahweh s presence should be mentioned The angel Uriel m 4 Ezra In thes apocalypse from the late first century AD, the angel Uriel 1s both addressed and speaks as if he is to be identified with God Cf the discussion in Stone Fourth Ezra, 199 4 Ezra however, differs from the OT T° JX conception The very fact that Unel has a name which ts never true of the 717° TX9M in the OT implies that he is distinct from God

Indeed,

ApocMos

that Unel is well known

40.2, SibOr

from other sources (JEn

9-10

20 [Grk]

Prides ,

11 214ff} probably means that the author of 4 Ezra was drawing on

a traditional angelology of the Second Temple period in his use of the name Unel

This 1s

supported by the appearance of Remuel in 4 36, since both Unel and Remuel appear in the hist of seven archangels of JEn 20 More importantly, in 4 Ezra itself no ontological disuncuon between Unel and Remiel is ever made

It ts, then, probable that the author of

4 Ezra, although indebted to the angelotogy of the Second Temple Imutate without complete success, the OT 77? 4X7

penod

sought to

Chapter 2

The Archangel Michael in Jewish Apocalyptic and related Literature Jewish apocalyptic motifs had a great influence on later literature, both Jewish and Chnstian Many of the apocalyptic assumptions about the heavenly world and the angelic host we will encounter again later, especially in our examination of Qumran, Rabbinic literature, the New Testa-

ment, and second century Christianity This 1s due, i part, to the very long time span which Jewish apocalyptic literature covers Apart from the Pentateuch and Prophets of the OT, the earliest documentary evidence which we will consider belongs to this genre Portions of / Enoch probably go back to the third century BC, while the books of Daniel, Jubilees and the Enochic Dream Visions date from the mid second century BC On the other hand, some apocalyptic works, e g , the Apocalypse of Abraham,

3 Baruch, and the Adam literature,! may not have attained their final form until well into the Christian perod. Ancient Jewish apocalyptic literature attnbuted to Michael a prominent role in the heavenly world He was particularly important because he was related to the Jewish nation in a special way, he was their heavenly protector and champion This special relationship with the Chosen People was often taken to imply that Michael also held a supenor position in the heavenly hierarchy Apocalyptic works also attmbuted to Michael a priestly OT Intercessory position, as well as the task of transporting the souls of the

righteous to paradise at death

To be sure, the treatment of Michael and

other named angels 1s not untform im these documents, but there 1s a broad

agreement among them especially on Michael's relationship with Israel and his smportance in the heavenly hierarchy I will begin with a bnef discus' By “the Adam literature” | mean the Greek Apocalypse of Moses, the Latin Vita Adae et Evae, the Slavonic Vita Adae et Evae, the Armeman Georgian Book of Adam See Stone History, 3, 6-4]

Penitence of Adam,

and the

Pant ll

Michael in Jewish Literature

sion of the nature of Jewish apocalyptic, followed by a summary of the angelology of the Jewish apocalypses

Having set the stage, I will then turn

to more detailed discussion of Michael in this literature be as complete

as possible,

It 1s umportant to

but special attention will be piven to those

themes which wil re-appear later in other genres, so as to highlight those themes and motifs which had the widest currency in second temple Judaism

1 Jewish Apocalyptic Literature Recent scholarship has tended to move away from a simple identification of Jewish apocalypuc thought and eschatology, although 1t ts still generally

recognized that the two are closely related Rowland and Collins can be taken as representative of the trend in current scholarship.? Both would see the revelation of divine secrets or mysteries as the primary concern of Jewish apocalyptic 7 To be sure, there are differences between Collins’ and Rowland's treatment Collins would emphasize the importance of eschatol ogy more than Rowland, but they both agree that earlier scholarship tended to collapse the two, apocalyptic and eschatology, into a single category 4 This must be rejected because, while eschatology plays a sigmficant role in many of the apocalypses, the authors and readers of the apocalypses were as

concerned with the secrets of the heavenly world and of history as they were with the mysteries of the future For our purposes, Collins’ definition of the literary genre may be offered as a serviceable and succinct working definition “Apocalypse” is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human

recipient,

disclosing

transcendent

reality

which

both

temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world 4 ? Collins, “Morphology* and Apocalyptic imagination, esp 1-11, and Rowland, Open Heaven, esp 9-48 3 Rowland, Open Heaven, 9-11 and esp 70-72, and Collins Apoealypie Imagination esp 8

4 Eg. Rowley Relevance, and Russell, Method 5 Colhans,

sion

“Morphology”,

that Rowland

would

9, idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 4

heartily

agree

up to and

including

One gets the ampres-

the words

“transcendent

reality”, but would prefer to end the defimtion there For our purposes of discussing the angelology of the apocalypses, and in particular Michael traditions, no final arbitration between these two positions is needed

Jewish Apocalyptic Literature

There

are

apocalypse

certain

works

which

only

partially

fit

the

tion of 2.24 25 Kobelski (Melotzedek, 65)

following Lueken (Michael, 31)

pomts out that a num-

ber of medieval texts also identify Michael and Melchizedek Among these Yalqur Had 114/S, 3.19 which comments on Ps 110 1s especially interesting (cited from Kobelski) "Michael is called Melchizedek the pnest of El Elyon who 1s a pnest on high" (9x22

mbyn by yao xin peby Oxd n> and 41 3 95 Most

scholars

(Meichizedek,

have

pax com kIp3)

at least

80-82), however,

tentatively

Kobelski also lists Zohar Had 22 4 accepted

thoroughly opposes it

this identification

Horton

In doing so he has to posit that

11QMelch 1s a very uncharactensuic sectanan wnting, which as we have seen 1s manifestly not correct

% This text was first published by Milk in bis article "4Q Visions de ‘Amram" also Miltk, “Milki-sedeq", 126-144

by Vermes

Complete DSS in English, 534-536, Kobelski, Melchizedek, 24

%8 Translation, text and line numbers come from Kobelski, Melchizedek, 24-36 9 "4Q Visions de “Amram”

100 Melchizedek 27-28

The Literature of Qumran {And these are his three names

Belial, Pnnce of Darkness], and Mel-

chiresa’....{and he answered and sajid to me:

Michael, 3.2).

Pnnce of Light, and Melchizedek"]

“[My] three names [are

(4Q

‘Amram

and

It 1s to be noted that at this crucial passage only "and Metchiresa‘” (73901

yw) and “three names" (*n)nmw AN?N7) are actually preserved

The

reconstruction 1s based on the assumption that the two figures are described according to a strict antithetical parallelism. Since one 1s described as a ruler over darkness (2 5) and the other 1s also a ruler (2 6), it makes sense

to reconstruct the text so that the latter rules over light (2 5). three names,

so does the other

If one has

If one of the names of the first 1s "D5D

yor, "king of wickedness", then the other probably had the name °29n PTS, "king of mghteousness" From there the supplying of Michael and Belial, Prince of Light and Prince of Darkness is merely conjectural This 1s a possible reconstruction, but rather than confirming the above reading of 11QMelch, it depends upon 1t,!°

There is, however, no reason to doubt that the good angel in this text is the Angel or Prince of Light known from other sectarian works It 1s, therefore, not at all surprising that he should appear in this, the testament of Moses”

father,

‘Amram,

struggling

with

the Angel

of Darkness

over

the life of

for the sectarians saw in the events of the Exodus a struggle

between these two angels (CD 5 17b-19)

Milik has offered another rather bold implicitly identify Michael and Melchizedek

reconstruction which would At 1QM 13 10, just after a

reference to the Prince of Light, there 1s a lacuna in the text which Lohse and Yadin supply as’ p[7¥ 223 913 19)323 Milik, on the other, suggests:

P(t¥ 739% HITJ°21 !%

Melchizedek

Such an identification of the Pnnce of Light with

in the War Scroll would imply a Michael-Melchizedek equa-

tion. One final text must be considered Newsom! has argued that in Sabbath Shirot the seventh chief prince precedes the other sixth in importance

10! In a recent article, Garcia Martinez (“Eschatological Figure”) has interpreted the redeemer figure of 4Q246, the so-called "Son of God” text, along similar nes Martinez

believes that

this eschatological redeemer is

Michael/Melchizedek/Prince of Light

none other

This, of course, 1s a possibility

of this text survives that any sdentification remains purely speculative

could simply be describing the Messiah of David figure.

See Flusser, "Hubns of the Antichnst”

102 Mulik, *Milki-sedeq”, 139-142 103 Newsom, Sabbath Sacnfice, 33-38

Garcia than

However, so little Indeed, the text

a human figure or even an “Antichnst”

Part ll

Michael in Jewish Literature

and prestige The seventh chief pnace offers more elaborate contnbutions than the other chief princes in “the litany of tongues” recorded in the eighth Sabbath song (4Q403 1 u 1 29) and in the psalms of the chef princes recorded in the sixth song (4Q403 111-9) This may suggest that he 1s the highest of the chief princes Newsom further suggests that Melichizedek was the name of the principal angel in the Sabbath Shirot. She pounts to

4Q401

11 3°

9x npTya yM> pIs{ 729M and 4Q401

22.

...p2x rf...

While the latter reconstruchon 1s very speculative, the former has a couple of factors in tts favor.

ment.

First, the singular 73

1s very unusual in this docu-

Second, as Newsom notes, the reconstructed phrase appears to be an

allusion to Ps. 82.1,

which

applted to Melchizedek

is also cited in 1] QMelch

2.10 and 1s there

Newsom admits that of these reconstructions are

correct, these two passages would be the only times an angel 1s referred to

by name in the Shabbath Shirot Newsom's hypothesis 1s possible, but conjectural, Finally, it 1s not hard to imagine why the covenanters were attracted to

the name Melchizedek

The popular etymology of the day understood °57

PTs as "king of mghteousness" (cf Heb

Josephus War iv 438)

7 2, Philo Leg

All

3.79-82, and

For the angelic representative and hero of a group

of religious sectarians who referred to themselves as P73 733 and to their founder as PTE AW this is an eminently appropriate title '* Thus “Melchizedek" may have been understood more as a ttle than a name '°5

§ In conclusion,

Conclusions

| belteve the evidence

for Michael's identification with

the Angel of Light 1s so strong as to be virtually certam. This makes Michael a figure of central importance for the sectanans Since they are 104 Note also the reyorcing of the heavenly P1¥ at Michael's tnumph in 1QM 17 7-8

105 This, however, chizedek/Michael

(Heb

7, 2En

does not necessanly

with the OT

rule ovt @ sectaman equation of Mel-

figure by that name

(Gen

14, Ps

110)

Later documents

71-72, the Nag Hammadi tractate on Melchizedek [NHC IX 1]) provide evi-

dence for ancent, widespread and vaned speculation about ths mystenous pnest king For modern speculatons on these ancient ones, cf Davila, “War in Heaven’, Aschim

*Melchizedek the Liberator”

and

Aschim im particular offers a fascinating suggestion

about the onmgin of the Michael/Melchizedek identification He proposes that there was an exegetical tradrtion based on Gen. 14 m which Melchizedek was understood to be an angelic figure who fought for Abraham in heaven, secunng his victory and then appeared to him on earth He points to Josh 5 13-15 as a possible parallel

The Literature of Qumran

the "faithful of Israel", Michael functions as their protector (1QS 3,.24-25) and as the leader of the angelic forces with whom they are in communion (1QM 1310) His position among the angels parallels theirs among the nations, which secures for hum a central role in the eschaton (1QM 17 7-8) The evidence for the identification of Melchizedek with Michael, on the other hand, 1s not as firm but has much to commend it If it 1s accepted, it

would appear safe to conclude that the Qumran sect throughout its history affirmed a single tradition concermmng its angelic prince and simply gave him different names (Michael and Melchizedek)

possible that 11QMelch and 1QM cerning

On the other hand, tt 1s

testify to two divergent traditions con-

the identity of the community's

angelic patron,

traditions which

may have been held at different umes within the community's history or at the same time by different individuals Given the complete absence of any polemic against either Michael or Melchizedek, it seems more probable that Michael and Melchizedek are to be identified Michael traditions at Qumran, then, are very similar to what we found in Jewish apocalyptic literature He remains the angelic champion of Israel, although the sectarians define "Israel" much more narrowly He 1s clearly the most important of the angels, as well as commander-in-chief of the

heavenly armies

Finally, if the Melchizedek identification 1s sound and if

Newsom is nght that the name of the principal angel in the Sabbath Shirot was Melchizedek, then high pnestly duties were also attnbuted to Michael.'! More importantly for the thesis of this work, Michael/Mel chizedek appears to have been held to be the heavenly counterpart to the

earthly Messiahs

Michael's tnumph in the War Scroll coincides with the

messianic victory, and Melchizedek serves as an eschatological redemption figure. However, the sectarrans do not appear to have ever taken the step

of idenufying

Michael/Melchizedek with eather of the Messiahs

106 Note also the close relation between the earthly priests and Michael in 1QM 16-17

Chapter 4 Michael and Philo’s Logos Doctrine In the extensive extant corpus of Philo of Alexandna appears to the archangel Michael,

name

reference

nor to any other angel with a personal

This has led some to conclude that Philo’s thought could not accom-

modate such beings.

Goodenough, for example, can write that Philo “could

not possibly have made room for a literal Gabnel or Michael in his thinking,

“'

Other scholars have been impressed by certain passages where

Philo describes the Logos as “the archangel”,? and have concluded that Philo either ident:fied the Logos with Michael,? or that traditions about him

as the highest archangel influenced Philo’s Logos doctrine.* This chapter wil briefly overview Philo’s teaching concerning the Logos and angels, before investigating whether there are any associations between the Logos and Jewish traditions about Michael, and other principal angels, in Philo’s thought.

' Goodenough, Light, 79-80 in support of this, Goodenough points to Philo's allegonzng of the Cherubrm so that no resemblance remamed with what Goodenough terms “the Palestuman traditon*

? Conf 146, Her 205 3 Wolfson, Philo, | 378-379, Carr, Angels and Principalities, 38, and Dix, “Seven Archangels”, 243

4 Lueken, Michael, 59-60 Cf also Hurtado, One God, 46, Nikiprowetzky, “Note*, 188, and Chester, “Mesnamc Expectations", 48

Philo’s Logos Doctrine

1. Philo’s Doctrines of God, the Logos, and Angels a. Philo as Monotheist

Recent studies have tended to portray Philo primarily as an exegete of scmpture, rather than a philosopher or systematic theologian.’ One should not, therefore, be too concerned when encountering certain inconsistencies

in his thought.

Indeed, earlier interpreters are now routinely cnticized for

attempting to force Philo’s expositions into a systematic straitjacket. This criticism has above all been applied to Wolfson’s magisterial effort to construe Philo as the most sigmficant philosopher between Anstotle and Spinoza ° However, we should also guard against the tendency to conclude that every apparent contradiction 1s one As a recent commentator has said, what often, to the modern,

“looks like an inconsistency or a contradiction

does so because of the intellectual and religious viewpoint of the (usually non-Jewish) reader of [Philo's] works” 7 Philo’s

thought

is a mixture

of Hellenistic

philosophy

and

Judaism

Three statements can be made regarding this It is possible that Philo received a Hellenistic education, including philosophy, in the gymnasium *

It 1s likely that Philo was a man of means and moved in

the higher circles

of society in Alexandria.’ It 1s certain that Philo was deeply influenced by contemporary currents in Greek philosophy, especially Middle Platonism, and to a lesser degree Stoicism and Pythagoreanism as well '° However, Philo was also a Jew, and thus, as a Jew he was deeply committed to the Torah and the traditions of his people While it 1s probably true that the majonty of Alexandnan Jews would find Philo's expositions of scnpture esoteric and arcane,!! Philo nonetheless held a promment position im the Jewish community of his city and led a delegation from it to the Roman Emperor, It 1s probable that Philo’s views did not have a wide currency outside intellectual circles influenced by and biased towards Hellenism

5 Sandmel, Piulo, 4, 78, Ruma, Timaeus, 1720 Borgen, "Philo", 233, 259-264, wiem , “Survey”, 142 and above all Nikiprowetzky, Philon, 170-180 Contrast Winston, Logos, 13-14

8 See Ruma, Timaeus, 35 36, Sandmel 9 See Ruma,

Philo, 12

Timaeus, 34-35, Sandmel, Phrlo,

10 Cf e.g , Borgen, "Philo", 256

11 Sandmel, Philo, 13-14

10-12

"Survey"

Part I} Michael in Jewish Literature

However, parallels with the Wisdom of Solomon suggest that they were not

entirely unique 2 Philo, as a Jew, was a committed monotheist

Although Philo could use

very exalted language to describe the Logos, the divine powers, and even

certain heroes from Israelite history {e g , Moses), Philo remained a convinced

monotheist

and

plurality of deities '?

vigorously

opposed

any

notion

that there

was

For example, he can state categoncally that "God,

being One, is alone and unique, and like God there 1s nothing” (L.A In addition, when discussing the first commandment he writes

2 1) '4

Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and most sacred of commandments, to acknowledge and honour one God Who 1s above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the ears of the man whose rule of life 1s to seek for truth in punty and guilelessness* {Decal 65)

Simuarly, for Philo only God has absolute existence the phrases

"He that IS" (o @y) and

often uses when speaking of God

"the Being One"

hoyos, Som

that

Philo

can

call

(ro ov), which Philo

Only God has real Being and all other

"beings" derive their existence from Hum (Det It ts true

Thus ts reflected in

the

Logos

1 62), and "God" (dz0g, Som

160) "the

divine

Logos"

(6 @zio¢

1 227 230), and even “the sec-

ond God" (a detrepog b20g, @ G

2 62) '*

Nonetheless, he 1s always care-

ful to distinguish

and

Logos

between

God

extended exposition of Gen

His

31 13 {Som

1 228-230},

For example,

in his

he carefully distin-

guishes between God and the Logos of God o 8go¢ refers to "Him Who ts truly God" (vor pev adnéera), while the anarthrous @eog refers to the Logos, who is “improperly” (ror 6 év xataxpyoet) called God

Neverthe-

less, for Philo the author of scmpture uses the title ed¢ for the Logos, “not from any superstitious nicety in applying names, but with one aim before him, to use words to express facts" Thus, while Philo wishes to defend the use of @sd¢ for the Logos, he 1s very careful to differentiate the Logos

12 See below pp 80-81, 91 92 3Cf

Wolfson

Philo, 1171-173

Williamson, Philo

'$ Unless otherwise noted, T will be usmg Whitaker and Marcus in the Loeb series

'S This phrase is very unusual even for Philo

28-31, Ruma, Timaeus

433

the texts and translanons of Colson

It appears in his volumunous writings

only once Certain interpreters give the impression that it was a favorite phrase of Philo's Cf eg Segal, Two Powers, 159 181 and Barker, Great Angel, 114 133 To these con trast the judicious statements of Runia, Timaeus

449-451 and 442, n 196

Philo's Logos Doctrine

from God Humself

Not even the Logos can be called "the God” (0 @e6¢),

since there 1s only one God !6

b The Logos of God

The relationship between God and His Logos

How then did Philo concerve of the Logos, and what was tts relation to God in his thought? Given his monotheism, why did he choose to speak of the Logos with such exalted language? The answers to these questions can only be appreciated

within the complex

of Philo’s thought

and

its back-

ground in both Greek philosophy and Judaism 1” The Logos was for Pmlo a way of expressing the immanence of God, which also allowed Philo to affirm the Divine transcendence Indeed, Wil liamson can assert that Philo’s Logos doctrine was “a logical requirement" of his doctrine of God, “especially in regard to [Philo’s] emphasts on the transcendence of God" '* Philo’s Logos can be described as “a part of God". Examples of this are those passages in which the Logos functions as the bond which holds the universe together!? and those passages where it functions as "the divine Reason” or the Mind {Notic) of God 2° Here Philo shows dependence upon several Greek philosophical traditions His starting point is the Platonic theory of ideas, as expressed in the Timaeus of Plato *!

This “world of ideas" or "intelligible world” (0 xoopog vonto¢g), as Philo calls it, served as a model (xapaderyua) for God when he created the world Philo uses the illustration of an architect who, in the service of his monarch, "first sketches in his own mind" a pattern of a city, and then sets about constructing 11

When God wished to create the physical world, He

first created the world of ideas as his pattern

This world of ideas had "no

16 Cf Williamson, Philo, 123-124 17 Admittedly, “(tJhe term [Logos] ts used by [Philo] very frequently and partly because the ideas it was used to express are difficult and complex ones, and partly because Philo’s own thought 1s also profound and complex, it is difficult to give a clear and coherent statement of Philo’s thought in this area" (Williamson, Philo, 103) Williamson notes that for Philo the Logos can mean something (1) within God, or (2) within the natu-

ral order of the umverse, or (3) within humans As with Williamson's trealment, my discussion will focus on the first and second of these

18 Williamson, Philo, 103

Compare the slightly different position of Winston,

*Logos*, 49-50

19 Fue 112, Her 188 Mos 2133, Plant 9

20 For what follows see Op 15, Wilhamson,

16-25, and Wolfson, Philo, { 230-234, Winston, Logos,

Philo, 104, Runia, Timacus,

158-174, and Sandmel, Philo, 94-95

21 Cf esp Plato, Timaeus, 283A 29B 30C-31A, and Ruma, Jimaeus, 158 174

Part If

Michael in Jewish Literature

other location than the Divine Reason" (0 Gsiog Adyo>¢) Philo denved the notion that ideas reside within the mind from Anstotle 22. However, Philo

went farther and affirmed that the world of ideas 1s identical with the divine reason or Logos (Op 24 25) Philo substitutes A@yoo for Anstotle’s vovg By Philo’s day, the term hoyog had long been used by philosophers, especially by Plato, Anstotle, and the Storcs, as a synonym for Novs 23 In addition, Platonism held to several “rough equivalent(s)" of Philo's Logos doctnne “ However, net-

ther in Platonism, Stoicism nor Aristotelian thought do we find the kind of

significance that the concept has for Philo, nor the range of meanings he gives to the term Aéyoo }~=Why did Philo choose to use this word, rather than Noitic? He appears to have been dependent upon a tradition in Alexandnan Judaism which was attributing a certain independence to God's Word Already in Deutero-lsatah and some of the later Psalms the "27 M71? is beginning to be understood in a semi-hypostatic manner.?5 This process toward hypostatization will culmmate

{esp

in the Wisdom

of Solomon

18 14 16) and the writings of Philo, but 1s already underway in the

Greek translation of the OT For example, Ps 32 6 (= 33 6 MT) declares T@ AGyG TOU KUpiou ot ovpavot EoTEpedPycay >> Other passages im the

Greek Psalter (147 7 {ET 147 18] and 148 8) attribute a role to God’s word in the continuing administration

of the natural

world

the word of God which came to the prophets (cf Isa 3 16), and the Law

34,28, and Deut

In addition,

2 1, Jer

it was

1 2, Ezek

revealed at Sinai was termed rovcg déxa ddyoug {Ex

10,4)

The Greek OT, therefore, could be read as affirm-

ing that the A@yocg Geov was an agent of both creation and revelation, roles

which Philo attnbutes to the Logos 2’ Significantly, in all this the Logos parallels the role of Wtsdom in a number of late OT passages,** where Wisdom functions as agent of creation and revelation ** Therefore, it ts not surprising that Philo explicitly

22 Metaph xn 7 1072b 18 22, 9 1075a,3-5, De Anima Philo 133, and Wolfson, Phila, 1 229-231

ui 4.429a.27-28,

Williamson,

23 See esp Tobin, "Logos", ABD, I 230 234 24 Winston, “Logos” 49

Isa 407-8 55 10-11 Pss 107 20, 14715

26 Cf Gen 1 and Wisdom 91 temporary with or even later than Philo between Wisdom and Philo

Cf Schmidt, “137” 120-125

The Wisdom of Solomon may have been conSee Winston (Wisdom, 59-63) on the relationship

27 Wilhamson Philo, 104-105, Wolfson, Philo 1 253-261 28 Eg

Bar

Prov

329 and JEn 29 Cf

Hengel

319

8223)

Sir 1 10, 24 1-34, Wis

42 Judaism and Hellemsm

153-175

72230,91

Cf also Job 28,

Philo's Logos Doctrine

identifies Sophia with the Logos.** Apparently the author of the Wisdom of Solomon shared this identification of divine Wisdom with the Logos: Ges rarépwv Kai kipte Tov éh€oug 0 ToMoas Ta TavTa év KOY@ Gov Kat TH oodia cov KaTaoxevacag avOpuxov, (9.1).3' It would appear, then, that

Philo drew on a hellenistic Jewrsh tradition which asserted that by means of His Word, which was the same as His Wisdom, God created the universe and revealed Himself to the prophets ** Philo then, conflating Plato with Jewish scriptures and traditions, envisions the totality of the ideas or the intelligible world as residing in the

mind of God * (Op 24-25)

This intelligible world of ideas was for Philo the Logos

c The Logos as Hypostasis Philo, however, also uses language which appears to imply that the Logos 1s a personal being with a separate identity, that 1s, a creature of God, and, as such, distinct from God

For example, Philo can describe the

Logos as an angel or archangel,** as the son or firstborn of God,*5 as Israel,3* and, as we have seen, even as @e6¢ and o dsurepog

Beb¢ 3?

Philo, this kind of description of the Logos as a personal, separate being perhaps predominates over the image of the Logos as part of God This raises the principal question of Philo’s conception of the Logos "Does Philo regard the Logos as a reality, as a distinct entity having ence,

or 1s the

302A

Logos

1 65 and Som

no more

2242 245

than

Her

an abstract construct,

191

Fug

50-51,0G

Logos and Sophia are given simular roles by Philo, cf Cher

real exist

convenient

157

At times the

125-127 with Fuge

109 and

Det

54 See also Tobin “Logos” [V 350; and Wolfson, Phila | 255 258 31 So Winston, Wisdom 38 Nickelsburg, Jewrsh Lirerature 180 Gilbert, "Wisdom", 311, Wolfson, Philo 1255 Goodenough Light 273 32 Note also the correlation of Sophia and Logos in Philo s mid-second century BC

precursor, Anstobulus (preserved in Eusebius, Praep cf Hengel Judarsm and Hellentsm, 166-169

Ev xi $2 30-13)

On Anstobulus,

33. Cf Dodd, Interpretation, 66 34 1.A

3377, Deus 182, Conf

35 Agr S1, Conf 63, 146

146, Her

205, Mut

87, Som

Cf also L.A 3175, Det

1 239-240

118, Mig 6; Her 205, Som

1 230, in each of which the Logos is described, explecitly or implicitly, as the “eldest” of all created things

% Conf 146 37 Som 1 227-230 and @ G 2.62, respectively

Part Il

Michael in Jewish Literature

Philo’s philosophy, but without true existence?"3% Since “there 1s no decisive clarity m Philo’s presentation",*° scholars have come down on both sides of this issue Some argue that the Logos is nothing more than metaphorical language, a way of expressing God’s action in the world, while others consider Philo’s Logos to be a hypostasis *! Williamson’s denial may serve as a serviceable defimttion of the term “hypostasis" "It cannot be emphasised enough that the Logos for Philo ts God's Logos, the incorporeal Word or Thought of God, not a distinct and separate being having its own divine ontological status, subordinate to God" # A hypostasis then is a divine attribute which has attained an “ontological status, distinct and separate” from God With this in mind, consider the following To His Word,

His chief messenger,

highest in age and honour,

the

Father of all has given the special prerogative,

to stand on the border

and separate the creature from the Creator

This same Word

both

pleads with the immortal as supplant for afflicted mortality and acts as

ambassador of the ruler to the subject He glones im this prerogative and proudly describes it in these words ‘and { stood between the Lord and you’ (Deut v

5), that 1s neither uncreated as God, nor created as

you, but mudway between the two extremes, a surety to both sides, (Her

205 206)

Here the Logos ts explicitly said to be something other than the Creator and a creature It occupies the position “midway between [these] two extremes” This passage certainly seems to suggest that for Philo the Logos was something more than "a way of speaking about God” Philo conceives

of the Logos as something other than God and something other than a creature of God The principal difficulty anses from Philo’s conflicting statements and images At times he speaks of the Logos as if it were merely “a part of = Sandmel, Phile, 98

39 Sandmel, Philo 98

It should be noted that Sandmel never attempts to answer the

question in this work 40 E.g , Williamson, Philo, esp

107, Hurtado, One God

44-48, and Dunn

Chrstol-

ogy, 220-228 4) E.p , Ruma, Timaeus, 374-375, Wolfson, Philo, 1 231-252 Winston (*Logos”, 4950) calls the Logos a hypostasis, but his explanation shows that he really means something closer to the positon of Williamson, Hurtado and Dunn; for he holds that it is "not literally a second entity by the mde of God acting on his behalf” 42 Philo, 107

Philo s Logos Doctrine

God" and at times as if it were a being with its own separate existence Long ago Wolfson suggested that this implied different stages of existence in the Logos: The Logos at one stage of its existence 1s merely the mind of God and not separate from His essence, "later" the Logos enters a second stage as an independent entity +3 Wolfson even posited a “thrd stage of existence”, the Logos immanent in the world #

Wolfson’s position has been criticized as too systematic and artificial * Nonetheless, it has the advantage of explaining the different kinds of imagery used by Philo for the Logos Runa has retumed to a modified version of Wolfson’s position When the Logos 1s regarded as the ‘embodiment’ of God's thought focussed on the cosmos (i1e place of the xoojog vonréc) or as the ‘embodiment’ of God's creational activity (1 e

foremost of the powers},

the difference between God and his Logos appears to be kept to a mini mum, perhaps to a matter of aspect rather than level But when the immanent presence of the Logos 1s stressed, Philo envisages a direct contact with and permeation through the cosmos which tt holds together

The Logos is rpecBirarog ray bom yeyove and xpeoBitraro¢g

Kat m@pwroyoro¢, even God's archangel The Logos has to all appearances become a Aypostasis, a level of God's being given real existence outside God himself 4 Such a position accounts for a vanety of imagery used by Philo for the Logos and escapes the criticism of artificiality 1f we allow that Philo was pnmaniy an exegete, not a philosopher, and thus could hojd a position which was not thoroughly consistent Much more could be said about the Logos in Philo’s thought Hopefully

this 1s sufficient to show the complexity of his Logos doctrine and its uniqueness within, as well as its dependence on, the Juda:sm of our penod I turn now to a brief summary of Philo’s doctrine of angels, before examining the relation between Philo’s Logos and traditions about Michael

43 Wolfson, Phila, 1 232 4 Wolfson Philo, | 327 45 Cf Ruma, Timaeus 450 © Runa, Timaeus, 450-451

n.247 The emphasis is Ruma

Part ll

Michael in Jewish Luerature

Philo's Doctrine of Angels

In addition to the Logos, Philo conceives of God working through many powers

(durapuerg).

The

chief of

these

powers

are

the

creative

and

sovereign Philo views the former as the merciful aspect of God and he identifies it with the divine name 8ed¢. The latter 1s the punitive aspect of God and possesses the divine name xtpio¢g 47 At times Philo speaks as if these powers were “properties” of God, and thus a part of His essence (Cher. 29), and at other times as if they were created beings, separate from God (Fug 94-96, Cher 27 28).4* When they are spoken of as creations of

God they are equivalent to the platonic “ideas” (e.g., Spec. 1.45-48) # Philo postulates a close connection between the Logos and these powers of

God

It 1s the Logos who unites the creative and sovereign powers (Cher.

28, Q E

268)

In addition, "the Divine Logos”, wntes Philo, "God Him

self has completely filled throughout with incorporeal potencies" (Som. 1 62) Thus the Logos can be said to be the sum of the divine powers It is possible that in Philo’s thought these “powers” correspond to a class of angels or the archangels. First of all, Spec 1.45-48, where the powers are described

as “the powers

which

keep guard

around

(God)",

angels who surround God’s throne (1 Kgs. 22,19-22, Pss lEn

1423,

Tob

12 15,

Luke

119,

TAb

A 7.11)

recalls the

82.1; 89.5-7;

Secondly,

Philo’s

assertion (Conf 168 175) that angels "wait upon" the heavenly powers may suggest that the powers are archangels with angels under them. Finally, tt is to be remembered that dévayer¢ was understood as a class of angels in

the LXX (Pss. 23.9-10 [ET 24 9-10, 102.20-21 [ET 103 20-21]; 148 2) and contemporary literature (e g Rom 8 38; Eph. ] 21, 1 Pet 3 22) Philo’s discourses on the nature of angels reveal the influence of Plato, as well as that of Plato’s interpreters This is especially so in Gig 6-18 and Som 1 137-143, where Philo alludes to Plato’s Timaeus 39E-40D and Sympostum 202E and displays knowledge of the imterpretation of these passages by the Middle Platonists 5° Philo affirms that those beings which the philosophers name daizovse¢ are one and the same with those Moses calls ayyerou (Gig. 6, 16, Som 1.141) Following Plato and his philosophical descendants,

Philo envisions angels/daemons as those souls (yvyxai) which

have not descended into flesh, but have remained wholly spintual, and thus serve as God's ministers on behalf of humanity 5' Thus, for Philo angels

47 48 §9 SO

CE Fug 96-100; Cher 27 28, and Q E 2.68 Cf Willamson, Philo, 50-51, Wolfson, Philo, 1 220-224 See Wolfson, Philo, 1 218-223 Dillon, "Angels", 198-199, Ruma, Timaeus, 228-230

5! Gig

12, Plant 14, cf Symposium 202E and Dillon, “Angels”, 197-200

Philo’s Logos Doctrine

serve as "ambassadors backwards and forwards between men and God",*? as priests in the heavenly sanctuary,*? as agents in the creation of matter and humans,* and as the punishers of evil ** Significantly, Philo refers to ayyero as Noyou,** umplying some relation between them and the Logos Since Philo refers to the Logos as "the archangel”, it appears that in some

sense he understands the Logos as their leader

2 The Logos and Michael in Philo Having established the nature of Philo’s Logos doctnne, we can now turn to the question of whether Michael and the Logos were identified in Philo’s thought. It must be admitted at once that there are significant, if superficial, parallels between the traditions which surrounded Michael and

Philo’s Logos doctnne Both are archangels, and the leader of the host, both perform High Priestly roles, and both are identified as of the Name mentioned in Ex 23 20-21 In addition, there similarities between Philo’s Logos and the archangel Israel in the Joseph, a Jewish apocryphon of uncertain date which provides an

heavenly the angel are great Prayer of alternate

highest archangel to the traditional Michael

The Logos as archangel

As stated above, Philo refers to the Logos as an angel or the archangel

on numerous occasions *’ The two passages (Conf

146-147 and Her

205

206) where the Logos ts termed "the Archangel” are of particular significance,

The first of these declares that the Logos is “the eldest of the

angels, the archangel as it were” (rov a@yyé\wr xpsoBiTaTor, ws av apxayyendov) *8 In other words, the Logos ts the leader of the angels, a

52 Gig 16 Cf Som 53 Spec 1 66 54 Conf 168-175

1 141f; Abr 115, Plato Symposium 202E

55 Conf 171, Fug 66 56 E.g , Som 1 142, 147, Post 91,L.A

5? &yyehoc

146, Her

3177

«L.A 3.177, Deus 182, Mut 87, Som 1 239-240

205

58 The translation is mine, but based on Colson s

dpycryysdoo

Conf

Part il

Michael in Jewish Literature

role which 1s usually attributed to Michael.*° In both passages the Logos 1s termed “the archangel", implying that the Logos 1s the only archangel

While the presence of the article cannot be pressed, there 1s little evidence that Philo envisioned seven or four archangels such as we find elsewhere in

Jewish literature™ of the period ®' Certainly, there 1s nothing in Philo’s thought which could possibly be a nval to the Logos’ chief piace among the powers of God * In the second of these passages, Her 205-206, the Logos 1s not only termed “archangel” he also intercedes for the human race As we have

seen, the idea that angels interceded for humanity has widespread attestation in the Judaism of Philo’s day ® Furthermore, there 1s sufficrent evidence that Michael was usually held to be the angelic intercessor par excellence, at least for the nation Israel ™ There is only one other Philonic passage extant in Greek in which the term apxayyekog appears, Som 1157 In this exposition of Jacob's dream of the ladder between heaven and earth, Philo asserts that at the top of the ladder stood "the archangel,

the Lord"

(ror apxaryyedor,

xbptov)

Some see in this a reference to the archangel Logos °S However, the phrase “The One that [S" (70 dv}, which

immediately follows, as well as the con

text in general, clearly indicates that only God can be intended *

Philo’s

exegesis of Exodus 3 14 (Det 160) makes it extremely unlikely that he could have used the tite 70 6» for any one other than God Himself * These, then, are the only occurrences of the term “archangel” in the extant writings of Philo However, there are other instances where the

Logos functions as the highest archangel

59 See above pp

For example,

in Fug

111

the

38-40, 64-66

| 166) which

implies that the angel in the column of fire was only one of a number of “heutenants” There 15 also a general reference to archangels in the fragment preserved in Armeman De

Deo 3

but here archangels are grouped together with “powers and generals”

Armenian text

German translanon and reconstructed Greek text in Siegert

S Cf Fug 96-100 Cher 2728 and QE

63 See above p 32

2 68

See the

Philan, 13 37

4 See above pp 41-46 ®5 See especially Wolfson, Philo, 1377 78 So also Sepal Two Powers 170 Cf Siegert (Philon 64-65) who believes that the reference is to the duvapic xuptoc, and that

the other “obersten Krafte” may also have been considered an archangel *6 So Drummond, Philo, 103-104 and Williamson, Hebrews, 187 explains the translavon of Colson-Whuitaker, “the Ruler of the Angels*

5? See above p 78

This probably

Note also that the Logos 1s often called 6 70D dvrog Adyor (the

Word of the One that [S) or something similar but never 7) de

Cf e.g Fug

110, 112

Phulo's Logos Doctrine

Logos possesses not “absolute sovereignty” (avroxparopog), for that belongs to God alone, but instead, "an admirable viceroyalty" (@avpaoris wyspoviac). As we have seen, such a position is attnibuted to Michael in such diverse works as the Testament of Abraham, the War Scroll, the

Similitudes of Enoch, and 3 Baruch.

b. The Logos as High Priest Related to its role as intercessor for humanity,

Logos as a heavenly High Pnest.

Philo also descnbes the

Philo seems to have shared not only the

idea that angels interceded for humanity, but also the notion that their inter-

cession was priestly in form and that angelic pnests served in a heavenly sanctuary (Spec | 66) °° The hgh pnest of this heavenly temple is none other than the Logos (Gig

52, Fug

106-112,

Som

1215)

As we have

seen, the Logos intercedes for humanity (Her 205 206), a role which Phulo elsewhere attributes to the earthly high pnest (Spec 197) So also, as we have seen, in both apocalyptic literature and at Qumran’! there ts evidence

that Michael served as the heavenly high priest

¢. The Logos as the Exodus Angel and Angel of the Name Exodus 28.36 and 39 30 stipulate that the high pnest wears on his turban @ signet bearing the inscnption “Holy to the Lord" (110°9 B1pP) There appears to have been a later tradition im which only the tetragrammaton was inscribed on the signet

Philo was aware of this tradition 7? Significantly,

In One passage (Mig 102-103) where he identfies the Logos as ‘high pnest’, Philo goes on to speak of the signet worn by the high priest tn terms

88 CF also Agr

6 For angehc pests and a heavenly temple in Jewish apocalyptic and at Qumran, sce pp. 32 and 60-61, respectively

% See above pp 43-46

7! See pp 74-75 72 LetAns

[T3})}

Wis

98, Josephus Ant

$78,

War v 235, bShab

63b (R

Ehezer hb

Yose

18 20-25 where secermngly the Name is meant by wcyadwobrn gov éxi

diadiperrog cegadis abrod, and the late PRE 4 See also Thackeray s note in the Loeb edi

tron of Josephus on War5 235

73 Mos 2 114-115, 132

Part Il

Michael in Jewish Literature

he uses elsewhere of the Logos "The signet spoken of 1s the onginal prin ciple behind all principles, after which God shaped or formed the universe, incorporeal, we know, and discerned by the intellect alone,

™“

It appears

that Philo is identifying the Logos both with the high prest and with the signet, in which was inscribed the divine Name, wom by the high priest Traditions which attributed to the Name an almost hypostatic existence were

probably current in Philo’s day *

Although at is doubtful that Philo knew

Hebrew, it 1s posstble that he was familiar with traditions surrounding the ineffable Name of God and transferred these to the Logos 75 All this may suggest that Philo owed something to traditions about the angel of the Name in his conception of the Logos Although I offer this suggestion only tentatively, there certainly was some connection between the Logos and the Name of God tn Philo's thought

First, the "Name of God"

(6vopa S00)

stands among the Logos’ many names listed in Conf 146 In addition, Philo consistently interprets the angel of Ex 23 20-21, nm whom the divine Name resides, as the Logos (Agr 51, Mig 174, QE 213) As If have argued

above,”

one

important

piece

evidence

(/ Enoch

69 13-25)

identifies Michael with this "angel of the Name” Even if this 1s an isolated tradition, other Angels of the Name, such as Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham

and

Metatron

in Hekhalot

literature,

are also interpreted as the

angel of Exodus 23 20-21 ”

The Logos and Israel

Wolfson has argued for a close connection in Philo between the Logos as "archangel" and the nation Israel He points out that in Conf 146 the Logos 1s called both archangel and Israel, and in Her 205 the Logos 1s identified as the ange! in the cloud who stood between [srael and the armies

of Egypt ”®

In addition to these observations, one could add that when

Philo equates the Logos with the Exodus angel he allegorizes the exodus as

the mystical journey made by the followers of God The end of this journey, of course, was the mystical vision of God, and the meaning of "Israet"

74 See Fossum Name of God, 245-256, and Urbach, Sages, 124-134 IS Cf L.A 3207 208 78 See above pp 51-53 77 $o also Hurtado, One God, 49f and Segal, Two Powers, 170 78 Wolfson, Philo, 1 378-379 (Som

1 157)

Wolfson adds the third occurrence of the term archangel

bot I bave already shown that this could not have referred to the Logos

Philo’s Logos Doctrine for Philo Israel are was held that since

was “the man who sees God",”? so once again the Logos and closely related for Philo. All this 1s significant because Michael to be the guardian angel of Israel * Wolfson goes on to argue Philo must have been familiar with the Jewish tradition concern-

ing the angels set over the Nations (cf Post 91-92), he also must have known the tradition concerning Michael as the angel protector for Israel He concludes “Thus while indeed the name of the angel Michael ts not mentioned by Philo, it was the angel Michael, the guardian angel of Israel,

whom he had in mind when he spoke of the archangel” *!

e. The Prayer of Joseph Finally, Philo’s depiction of the Logos in Conf 146 stnkingly parallels the self-descnption of the archangel Israel in the Prayer of Joseph. In the only extensive passage of this apocryphon which has survived, Jacob claims to be the angel Israel: “I, Jacob, who 1s speaking with you, am also Israel, an angel of God and a ruling spint

—_—iI, Jacob, whom

men call Jacob, but

whose name 1s Israel, am the one called Israel by God, which means “a man seeing God", because I am the firstborn of every living thing to whom God

gives hfe" *2

Here

the “defimtion"

of Israel

(lopank,

avnp

opar

Geov) is strikingly similar to Philo’s o opwy, ‘lopand Furthermore, Jacob-Israel claims to be mpwréyovog wavtog (ov, just Philo calls the Logos Tov mpwrayovor. In the rematnder of this fragment of the Prayer of Joseph, Jacob/Israel relates the story of Gen 32 24-31 However, in his version of the story the archangel Unel opposes him and claims rank above him in the heavenly hierarchy Jacob/Israel's response adds three more parallels to Conf 146 First, both the Logos and Israel are descnbed as an archangel Second, some

relation to the Name

of God

1s attributed

to both

archangels,

the

Logos 1s identified with the Name and the angel Israel possesses the right to call upon God by means of the Name Finally, Israel has a high pnestly role (Aetroupyo¢

ap@roc),

which,

as we have seen, corresponds to what

Philo says elsewhere about the Logos

7? This etymology for Israel appears no less that 49 times in Philo, sometimes in the short form "One who sees"

So Smuth, OTP,

I 703

80 See above pp 33-38

$1 Wolfson, Philo, I 378-379 82 The translation 1s from Smith OTP, II 699-714

Part I]

Michael in Jewish Literature

We should be cautious, however, im postulating direct dependence either of Philo on Prayer of Joseph or vice versa First of all, this apocryphon ts of uncertain date and provenance Since all that remains of this work are quotations in the wntings of Ongen and Eusebius, it must pre-date the midthird century, but it could still be later (or earlier) than Philo Furthermore, while the parallels between the two passages are striking, they proba-

bly only result from mutual dependence upon common traditions *3 Nonetheless, the parallels demonstrate how important traditions surrounding the highest archangel are to Conf 146, and to Phuilo's portrait of the Logos as a whole

Conclusions

All this certainly

indicates that Philo

felt free to use traditions about

Michael and other principal angels in Jewish literature (e g., Israel, Yahoel, Metatron) while formulating his Logos doctrine

Nonetheless, it should not

be overlooked that Philo never explicitly identifies the Logos with Michael and it would have been detrmental to his overall positron had he done so Pinlo's conception of the Logos differs sigmficantly from the vanous tradi tions concerning Michael As we have seen, Philo understood the Logos as the Mind of God and, at times, as a hypostasis

For him, the Logos was

both an agent of creation and the bond which held together the universe The Logos was the image of God and his firstborn son No parallels to these exist im the traditions about Michael

Therefore, Michael speculations

may have served Philo as models for his understanding of the Logos, but Philo does not simply take over these traditions

He transforms them by

interpreting them in light of his understanding of Plato and the Stoics Furthermore, Philo’s Logos doctrine demonstrates the fluidity of the principal angel traditions Although Michael 1s generally held to be the

highest of the archangels, a Jew such as Philo could and did transform the traditions for his own purposes

83 For example

the etymology "A man who sees God" for the name Israel appears to

be a popular etymology which pre-dates Philo and the ttle “Firstborn” probably stems from Ex 4.22 On these see Smith “Prayer of Joseph” 265 268, and idem OTP II 703-

704

Philo's Logos Doctrine

3. The Logos and Sophia in the Wisdom of Solomon Finally, a work which contains many stgnificant parallels with Philo, the

Wisdom of Solomon, may offer evidence that Michael traditions influenced Logos speculation within hellenistic Judaism outside of the wmtings of Philo.

As we have seen, the author of Wisdom shared with Philo the iden

tification of divine Sophia with the Logos and attributed to Sophia a role in both creation and revelation There can be no question in light of these and other parallels that the Book of Wisdom and Philo’s writings issue from the same intellectual milieu ** Both are concerned to interpret Judaism and the Jewish scriptures with help from Stoic and Middle Platonic philosophical traditions 85 Given the identification of Sophia with the Logos in the Wisdom of Solomon (9 |},8* the portrait of the Logos in Wisdom 18 13 16 becomes very significant for the question of Michael traditions in the hellemistic Judaism of Wisdom and Philo Here the Logos appears as a sword bearing warnor sent from the heavenly throne to administer God's vengeance upon

the Egyptians *?

Since the author of Wisdom

is here interpreting Ex

12 23, 1t seems probable that the phrase "into the midst of the land that was doomed” (sig péoor TiS odheOpiacg HAaTO YC) 18 intended as an allusion to

the "roy odsOpevov7a" of Ex

12,23 LXX

The passage, therefore, pre-

sents the Logos/Sophia as the Destroying angel (roy odefpetorvra) of Exodus *8 Given that Michael’s role as the Guardian angel of Israel and the apxioTrpamnyog of the heavenly hosts was already well established by the

time the Wisdom of Solomon was written, one wonders whether Michael traditions could have influenced this picture of the Logos as an angelic warnor.

Certainly, our author has chosen not to follow another early tradition

concerning the identity of "the Destroyer" of Ex 1223 Judbilees 49 2 recognized Mastema in this angel While I know of no tradition which

84 So Winston, Wisdom

59-63 and Nickelsburg

85 Gilbert, "Wisdom”, 312

Jewrsh Literature

184

86 See above p 81

8? As Winston (Wisdom, 317) points out, this passage offers us yet more reasons to conclude Sophia and the Logos are to be adenufied

*The descnption of the Logos here 1s

stnkingly simular to that of Sophia earlier in the book

descend from the heavenly throne (cf 9 4, 10 (cf 7 21, 8.4)"

88 That the “rov dAchpetorra” of Ex

Both are al] powerful (cf

7 23),

17), and carry out God’s commandments

12.23 was understood as an angel in the me of

the composition of Wisdom is shown by Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge 159 RapEnty ofc daewoo dryyehor

mux

92 identified

Part il) Michael in Jewish Literature the

“roy

ode@pevovra”

of Ex

12 23

with

Michael,

Wisdom

18 13 16 definitely descmbes the Logos in a way that suggests Michael, For in this passage the Logos 1s both a warnor and a defender of Israel

This is not to say that the author of Wisdom intended to identrfy the two As with Philo, Wtsdom’s Sophia/Logos differs significantly from the tradi tions concerning Michael However, as with Philo’s Logos, tt 1s not unlikely that Michael traditions stand in the background

Chapter 5 The Archangel Michael tn Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature In the present chapter 1 turn to the evidence provided by Rabbinic and Hekhalot literature for the influence of Michael speculation and Michael traditions on the development of early Chnstology To be sure, both Rabbimic and Hekhalot traditions were first committed to writing centuries after the rise of Christianity

This means,

of course, that many of the traditions

contained in both bodies of literature are too late to be useful for an inquiry into the ongins of Christology However, both are significant for my investigation for the following reasons 1) it 1s generally agreed that Rabbinic literature contains early material, and 2) both corpora provide evidence for continued speculation about angels in Jewish contexts which both

paralleled and differed radically from that which prevailed in Chnstian circles,

Rabbinic Literature

In examining Michael traditions within the writings of the Rabbis one 1s struck by the paucity of the maternal which has of influence from angelology on Christology as well as the other named angels, only appear is too late to shed much light on first century

any bearing on the question Most references to Michael, in Amoraic sources, which thought Even in genuine

Tannaitic traditions there is little evidence for contact between

Rabbinic

Michael traditions and early Christology However, as we shall see, three categories of evidence may suggest a Rabbinic reaction to Christian claims

for Christ First, throughout the Rabbinic writings we encounter an enhan cement of Gabriel’s stature vis-a-vis Michael Second, a complex of parallel passages provides possible evidence of a Michael-cult which the Rabbis

Part il)

opposed

Michael in Jewtsh Literature

Third, parallels exist between Rabbimic and Christian exegesis of

OT m7" 4RX7D passages in which the Rabbis idennified the “angel of the Lord” with Michael and early Fathers identified him with the pre-sncarnate Chnist. This paucity of relevant material results from the late date of Rabbinic literature, especially of the Haggadic material, and from the nature of the Rabbis* anu-Chnstian polemic Those wntings usually identified as Rabbinic! were not composed, collected and redacted until after the beginning of the third century, although it 1s generally agreed that these documents contain a great deal of maternal which 1s earlier and even some traditions

which pre-date the destruction of the Temple * Nonetheless, works which are rich in Haggadah, which by its very nature contains more information about angels than Halakhah, were for the most part collected and redacted at a comparatively late date (fifth to ninth centunes) Guven the only rela-

trve reliabrlity of dating individual traditions never be certain that any particular tradition genuinely reflects our period of inquiry In attack Chnstian beliefs m such a way that it how

much

in Rabbinic works,? we can from the Rabbinic material addition to this, the Rabbis is very difficult to ascertain

accurate knowledge of Christian theology they had*

All this

means that the evidence presented below must be used very carefully and that certatnty 1s far less possible here than in any of the material I have examined thus far In addition, the appearance of a tradition even

in an authorttative work,

such as the Babylonian Talmud, does not guarantee that it was umversally accepted among the Sages, much less among contemporary Jews in general, The Rabbis frequently disagreed among themselves More importantly, during the Rabbinic period Judaism was not a monolithic unity Although the Rabbis increasingly succeeded in reconstituting Judaism along the lines of their ideals, this was a long process This is reflected, in part, in the

division of Jewish society into two distinct classes The educated and cultured Rabbis and their Haverim, on one side, and the unlearned, coarse ‘aim ha'‘aretz, on the other This division, often strained, could, at times, become bitter * Even within these two classes there were many social divi' See the definition of rabbinic literature in Safrai, Literature, xv-xwi 2 Safras, Literature, xvt, and Strack Stemberger Introduction 45, 52-54

> See Strack-Stemberger, /ntroduction, 52-61

Some of the more important methods

include reference to t} the attributions, 2) the date of the final redaction of a work, and 3)

parallels from non rabbinic works

Regardimg attributions | will adopt the abbreviations of

Strack Stemberger (introduction, 63)

* So Segal

Two Powers

Ongins”, 220-238

8-9

Cf also Bockmuehl, Jesus

5 See esp Urbach, Sages 630-648

13-14, Bammel, “Chnstian

Rabhinic and Hekhailot Literature

sions and economic differences Consequently, one must read much of the Rabbinic literature, particularly certain debates over Halakhah, as the work

of academics which may have had only limited influence on the common Jew

Haggadic matenal, on the other hand, was more popular in nature

Indeed, much of the Haggadic maternal directed toward those outside the academies

is homiletical

and,

therefore,

a The Angelology of the Rabbis Schafer has pomted out that while Rabbinic angelology stands in con tinuity with the angelologies of the Second Temple penod (particularly apocalyptic

works and the sectanan literature from Qumran),

the Rabbis

also seek to correct such angelologies, especially where the emphasis upon angels threatens either the principle of God’s sovereignty and ommipotence or humanity's direct access to God® Thus we find that one tendency in Rabbinic angelology emphasizes the uniqueness of the one God For exam ple, there are a number of Tannaitic texts which emphasize that God's

actions of redemption and revelation on behalf of Israel were direct acts by God alone, and were not accomplished "by means of an angel and not by means of a messenger" * This motif may have ornginated in opposition to groups the Rabbis deemed heretical,® and certainly counters any idea that Israel's redemption was accomplished by angels For other examples of this concern that angelology should serve monotheism, one could also point to the assertion of R_ Isaac (prob

pA3) that the angels were not created on

the first day so that no one would conclude that Michael or Gabriel aided God in creation,’ or the statement that angels “are sustained only by the splendour of the Shekhinah" '° Schafer argues that another tendency of Rabbinic angelology can be seen as a response to what the Rabbis viewed as the over-emphasis on angels mm apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works, 1e, the nvalry between angels and humans!! Passages to which this © Rivalitat, 41 74 esp 74 ? SifreDeut 42, 325, Mek Pisha 7, Shabbeta 1, and ARN B 1 The first four references are unattnbuted (hereafler UA) Cf Goldin's article “Not by Means*

3 So Segal, Two Powers, 64 ? GenR

{parallel in 3 8),

TanB

1 1, 1 12 (both UA), MidrPss 24.4 (R

Lulyam

Tabn = Juhanusb Tiberius T2 or T3) Cf 2En 29 1-3 10 FyodR 32.4 (R Haggw, pAd), ExodR 47 5 (UA) PesR 16.2 (R

Yudan [prob

in the name of R

pA3})

1) Rivalitar

Isaac [prob esp

pA3]), and NumR 21 16 (R

74 and 232-234

Isaac [prob

pA4]

Part ll

Michael in Jewish Literature

nvalry occurs mvariably contain a declaration of God’s preference for humanity This appears, for example, in the widespread tradition that the angels opposed the creation of humanity.'* If humanity in general was superior to the heavenly host, then this was especially true of Israel, God’s elect Thus ARN B 44 transforms R Aqiba’s statement in mAbot 3 14 about the pre-eminence of Israel to the rest of humanity into an affirmation of Israel’s supenonty to the angelic hosts Numerous other passages could be cited,'* but perhaps the most significant are those which favorably con trast Israel’s worship of God to that of the angels '4 This doctrine of the superionty of humans, and especially Israel, to the heavenly hosts 1s basic to Rabbinic angelology As Schafer'> quite nghtly contends, it serves to emphasize the election of Israel, because God superior even to heavenly beings '®

has chosen them,

they are

However, Rabbinic angelology also owes a great deal to the angelologies of the penod preceding the Rabbinic movement For example, the pnnciple, well illustrated throughout the Rabbinic corpus,'’ that angels are placed over the different phenomena of nature finds close parallels in apocalyptic writings (eg , JEn 60.11 24, 2En 19 3-4, Jub 2.2) The idea that angels do not eat or dnnk

12 19 '8

(GenR 48 11, ExodR 47 5) 1s at least as old as Tobit

The notion that angels are immortal and thus do not procreate

appears both in the Rabbimc corpus (bHag 16a, GenR 14 3) and in J Enoch

15 6 7 and Mark 12 25 pars '° The Rabbinic conception of angels as com posed of fire and ice (ARN B 24, MidrPss 104 7) appears to owe something

to the descnption of the heavenly world in apocalyptic works (Ezek Dan

7910,

12 Eg

/En

14825}

bSanh 38b (R

Finally,

13. Eg R

GenR 781 (R

Simeon ("})

SE gy

archangels

Simeonb Gamaliel [T3})

Meir [T3]

R Yehudah (prob

Yehudah [T4] and KR

Yehudah bar JIai [T3)), and

Yose [7])

ARN B27, GenR 65 21, SifreDeut 306.31

15 Rivalridt 232-234

1 14,

(Michael,

69, 0.12) argues that this tradition developed in opposihon to

MrdrPss 91 6 €R

bHul 9b

four

Yehudah [pA2} im the name of Rab [bA1]), tot 6.5 (UA)

PesR 14.9 (UA) Tan Wa-Yera 18 NumR193(R Ginzberg (Legends Gnostic doctrine

the

and Tan Kedoshim 6

(6 See below p 124 where I discuss the use of this same theme by some NT authors \7 See esp Schafer, Rivalitar 55 59 Cf also Lueken, Michael 53-SS (8 For a full discussion of this theme, cf Hannah, "“Docetic Chnstology” \? However, there was also an early tradition that except for the most celebrated angels,

such as Michael and Gabnel being bHag (8 21) naitic

the angels have no abiding existence

They are continually

created to praise God and once they have accomplished this task they cease to be So 13b-l4a (Rab, bA1) and GenR 781 (R Helbo, pA4) Early parallels in 4 Ezra and Justin Martyr (Dia! 128 4) demonstrate that this idea reaches back unto the Tanperiod

Rabbinic and Hekhalor Literature

Gabnel, Raphael, and Unel) which stand about the throne in /En 40 (cf 1QM 9 14 17) have this same function in late midrashim (NumR 2 10, PesR 46.3, PRE 4) °°

Although

both 1QM

9 14-17 and NumR 2 10 in varying

degrees draw on Num 2 2, /En 401s sufficiently different to counter the suggestion that the Rabbinic formulation may have resulted from an independent reflection on the same biblica) text

Michael According to the Rabbis

1} Continiaty and Change

As with the Rabbinic angelology in general, so in the Rabbime depiction of Michael we find a great deal of continuity with the apocalyptic and Qumfaman conceptions of Michael But some modifications appear as well This is especially clear in the increased importance attnbuted to Gabriel tn Rabbinic texts In the words of Ginzberg, “at least among the Babyloman Jews

Gabriel s

prestige

almost

equals

that

his

rival

Michael" 2!

However, Gabriel never eclipses Michael While the Rabbis may not have been uniform in their opinion as to which of the angels was the greatest, it appears that many Rabbis were content to speak of Michael and Gabniel as the Celestial Princes and leave the matter there 2? a) Michael as Highest Archangel

Nonetheless, there are good reasons to

surmise that when the question was asked the majority ascnbed this position to Michael First of all, Michael and Gabriel are clearly the most celebrated of the angels, as a quick glance at the appropnate concordances

of Rabbinic sources shows *} Secondly, on the few occasions when one of 20 Of course

/Fn

409

reads "Phanuel”

rather than “Unel*

while

1OM

9 15 has

*Sanel”

| Ginzberg

Legends

V 71

n 13

Support for such a statement can be found tn the

many paunngs of Michael and Gabnie] pA3])

TanBi

Yoha

T3)

| t2{UA)

and VurnR128(R

22 GenR 78 1(R

DewRS

e.g, GenR | 3 (parallel in 3.8 12(R

Yohanan

Helbo pAd)

Lem

prob

pA3)

CantR3

[R 11 (R

Isaac

prob

Simeonhb

pA2)

CantR37(R

Abo

pAd} NumR 113 (R Yudan pAd

of pAS in the name ofR Arbo pA4) 23 According ta a search of Rabbinic documents on CD Rom (Davka Judase Classical Library), Michael is mentioned 1n the Babylonian Talmud

18 umes and Gabriel 39 times

In the extra canonical tractates Michael appears an additional If times and Gabriel another 12 Metatron, by comparison only appears four times im the BT and not once in the extra canonical tractates Raphacl is mentioned three mes 1n the BT and a further eaght times in the the extra-canonical tractates Unel is never menttoned in the canonical wactates of the BT bul appears once in ARN In the whole of the Tosefta Michael appears once (sHul 2 18), but appears to he the only angel menboned by name Michael and Gabnel (pBer

Part Hi Michael in Jewish Literature

the Sages makes a statement about the comparative importance of these two archangels, Michael always ranks above Gabriel.

For example, in bBer 4b,

R Eleazer b Abina explicitly asserts "Greater is [the achievement] ascribed to Michael than that ascribed to Gabriel" *4 In addition, on the basts of a widespread exegesis of Gen 18 which identifies the three men who appeared to Abraham as Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael,** an early tradition concludes that Michael was the most important

of the three

For example, a baraita in bYoma 37a illustrates the principle,

that when a teacher walks with two of his students the teacher should be in the middle,

wath "and thus do we find that of the three angels who came to

visit Abraham, Michael went in the middle, Gabrel at his mght and Raphael at his left" 2° Similarly in GenR 4810, R Hiyya (prob pA3) maintains “on Tannaite authority" that Abraham addressed himself to Michael,

“the most important of them” 2?

Clearly then, at least some of the

Tannaim ranked Michael above Gabriel 78 5) Michael as Protector of Israel and Military Commander

Given Dan

10 21 and 12 1 it 1s not unexpected that the Rabbis would consider Michael 1X | 13a, pRH1 2 56d) are the only angels mentioned by name in the PT In the Haggadic Midrashim, including some very late documents, there is a crescendo of named angels Michael appears 238 times 24 bBer 4b also cites R

Gabnel [86

Metatron 119

Yohanan (A2) and an unnamed Tanna as authorities

the exegesis behind Ro Eleazer’s statement 25 bYoma 37a bBM 86b GenR 502 Michael was one of the three men 26 tas

Raphael 43, and Uriel 16 at least for

if not for the statement itself TAb A 646 and B 6,10-13 also affirms that

not altogether clear where the baraita ends

Since the principle but not the

illustration regarding the three archangels 1s also found in bEreh 54b, it 1s possible that the baratta included only the principle and that the illustration was added by the editor of

bYoma However on the basis of GenR 48 10 it seems that the bararta also included the Hjustration, and that bErub simply did not quote the whole of it 27 All my quotations of Mrdrash Rabbah and Simon.

are from the translation edited by Freedman

28 fn hus discussion of Dan 8 16 (CommDan 1), Jerome cites a Jewish tradition which identifies the unnamed angel, who directed Gabnel to explain the vision to Damel with Michael

Such a traditton implies Michael s supenorty

to Gabnel

Since Jerome con-

versed with Rabbis and perserved their oprmons in his commentaries, it 1s probable that we have here another Rabbinic tradition of Michael s pre-eminence However, since Jerome wrote his commentary on Daniet in 407 AD, this may only be a late Amorte opinion = See

the discussion in Braverman

Jerome

95-96

Mention could also be made here of the few scattered references to the mystertous fig

ure “the Pnnce of the World” (O92 104 24], bSanh 94a)

IW) (b¥eb 16b, bHul 60a [parallel m MrdrPss

This Utle clearly refers to an angelic figure of some importance

is not surprising, then, that late works attempted to Wentrfy him as Michacl (PRE 27) or Metatron (a tosafist on bHu!l 60a) See Scholem Jewish Gnosticism, 44-51 and Sepal "Ruler®, 247-248 405-406 1.18

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

as the angelic protector of Israel and military commander of the heavenly hosts What 1s somewhat surprising 1s the paucity of early texts in which Michael appears in these roles Indeed, Urbach can write that the Tannaim “assign no part to Michael in the past wars of Israel Only in the late Midrashim does Michael take his place as the Guardian Angel of Israel, who fights their battles,

"729

While it is correct that few,

if any, texts

which are certainly Tannaitic assign a military role to Michael, this may be explained as due to the genre of Tannaiatic texts, which are overwhelmingly concerned with halakhah, rather than haggadah

To be sure, the Midrashim

are full of stones in which Michael rescues Israel or individual Israelites from defeat or death However, these can only rarely be dated with confidence to the Tannaitic penod and very often parallel traditions can be found which attribute the same action to Gabriel, or another angel A good example of this is the complex of traditions concerning the identity of the angels who smote the camp of the Assyrians (2 Kgs 19 35) and rescued the three Hebrew children (Dan 3 25) One text identifies the first with Michael and the second with Gabrtel (ExodR 18 5),*° but it 1s not uncommon for the roles to be reversed (bSanh 26ab; GenR 44 13, CantR 1 12),3' while another text attmbutes both tasks to Gabriel {San 95b) 2

This complex of traditions provides an excejJent example of the tendencies to equate, or nearly equate, the importance of Michael and Gabriel and to substitute them in paralle) texts and related traditions 33 Many other exam

ples of Michael taking on a military role could be mentioned,» but others with Gabriel,** and occasionally other angels,** could also be enumerated 29 Urbach, Sages, 141

3%) R Nehemyah (T3)

However, Urbach (Sages

142-145) on the basis of purallel texts

argues that this is a [ate harmon:zation and that the attnbuuon 1s not to be trusted = Cf bSanh 94b (R Yehoshuab Qarha, T3) which does not name the angel 41 bSanh 26ab 1s unattmbuted, while GenR 44.13 and CantR | 12 both ate ‘our Rabbis” as authorities

32R R

Ehezerb

R Yose (T3), R Simeon b Yoha (T3) R Jeremyah b Abba (bA2),

{saac the Blacksmuth (A3)

and R Yohanan (pA2)

33 A further example appears in the Toseftot targumic tradition

Kasher ("Targums to

the Prophets” 172) notes that in the “Toseftot Targum” at 2 Kgs 19 35 the angel who smites Sennachenb and the Assyman army 1s Michael while at Ezek 1! and Isa 10 32 this same angel is identified with Gabriel 344E.g bBM 86b (UA) TanB9 15 (UA), 17 (R Yohanan, pA2); PRE 26 36, 38, 50 Targ Ps -Jon on Gen 38 25-26 35 E.g , bShab SSa(R Ahab R Hanna, pA3), bSor 10b (R Eleazer prob pA3), 12b (R Yohanan, pA2), 13b (Rab, bAI), LamR 2 1 (Resh Lagish, pA2) Significantly Ongen, who seems to have had some knowledge of rabbinic traditions, identifies Gabriel not Michael as the angel charged with “the supervising of wars” (Princ 181) Cf also Jerome CommDan 1 8 16 36 Eg, in GenR 50 2 (UA) Raphael is sent to rescue Lot but according to DBM 86b (UA) it 1s Michael

100

Part ll

Michael in Jewish Literature

Clearly, the Rabbis did not consider Michael to be the only angel fulfilling

military roles, nor was he the only archangel who led the heavenly hosts

As patrons of Israel, Michael and Gabriel not only share military functions,

they

also

intercede

for Israel 3’

The

rabbis

viewed

the angelic

patrons of [srae] not only as their protectors agarnst earthly enemies in a military sense, but also as their advocates in the spintual realm This 1s especially illustrated in the many legends in which Satan or Sammael accuses Israel or individual Israehtes before God and Michael acts as their

defender *8 c) Michael as Heavenly High Prest intercessor

is that

heavenly

high

Related to the task of heavenly pnest

In common

with

certain

apocalypses and the Qumran sect, the rabbis envisioned a heavenly cult,3? in which Michael served as high priest Three passages in the Babylonian Talmud,

all of which cite early Amorarm

(Hag

allude to Michael's high priestly office *

12b, Men

110a, Zeb 62a)

The most significant of these

states

Zebul (the fourth heaven) 1s that in which [the heavenly] Jerusalem and the Temple and the Altar are built, and Michael, the great Prince,

stands and offers thereon an offering

(bHag 12b) *!

If the attributions tn these passages are correct, then we can safely date this tradition to the third century However there are persuasive reasons for

thinking that the tradition 1s a good deal earher

First of all, Ongen seems

to be familiar with this tradition for he held that Michael was the angel over

"the prayers and supplications of mortals” “? For the tradition to have been cutrent in Babylon, Palestine, and Alexandra

must have been substantially earlier 1? ExodR 185 (R

Yehudah

14)

tn the third century, tts origin

Further, parallels*? from apocalyptic

RuthR procm 1 (R

Yohanan

pA2), and bYoma 77a

{R Ash bA6} The first two references menuon only Michael The third includes two passages on ths theme, the first concerns Michael and the second Gabne} This, however,

1s the only such reference to Gabriel as Israel's heavenly intercessor I have found

Note

also that in LamR Proem 24 (UA) Metatron intercedes for Israc]

38 Esp the saying of R pA2)

PRE 27

Yose [”] in ExodR 185

Cf also DewtR 11 10(R

For this theme in Jewish apocalyptic literature

39 bHag 12b (Resh Laqish [pA2])

bTaan 5a(R

see above pp

Yohanan, pA2) pYoma vii 2.44b (R

Hiyya bar Abba, TS}, pBeriv.5 8c (R Hiyya bar Abba, T5)} 40 bHag 12b Resh Lagish (pA2) bMen 110a (= MidrPss 1341) the name of Rab (bAI), and bZeb 62a

Eleazer

Yohanan,

41-42

probably R

Giddal (bA2) mn

Eleazer ben Pedat (pA3)

43 All my citations of BT follow the text and translation found in Epstein s edition 42 Princ 181

TLevi 5 6 and 3Bar 11 16

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Liverature

10)

literature suggest that this was already a well established tradition by the second century at the latest. Finally, the probable :dentificauon of Michael with Melchizedek at Qumran, points toward a date in the first century B.C.# In an important article,*5 Ego has argued cogently that the destruction of

the Temple caused a modification in the tradition concerning the heavenly sanctuary Before AD 70 it served to legitimize the earthly cult of Jerusalem, by stressing its heavenly parallel After the fall of Jerusalem, when there was no earthly cult, it began to be seen as a replacement for the Jerusalem temple This 1s especially clear in bMen 110a, where Michael's service in the heavenly temple 1s used to solve the difficulty created after AD 70 by the statement in 2 Chr 2 3-4 that the temple sacnfices were Israel’s eternal duty * Even 1f Michael's role in the tradition originated with this change of emphasis, this would fix his place in the tradition by the closing decades of the first century at the latest

The earliest reference*’ to Gabriel as high priest that | have found is the statement of R

Yohanan (A2) in LamR 2 14 that Gabnel, "the man clothed

in linen" of Ezek 9 2, “served in three capacities as scribe, executioner, and High Pnest" If this attribution is correct and if the passage is authentic, then we have a high priestly reference to Gabnel nearly as early

as the earliest such reference to Michael found in Rabbinic sources 4? However, R Yohanan’s statement stands alone with only very late and tenuous support, while the tradition that Michael serves in the heavenly sanctuary 18 mentioned, not only by at least four early Amoraic authonities, but also in early non-Rabbinic documents as well Besides

Gabnel,

other

include Metatron (NumR

heavenly

12 12, R

high

Simon,

priests

Rabbinic

literature

pA3), Melchizedek (Yalgut Wa-

yishlah 132),5° Eliyjah-Phineas and Moses *! However, none of these exam ples are as widespread or as early as the tradition which places Michael in

the heavenly sanctuary

44 See above pp 70-74 45 Epo, "Diener"

4 Epo, “Diener”, esp 370-371

47 Cf also TanB Saw |, and Balak 16

48 The text of this passage, however, 1s far from certan this text speaks of Michael, not Gabriel

In Buber's edition of LamR

The English translation of Cohen (Soncino edi-

tion), which reads “Gabnel” follows MSS cited in Buber’s apparatus Stemberger (Introduction, 310-311) for the poor state of LamR’s text

49 T ¢., bMen 110a, Rab (Al)

5° See Lueken Michael, 31 5! For the last two see Ego, “Diener*, 374-377

See Strack-

102

Pan I

Michael in Jewish Literature

ad) Michael's Eschatological Functions

In some,

mostly late, Rabbinic

texts Michael functions as one of the angels who guides souls of the righteous to heaven or paradise and as the angel who ushers in the Eschaton

The latter function is based upon Danie] 12 1

The former, as

we have seen, has parallels in Jewish apocalyptic literature *? DeutR

|1 10 describes the death and bunal of Moses

very simular to that of the Testament of Abraham

Gabnel and then Michael to fetch Moses’ soul they

are

not

worthy

God

sends

Its basic plot 1s

God first dispatches

Both archangels object that

Sammael,

the

angel

of death

However, Moses refuses to die and in the end God Himself must attend to his soul After Moses’ death Michael, Gabriel, and Zagzagel bury his body *? Although other versions of Moses’ death, which do not mention Michael, occur in earlier sources (SifreDeut 305 [UA], ARN A 12 [UA], ARN B 25), the lost ending of Assumption of Moses, as cited in Jude 9,

shows Michael was very early associated with the death of Moses On the basis of the prophecy of Daniel 12 1 some Rabbis envisioned Michael as a major player in the eschatological salvation of Israel Most

affirmations and allusions to Michael's eschatological functions among the Rabbis are late One of the clearest, however, 1s attributed to R Yehudah ha-Nast (T4) And just as the Holy One, blessed be He, wrought in this world by the

hand of Michael and Gabnel, so He will act through them in the time to come, for it is said (Obad 21} ‘And Saviours shall come up on Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau"

this refers to Michael and Gabriel

But our holy master [1e , R Yehudah ha-Nasi] said Michael by himself, (ExodR 18 5) *

This refers to

It is quite possible that, despite the attmbution, this 1s a late text ** nificantly

this text

records

two

interpretations

in one

Michael

Sigalone

ushers im the eschaton and im the other he ts joined by Gabnel e) Summary To summarize traditions concerning Michael

the evidence thus far presented, Rabbinic closely parallel earlier Jewish traditions

found in writings from the Second Temple period

One very important dif-

52 See above p 46

53 This portion of DewtR may be as late as AD 800 See Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, 335 54 Note also Targ Ps -Jon on Deut 343 Signs of the Messrah (ODA Mw, BHM 11,58-62) 8-9, and compare ExodR 32 9 with ExodR 2.5

55 The attribution is at best, doubtful ure that many

ExodR 1s late and R Yehudah was of such stat-

later sayings were attnbuted to him

Urbach, Sages, 145

Rabbinic and Heialot Literature

103

ference, however, 1s the increased stature of Gabnel and the implicst rivalry

between the two archangels, which at bmes becomes explicit.** How is this to be explained? Did the Rabbis attempt to counterbalance certain claims made by sectanan groups for the highest archangel by emphasizing that Michael was only one of nv heavenly princes, both of whom were merely servants of God and Israel? Since, for at least some of the Rabbis,

Michael! remains supenor to Gabriel,5? I do not think we can

conclude that this was so. A more likely explanatron 1s to be found in the authonty which the Rabbis accorded the Biblical text, especially Dame), over against other apocalyptic works and the wntings from Qumran In the Book of Damel, once the identiftcation of the "Son of Man" was forgotten, neither Michael nor Gabriel seems particularly superior to the other (10,12-11 1) and Michael 1s explicitly said to be only “one of the chief princes”, which leaves open the possibility that Gabriel is also a chief pnnce The only clue in Daniel to Michael's superiority 1s his responsibility for Israel, a responsibility which, as we have seen, he shares with Gabne! in the Rabbinic matenal Those Rabbis who affirmed Michael's promimence probably owed this understanding, whether consciously or unconsciously, to non-canonical writings

I turn now to two further issues of considerable importance; the possibility of a Michael-cult opposed by the Rabbis and some significant parallels between Rabbinic and Chnstian exegesis of 37° 4X7 passages in the OT.

%6 Esp

6BB 75a (R

Samuel b Nahmam, pA3)}

57 See above pp 97-98 53 The sdentificanon of this figure with Michael while probably onginal, was clearly not held by the Rabbis Cf Horbury, "Messanic Associations”, 45-48, and Segal, Two Powers, 47-49

104

Part [])

Michael in Jewtsh Literature

2) Rabbinic Evidence for a Michael Cult?

Along with general prohibitions against making and worshipping images of angels, there 1s a senes of warnings in Rabbinic wntings which make explicit reference to Michael] This raises the question of whether there existed a cult of Michael which the Rabbis felt the need to condemn The earliest of these warnings appears in the Tosefta He who slaughters for the sake of the sun, for the sake of the moon, for the sake of the stars, for the sake of the planets, for the sake of

Michael, prince of the great host, and for the sake of the small wormlo, this 1s deemed to be flesh denving from the sacnfices of corpses

(tHul 2 18) °! This

and

1s based

only

upon

sacrifices

wildernesses the Mishnah Mishnah has speaking are reference to

mHul

2 8 where,

"in honour

however,

of"**

Michael

mountains

hills,

is not

seas,

mentioned

mvers,

and

are prohibited The gemara on this (bHul 40a) compares both and Tosefta readings There Abaye (bA4) explams that the m view only sacnfices to inanimate objects, which strictly not idolatry However, the baraita, since tt includes a Michael has in view the spints or ‘gods’ behind these

inanimate objects and thus refers to idolatry

If Abaye correctly understood

the baratta, then clearly pagan, over against Jewish, cult practices are in view Indeed, the accusation that the ‘gods’ of the Gentiles are merely 59 In the following discussion | wall discuss the possibility of the worship or veneration of angels

However

a defimuon of “worship” or “veneration” 15 exceedingly difficult’

phenomenological approach allows a defininon based on practices rather than abstractions Thus by “cult” or "cultic veneration" or “worship”

I mean practices, esther corporate or

individual, which 1) express or imply the divinity of the being or beings addressed and which 2) have the sanction of a religious group or sect

Venerative actions unique to an

individual are not included =| concentrate on venerative actions rather than venerative language, not because the Jalter ts ummportant, but because the former offers a surer cntenon for worship Hyperbole and metaphor may be misunderstood in ways liturgical actions wil] not be To be sure, venerative actions and language need not be mutually exclusve; venerative language sung as a hymn or offered as a prayer often constitute an act of veneraton

Hurtado

One God, 11 15

contrast Stuckenbruck, Ange! Veneration,

13.14

51 ” E.g , Mek

Bahodesh 10 (R

Ishmael, prob

T2} and Targ

6! Neusner's Translation with one vanation However, “worm” 1s a probable translauon Ange! Veneranon, 59-61

Cf Jastrow

Epstein’s edition of bHu! 40a

2 Or “for the sake of* (O(1}@5)

Jon

on Ex

20,22 23

Neusner only transliterates Seow Dictonary, 1589 Stuckenbruck

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

105

angels appears to have been a regular feature of Jewish and Rabbinic polemic, For instance, in DeutR 2,34 when God descends to Mt Sinai with his angels some of the nations choose Michael as their patron, others Gabnel © Significantly, the above baraita appears once more in the Babylonian Talmud (AZ 42b) where again it points to a pagan, rather than Jewish context In response to the prohibition against using utensils with images of the sun, moon, or a dragon engraved upon them (mAZ 3 3), the editor of the gemara asks “Is this to say that [the heathens] worship these objects and no others?" He then cites the baraita as proof that this 1s not so The Gentiles worship many objects * A parallel to tHul 2 18 in Mek Bahodesh 6, in which the debate is between R

Gamaliel (prob, T2) and a

Gentile philosopher, 1s further evidence that this series of texts may have

onginated in disputes with pagans * However, it is to be remembered that the Rabbis were never as concerned with attacking pagan ideas as they were with preventing or correcting aberrant Jewish practices This suggests two probabilities. either the Rabbis wished in these texts to prevent the corrupting influence of pagan religion, or that influence was already a reality which needed correcting In the former instance, this senes of passages reflects a perceived danger from the pagan environment

In case of the latter option, this complex of

texts would refer either to isolated syncretistic practices or an organized sect influenced by pagan ideas

In favor of the former option are two considerations of mountains,

First, the mention

hills, mvers, and seas suggests a hypothetical situation,

for

there 1s little or no evidence that these objects were worshipped by syn cretistic or sectarian Jews Second, and more importantly, the fact that Michael 1s paired with "the small worm” underlines the hypothetical nature of the whole list The worm can only be an example of hyperbole The same

therefore

1s probably

Michael and the worm

true of Michael

well

to the list of natural phenomena,

The

addition

then, probably

serves merely to emphasize the point already present in the Mishnah

Only

God may be worshipped In the words of Schafer, "Man darf niemandem opfern--weder dem héchsten noch dem mednmgsten Geschdpf--als Gott

63 Segal (Two Powers,

138) would apply this passage to “groups other than Israel”,

presumably meaning Christians or Gnostics seems to suggest pagans

But “nations of the world” (DA

Nix)

64 The subject "heathens" 1s not actually present but given the context of mAZ 3 3 it 1s surely intended

65 This parallel, however, does not mention Michael or "the little worm"

106

Part Il

Michael in Jewish Literature

allem” ° If an actual Michael cult were being attacked in these texts, it 1s unlikely that it would be merely alluded to in this way, rather than attacked outright 6?

This 1s especially so given the explicit manner

in which

the

“Two Powers” heresy 1s attacked in Rabbinic writings ° On the other hand, there 1s plenty of evidence that some Jews, especially those within groups which practised magic, regularly invoked angels

This fact, coupled with the statement in Col

2 18 and certam accusations

found in Patristic wntings, has led many scholars to conclude that tHuu/ 218 and its parallels were directed against the second option mentioned above

the worship of angels,

either mm the form

of isolated syncretistic

practices or of an orgamzed angel cult However, this is a questionable conclusion While Jewish invocation of angels, Col 2 18 and the Patristic allegations of angel worship may offer independent evidence for a sectanan Jewish angel cult, they do not address the difficulties, just mentioned, one encounters when reading rHu/ 2 18 as anything other than hypothetical,

Furthermore, Col

2 18 and the Patristtc assertions offer doubtful evi-

dence of a Jewish Angel cult

Beginning with the NT passage, it 1s often

assumed or asserted that the @onoxeie TOY ayyéAwv Of Col

read

objective

genitive,

1e,

worship

which

2 18 should be

ts directed

toward

angels 7! However, many interpreters in recent years have argued that it 1s a subjective genitive and refers to the heavenly worship which angels offer and which the false teachers at Colossae have seen and participated in

& Schafer Rivalitat

However

despite this statement Schafer believes sHul 2 18 1s

evidence for an angel cult Needless to say, the fact that Michael was chosen to represent the "hochsten™ of creatures ts further indtcation of his supremacy among angets in rabbinic

angelology

©? Cf Hurtado One God 30-32

88 Cf e.g , Mek Bahodesh 5 bHag 15a, Sanh 38b Cf Theodoret of Cyrus (393-466) attack on a Michael cult active in Asta Minor in his day in his commentary on Col 218 He asserts that the Council of Laodicea {(c 350 AD)

condemned these practices If Theodoret 1s mght there may have been a Michael cult among Christians of Asia Minor in the fourth century However the canons of the council do not expheitly mennon Michael, only the invoking of angels

In any case, the Chnistian

Michael cult known to Theodoret 1s probably too far removed, both temporally and spavally, to be identified wath the practices which exercised the Rabbis The witness of the Tosefta shows the latter practices must date from the mud-third century or carlier

and sug

gests a Palestinian context 69 See esp

0 So eg

Arnold

Lueken

Svacretrsm

32-60

Michael,

6-7, Urbach,

Mach, Entwicklung tstadien, 297-299

7) Lightfoot stans, 118 119

Colossrans

LOL-104

Stuckenbruck

Schweizer,

Pokorny, Colossians, 113 115

Sages,

182

Schafer

Rrvalitdt

69-70,

Ange! Veneration, 59-63

Colossians,

158-160'

Lohse

Colos

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

through visions.”* For this participation angelic worship we have many significant Chnistian texts from the turn of the eras (e 22 {formerly 3 20-22]; ApAb 17; Ascents and Sabbath Shirot, 4Q400 2167)

107

of the mystic m heavenly and parallels in Jewish and Jewish g , 1QSb 4 25-26; IQH 11 207 13-9 33, cf also 1QSa 2 3ff

These texts demonstrate that the con-

cept of visionary participation in angelic worship was widespread among

Jews and Chnstians in the first two centunes of our era 7? Since. as I hope to show, the evidence for Jewish culttc veneration of angels is very meagre, indeed it 1s restricted to the invoking of angels in the context of magical syncretism,

I conclude

that

it 1s best

understand

the @pnoxeww

ror

ayyéAwr either as a subjective gemtive and to take it as referring to visionary participation in the angelic worship of God’ or as polemical

rhetoric

against magical practices and not a fully fledged Angel cult.’5 Of course, not all accept that the evidence for Jewish worship of angels

1S meagre, and the accusations of Anstides, Jerome, the Kerygma of Peter, and Celsus have been cited to support taking @pnoxsia tov ayyéAwr as an objective genitive

But it 1s precisely their polemical

nature which makes

these accusations highly questionable evidence Each of these explicitly accuses Jews, as a whole, of worshipping angels, even if madvertently

72 So

Rowland

“Apocalyptic

Visions",

Carr

Angels

and

Principalities,

66-72,

Hurtado, One God, 32 33 andesp Francs, “Humility” 73 The objections raised to reading @pyoxecer Ty cryyfAwr as a subjective genitive have

not been convincing Francis’ ("Humility 181-182) response to Lohse could also be applied to Schweizer (Colossians, 159) The reference to “self made worship” (&Pedobpnoxua, VS 23) need not imply that the actions of humans alone are im view Arnold’s (Syncretism, 91 93) citation of examples in which Spyoxsia 1s coupled with a subjective gemlive (4 Mace

5 7, Josephus Am

x11 253)

xvi 115, J W

ou 198, and Chanton

De Chaerea et Callirhoe vu 6.6) removes any force to his argument

He asserts that

because of the vast majority of occurrences of Gpnoxela with a gemtive noun are objective,

“the writer of Colossians would have pntended the genitive expression tay ory yéAwy as the object of the noun épyoxeio if he did not, his readers would surely have misunderstood him" The very examples Arnold offers shows that this 1s simply not so If the readers of Colossians would certainly have been subject to misunderstanding

so would the readers of

4 Maccabees, Josephus and Chanton.

74 Stuckenbruck (Angel Veneraton, 119) argues that a subjechve geninve does not nule out the possibility ofa culuc worship directed to angels

He suggests that it may have been

felt that visionary participation in the angels’ worship could tempt the seer to worship the angels themselves While Stuckenbruck's observation is techmially correct it does not offer any positive evidence for an angel cult

75 Cf Amold's conclusions, Syncretism, 101-102

108

Part ll

For example,

Anstides

c 117 161, states

Michael in Jewish Literature

tn his Apology

{Syriac

recension

only),

wntten

"In the methods of their actions their service 1s to angels

and not to God, in that they observe sabbaths and new moons and the pas

sover and the great fast, and the fast, and circumcision, and cleanness of meats" "© The context of this passage makes it clear that Aristides realizes the Jews acknowledge only the one true God and their intention 1s to worship Him However, he believes that due to their legalistic practices the Jews actually end up serving angels rather than God Similarly, Jerome, on

the basis of Acts 7 42, argues that because of their sins, especially that of rejecting the Messiah, the Jews have been given over to serve the heavenly host {Ep cxx1 10) The same type of reasoning appears to be at work in a

fragment

from

Alexandna

the Kerygma

(Strom

vi5 41)

of Peter preserved and

Ongen

both

(CommJo

in Clement

x17)

of their

ignorance, the Jews think they serve God by their ntual feasts, but actually worship angels,

as well as the month

and the moon,

which

1s shown

their inability to keep the feasts if the moon does not appear. These texts tell us more about anti-Jewish Christian polemic, than about the actual practices of Jews " One wonders if they may not all three be based on a misunderstanding of Col

2 18,** Jerome’s comments,

at any rate, are in

response to a question concerning this very text 7 Celsus also asserts that Jews worshipped angels (Cels

126, v6)

Three

things should be stated regarding Celsus’ accusations First, Origen rejects the truth of these statements Given that 1) Ongen was well mformed about Judaism 1n his day, that 2) he had no particular reason to defend the

practices of Jews, and that 3) Celsus was dependent upon pagan polemic,*" it would

appear

mstance *!

that

Ongen

1s the

trustworthy

authority

in this

Second, Celsus contradicts the assertion of Kerygma of Peter

that Jews worship the moon, for he states that while they worship the heaven and the angels in it, they neglect the most sacred heavenly objects Sun,

moon,

7© Chapt

fixed stars, and planets (Cels

14°

Trans from Williams

vy 6)

Thus Celsus can scarcely

“Cult” 426

7? So Willams, “Cult”, 426-428, and Hurtado 78 So Longenecker Christology 31, n.22

One God, 33-34

79 Amold's (Syncretism, 59) argument, that the consistency of the Fathers’ testimony suggests that there may be something behind tt, 1s odd §=Once a polemical charge becomes fixed at will circulate with a great deal of consistency, but need not have any histoncal basis

Consider the common

slur that Gypstes steal children or the medieval

polemic that Jews worshipped Satan.

80 Cf Cels 121-24, and Chadwick (ed }, Contra Celswmn, sux 81 So Hurtado

One God

Christian

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

109

be used to confirm the witness of Kerygma of Peter ®? Finally, Celsus (1 26, v9) connects Jewish angel worship with sorcery and magic Ongen’s response 1s ambivalent here, he allows that there may be some Jews who practise sorcery, thereby contravening the Jewish Law, and have thus been led into angel worship

This connection with sorcery 1s significant, for the best evidence for the Jewish veneration of angels consists of certain inscmptions and amulets in which angels are invoked However, all or nearly all of these suggest an origin in Jewish circles influenced by magical syncretism *? These inscnptions and amulets demonstrate that in both a Jewish and a pagan setting angels could be invoked for protection, healing, success in business, venge

ance on enemies, etc ** The connection with magic indicates that this was m all probability a syncretistic practice, and not necessarily shared by mainstream Judaism Even Arnold, whose discussion of the issue 1s extensive, must admit that his evidence "does not point to an organized cult

in which angels were worshipped in the same way as Yahweh--with ascriptions of praise and glory, with singing and praying, with sacrifices, etc” § There is, however, at least one Rabbinic text which offers evidence for Jewish prayers being addressed to angels outside of magical syncretistic crr-

cles

In pBer

1x 12 13a, R

Yudan (pA4) places in God’s mouth “If on a

man comes trouble, let him not invoke Michael and let him not invoke Gabnel, but let him invoke me, and |] will immediately hear him" This

rejection of prayers addressed to Michael and Gabnel is very gentle and eschews polemic It follows, then, that rather than a fully fledged angel cult, R Yudan 1s reacting to a practice of a popular nature, the uninformed activity of the ‘am ha'aretz

If this 1s so, then tnvocation of angels was

practised by some common Jews at least in Amoraic times and perhaps earlier However, it is unlikely that such a practice would have been widespread among

the Rabbis themselves and we can probably fimmt it to

the populace Nonetheless, we must certainly distinguish between prayers being addressed to angels and the popular concept of angels interceding for humans or delivering prayers to God ** As we have seen, the latter 1s early

82 So Williams, "Cult", 427 83 See Arnold

“Mediator Figures“, idem Syncretism, 32-60

Cf also Stuckenbruck

Angel Veneranon, 181-200

$4 Arnold, "Mediator Figures”, 26-28

85 Syncrensm, 101

idem, Syncretssm

11-47

Note also p 59, where he qualifies his conclusion that some Jews

venerated angels “ this is worship and veneration in a qualitatrvely different manner from the early Christian worship of Chnst" 86 So also Mach Entwicklungsstadien, 299-300

110

Part il

Michael in Jewtsh Literature

and widespread,*? and apparently received the sanction of the Rabbis ** The former idea, while it may have been a popular practice, was rejected by the Rabbis, probably on the grounds that since it approached worship, it compromised monotheism to a unacceptable degree To summarize my arguments to this point, no compelling evidence has

been produced for a Michael cult among Jews of the Rabbimec period

Nor

1s there sufficient evidence to conclude that cultic veneration of angels was practised among Jews beyond the invocation of angels

Such invocation 1s

especially evident among certain syncretistic circles who adopted magical practices and beliefs from the surrounding pagan culture, but it also took

place among the ‘wn ha’aretz (pBer 1x 12 13a) Since R Yudan mentions both Michael and Gabnel, it would seem Michael was not singled out as the only angel to whom prayers were addressed Finally, the Rabbis opposed prayer to angels, but allowed the idea that angels transported prayers from earth to heaven This is not to say that some “Jewish” sects did not worship heavenly beings 1 turn now to a passage which clearly suggests that at least one "sectarian" group did

In bSanh 38b a debate between Rabb: Idith (A4")

and a Min, or heretic, 1s recorded

R Nahman sai¢ He who 1s skilled in refuting the Minum as is R= [dith, let him do so, but not otherwise Once a Min said to R Idith It 1s writen, “And unto Moses He said, Come up to the Lord” (Ex 24 1) But surely it should have stated, “Come up to me!" It was Metatron {who said that], he rephed, whose name ts similar to that of His Master, for it 1s written, “For My name is in Him” (Ex 23 21) But if so, [he

retorted] we should worship him! The same passage however, replied R Idith--says "Be not rebellious against Him”, 1 e , exchange Me not

for him

But if so, why is it stated

§="He will not pardon your trans

gression?” (Fx 2321) He answered By our troth we would not accept him even as a messenger, for it ts wntten “And he said unto

Him, If Thy [personal] presence go not etc "(Ex

33 15) *

Here the Min is presented as arguing from Ex 241 that there are two divine figures the second of which had the divine name 717? ~R_Idith ans

87 For Jewish apocalyptic see above pp 32 45-46 for aheavenly cultus

Cf also the evidence from Qumran

60-61

88 Sor 33a (Rab [bAl] and R Yohanan [pA2]) MtdrPss 43 (R Yudan |prob pA4]) and MidrPss 19 7 (R

Pinhas [T4 or pAS] in the name of R

Abba [7})

89 There is some question on the entities of R Nahman and R Idith Powers, 68) dates them mud to late third century

Segal (Twe

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

wets, on the basis of Ex

il]

23 21, that the speaker of this verse was merely

an angel, Metatron,™ whose name 1s simtlar to the Name of God This prompts the Min to suggest that this angel should be worshipped R= Idith responds with a word play on “Be not rebellious (7M) against Him"

23 21), interpreting it as “exchange (727"9N) Me not for him"

(Ex

The Min

then points to this figure’s authority to forgive stn as further evidence that

he 1s to be worshipped R= Idith then appeals to Ex 33.15 Significantly, st 1s R Idith, not the Min who introduced Metatron into the debate Apparently, Metatron was considered to be merely an angel, and thus, for the Rabbis, a safe alternative to the Min s contention that of

the two divine figures the second was named 7171" 7! This suggests that the Min may have been a Jewish Christian for there ts evidence that some Christians interpreted Ex

23 20-21

to refer to Christ (e g , Acts of Pilate

16 6, cf also John 17 11 12, Phil 2 9) I would suggest the Min was a Jewish Chnstian because the debate seems to be dependent upon both parties knowing

Hebrew

or Aramaic

Urbach,%?

Hurtado,™

and,

wath

some reservations, Segal® al] accept this identification of the Min with a Christian Merkavah

Segal mystic

also tentatively proposes the posstbrility that he was a However, as we shall see below, much of current

scholarship dates Merkavah mysticism too late to be a viable option

3) Rabbime and Chnsnan Exegesis of 117? XM passages Although not universal, there appears to have been a tendency among some rabbis to identify the 117? 4X70 in certain OT passages with Michael

Significantly,

early Church

% See below pp 9! §o also Segal

Fathers usually identified the "angel of the

119 12] for the probable identification of Metatron with Michael Two Powers 72

Note that according to Abba Hilft b Samkai (pA?) in the name of R cited in GenR $] 2

one of the two A"

in Gen

19 24 stands for Gabriel!

Yehudah (pA2) The editor of

GenR immediately adds two explanations by R Eteazer (T3) and R Isaac (prob pA3) which render Abba Hilfi's unnecessary So this is al best a late, minority opimon susm ciausly close to Merkavah mysticism

% See below pp 143-146 Segal {Twe Powers

70) also appeals to Jesus

2 7) as evidence that the Mur is a Chnstian

93 Sages, 139 % One God, 32 Two Powers, 70-73

claim to be able to forgive sins (Mark

112

Part Il

Michael in Jewtsh Literature

Lord" in these same passages with the pre-incarnate Chnst

A full investi-

gation of the Fathers on this issue will have to wait until a later chapter However, the corresponding Rabbinic and patristic mterpretatrons of Gen 18-19, Gen 32 24-30, and Ex 32 raise the poss:bility of some contact between Rabbinic Michael traditions and early chnstology As we have seen,*’ a Tannaitic tradition not only identifies the three angels who visited Abraham in Gen 18 with Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael

(bYoma 37a, bBM 86b, GenR 48 10, 50 2), but also affirms that Michael was the most important of these three (bYoma 37a, GenR 48 10) ber of early Fathers, including Justin Martyr (Dial 56, 126),

A numIrenaeus

(Dem 44), and Tertullian (Prax xvi), saw in Abraham’s visitors the premearnate Chnst and two angels * This Chnstian interpretation may have begun in the first century for the Fourth Gospel records Jesus’ claam that he had previously

revealed

himself to Abraham

(John 8 56)”

In addition,

R Yohanan (pA2) believed that Michael was the 719° qX?% who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (ExodR 2 5),'” while Justin (Dial 59-60, ! Apol

63), Irenaeus (Dem

xvi) would see Christ here and

much

less uniform,

wrestled with Jacob '°!

46, Adv

Haer

iv 10 1), and Tertullian (Prax

Finally, although the Rabbinic tradition 15 later some

rabbis asserted

that

it was

Michael

who

Early Fathers again view this event as a manifesta

tion of the pre-incarnate Chnst Justin (Dial 58 10, 1263) Alexandna (Paed 17), and Tertulhan (Prax xiv)

Clement of

What 1s the sigmficance of these parallels? Does the Christian exegesis presuppose knowledge of Rabbinic tradition, or 1s the Rabbinic imterpretation a reaction against the Chnstian tendency to read Chnst into the OT? Or, conversely, are the two independent of each other?

ee rer

% See below pp 202-212

% See above pp 97 98

98 Later Fathers would identify the three with the Tnaity

See Miller, Encounters, 48

% However, Miller (Encounters 194 n 206) notes that Hilary of Portiers seems to have been the first to appeal to John 8.56 in connection with Gen 18

100 However, R Hanina {pAl) disagrees and identifies the angel with Gabriel What follows however makes tt clear that it was R Yohanan s opinion which prevailed, at least in the opinion of the editor of Exodus Rabbah

10! So TanB 87 (R

Berekhyah

pAS)

Targ

Ps-Jon

Gen

3225

Midrash Ablar

(according to Ginzberg, Legends V 305, 0.248) R Helbo (pA4) believes that the angel was erther Michael or Gabriel, but he does not commit himself to one or the other (GenR

781)

R Hama bar Hanna (pA2) wentifies tus angel with the guardian angel of Esau

(GenR 77 2-3, CantR 3 6) while PRE 37 names the angel “Israel”

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

113

First of all st should be noted that Justin, through Trypho,'* appears to have been acquainted with Rabbinic exegesis of Gen 18 and Ex 32 Both Trypho

(Dial

56 5) and

bBM

Abraham received two visions angels.

86b

interpret Gen

18 1-2 to mean

that

the first of the Lord, the second of three

In contrast, Justin would

wnterpret Gen

18 1 2 to mean

that the

Lord appeared to Abraham as one of the three "men" Justin thus sees 18 | as a general statement about the vision, while 18 2ff describes the contents of the vision Trypho and bBM 86b, on the other hand, separate the first verse from the second and assume two different visions are being related Furthermore, Trypho relates that two of the angels were sent to destroy Sodom, the other to announce to Sarah the birth of Isaac, "and having

accomplished his errand, went away" GenR

502

that

“Michael

To this compare the statement in

announced

his

tidings

[to

Abraham]

and

departed"! However, it 1s significant that we find no indications of the angels’ names in Justin's debate with Trypho All this suggests that Trypho, and through him Justin, may have been familiar with an earlier form of the tradition contained in bBM 86b and GenR 50 2, one to which

the names of Michael, Gabnel, and Raphael were not yet attached Similarly, Trypho seems to have been familiar with an early form of Rabbime exegesis of Ex 3 2 as well For Justin quotes his argument that both God and an angel were present in the burning bush "there were really two persons in company with each other, an angel and God, that appeared in that vision" (Dial 601) This recalls ExodR 25 where Michael accompames the Shekinah in the vision to Moses at the burning bush

Clearly then, some Rabbinic traditions concerning Gen were

known

him_—

Significantly,

18 and Ex

3 2 pre-date Justin

and

however,

177 with Michael

One cannot, then, rule out the possibility that the Rab-

does not appear to be familiar with the Rabbinic identification of the J?x%

bime and Chnistian interpretations of these OT 107° 7X7 passages are 1n some way related Nevertheless, this seems unlikely for the following

reasons The Rabbinic texts are free of polemic, which would be expected if they were a reaction against the Chnstian tendency to read Chnst into the

Further, although the Rabbinic identification of the 717° 4X9” with

Michael in Gen

18 was contemporary with Justin,'93 and although he was

clearly familiar with other aspects of Rabbinic exegesis of this passage, he provides no evidence that he knew of the Michael tdentification

102 Assuming that Trypho was a real person that he 1s merely a Jiterary creation of Justin s

Goodenough (Theology

Finally

% 93) argues

But see Barnard, Justin, 23-24

103 That us, if the appeals to Tannaitic authonty in bYoma 37a and GenR 48 10 are correct

114

Part Il

Michael in Jewish Literature

while it appears that some Christians did indeed equate Michael and Chnist! this 1s not true of any of the Fathers discussed here It seems best to conclude, then, that the two tendencies are probably independent of each other

Conclusions

I return to the suggestion that Gabriel’s increased significance in Rab-

binic literature served to counterbalance speculation about Michael as the

highest of the archangels

No firm evidence for such motivation on the part

of the Rabbis exists A Michael cult would be a clear example of heretical speculation which could very well have prompted the Sages to demote Michael However, as I argued above, tHul 2 18 and its parallels (bHul 40a, bAZ 42b) are best understood as responding to a perceived, rather than a real, danger On the other hand, 1f it could be shown that the Rabbis

were reacting against the Patnstic chnstological exegesis of OT 7107 7RX?M Passages in their tendency to read Michael into the same OT passages, this

would provide an example of Michael being proposed as a safe alternative to exegesis deemed dangerous by the Sages As we have seen, however, this does not appear to have been the case The corresponding Rabbinic and Christian interpretations of Gen 18-19,

Gen 32, and Ex 3, however, do demonstrate the usefulness of such OT passages for the early Fathers Finally, the importance of bSanh 38b 1s not to be overlooked

Here R

I[dith appeals to a principal angel tradition as a

defense against a heretical, and very possibly Chnstian,

interpretation of

Ex 23 20-2! If the Mur in this talmudic passage was indeed a Christian, then Metatron, who as we shall see was probably, at least in some circles,

equated with Michael, offered the Rabbis a safe alternative to the Chnstian interpretation

See below pp 187 |

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

115

2. Hekhalot Literature I turn now to the literary remains of the Merkavah mystics‘ Hekhalot literature.'°5 It is probably not an exaggeration to affirm that here one encounters the most exalted angels in all of Jewish literature

Indeed, the

boundary between the Deity and the angels at tumes 1s quite blurred Most often Metatron plays the role of the principal angel in Hekhalot texts, but other angels are also descnbed in very elevated language As intimated above, a number of scholars have argued that Michael and Metatron were originally identified. I will examine this possibilty after first setting out

briefly the fundamental

assumptions of Hekhalot angelology

and then

sketching the role attributed to Metatron in the wntings of the Merkavah

mystics

a. The Purpose of Hekhalot Literature Without question, Hekhalot texts stand in some relation to Rabbinic literature

However,

the exact nature of the relationship between them has been

subject to some debate. Some would see the Merkavah mystics operating in secret conventicles within the Rabbinic academies, the beginnings of such conventicles reaching back into Tannaitic mes !°° However, Peter Schafer has recently argued that these writings originated after the Rabbinic penod.!°? While the issue has not been finally settled, and while it must be 105 Schafer has argued that Hekhalot "works” in the sense of self-contained texts do not exist

“we are dealing with an extremely fluctuating literature that has been crystallized in

various macroforms, which are nonetheless interwoven with one another on many different levels the redactional arrangement of the mucroforms inte clearly defined ‘works 1s to be placed rather at the end of the process than at the beginning " (Hidden, 6) Schafer has

not been umversally followed in this

However, since his Synopse 1s the best available edi-

tion T will use his section numbers (§)

Schafer would limut the corpus of genuine Hekhalot “macroforms” to Hekhalot Rabbati Hekhalot Zutarti, Ma‘aseh

Merkavah,

Merkavah

Rabba,

and

the so-called 3 Enoch

See

Schafer, Hidden, 7 and the works he cites there “Macroforms” whose relation to merkavah mysticism are problematical include Re 'uyyort Yehezqel and Masekhet Hekhalos

However, because of its content and date a discussion of Re'uyyor Yehezgel will be included below

106 So Alexander, “Historical Setting”, 167-173, Scholem, Major Trends, 43, 1dem, Jewtsh Gnosticism, 9-13, and Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism", 1 2 107 Schafer, "Aims", 289-195, cf also Schafer's later and more agnostic statement in

Hidden, 150-161

116

Part it

Michael in Jewish Literature

admitted that some mystical traditions are found in Tannaiuc and other early sources and that the Hekhalot texts are particularly difficult to date, most would agree they are likely to be late Therefore, one should be very careful of attributing a Tannaitic date to the traditions found only in the Hekhalot macroforms. It 1s certainly penlous to assume a motif found only in a Hekhalot text could illuminate an aspect of early Chnstology Schafer has stressed the two foci around which the thought and practice of the mystics revolved Theurgical abjuratrons and the heavenly journey, The yored merkayah,'™ as the mystic 1s referred to in Hekhalot texts, sought by magical and theurgical means to ascend safely into heaven, where “direct and unobstructed contact with God or his angel" was possible and where he could obtain, again by means of magic, knowledge of the Torah '°* The ascent could be dangerous as the angels who guarded the entrances

to the

vamous

heavenly

palaces

would

attempt

to hinder

the

mystic Schafer argues for a liturgical context for the "mtual of abyuration and the heavenly journey" '!°. Thus the yored merkavah functions as “an emissary of the earthly congregation, who not only assures Israel of the communion

with God carried out in the daily liturgy, but also assures God

of the commumon with His people Israel" '!!

b Angels in Hekhalot Literature !) Traditional Elements

It 1s within this context that Merkavah angelology 15 to be understood. Given the fluid textual state of the manuscripts and their theurgical/liturgical purpose, it 1s hardly supnsing that the Hekhalot macroforms do not contain a systematic angelology Even 3 Enoch, which 1s the most systematic, offers a number of competing angelologies |!2 However, com108 Lit

“he who descends to the merkavah"

one descends to the throne and ascends to the world ciemtly explained

See Schafer, Hidden, 2, 0.4

109 Schafer “Aims*, 289-295

Paradoxically, in merkavah mysticism This terminology has not been suffi

Cf also Ehor, "Mysticism’, esp 7-17

It ts to be

noted that one also encounters m this material adjurations which cause angels to descend to the yored merkavah and reveal mysteries of the heavenly world, soe g §§302 304, 623

1tO Schafer, “Aims”, 294-295 Itt Schafer, “Aims”, 288

112 Schafer, Hidden 1 242

141, Grozinger, "Namen Gottes”, 23 24, and Alexander, OTP

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature

117

mon themes and motifs do appear. As with Rabbinic angelology, the Merkavah portrayals of angels are at once both traditional and innovahve Traditional motifs include the mvalry between angels and humans

(§§174-

178,"3 287-292, 356, 421); the worship of God as the angels’ pnmary task ($§185-186,

582,

590-593);

angels are composed

of fire (§590},

and

the

appearance of familar angels such as Michael, Gabnel, Unel, and Raphael ($$148; 234-236, 363, 372), Metatron (§§1 80 [= 3 Enoch], $§147-151, 295), and the Prince of the Countenance or Presence (§§100, 170-171, 425-

426). Two further traditional elements, angels as revealers of heavenly secrets (§562, 565, 688 and 691-692)''* and angels as guardians at the entrances to the heavens (§§207ff, 224ff, 241ff, 407ff, 413ff), take on a new sigmificance in Hekhalot texts

2) God and the angeis However, alongside these traditional elements there exists a very different conception of angels The most outstanding charactenstic of the angelology of these texts is the blurring of the distinction between angels and God A clear example of this 1s to be found 1n a startling passage from Hekhalot Zutarnh

Un'el [9x7x] is his Name

9X?P3 1s his Name

N73M 15 his Name,

Seve is his Name xrR is his Name. ON TAT 1s his Name DRINK is his Name = 9N7353 is his Name, 9N13N is his Name. IX™VIP 1s his Name 4xi0°D1 1s his Name Michael [9XD°D] 1s lus Name Siwpa7°x is his Name 9x 1M 1s hs Name. Gabriel {9X33} is his Name Raphael [9XD7] 1s his Name Metatron [1DHD] 1s his Name. Shaddai THAT

(°T?] I AM

1s his Name. [F778 WR]

Holy

I AM

1s his Name (§363)

413 See the remarks of Schafer, Hidden, 46-49 14 Cf esp Ehor, “Mystiasm”, 8-9

{FAX

VTP}

is his Name

118

Part ll

Michael in Jewish Literature

Here Michael, Gabnel, Raphael, Une], Metatron, and many other hitherto

unknown angel names stand alongside the biblical names "1U, WIT, and THX WR

WON as names for God.

On the basis of this and similar passages

Grdézinger has presented a good case for understanding the names of God

and of angels as various hypostatic functions of the Deity.!'5

In other

words, in Hekhalot texts a divine or angelic name 1s no longer simply an appellation, but a hypostasis of a particular divine power and function. !!°

3) Metatron

This explains why the Merkavah mystics could ascribe to Metatron and other angels!'’ attributes reserved only for God in other Jewish writings

For example,

Metatron serves as the chief of all the angels and other

heavenly beings (§13, 17 = 3En

10,14)

Hes granted the pnvilege to sit

on a throne similar to the divine merkavah crown insenbed with the divine name’

shares God’s Name

(§15 = 3E£n

(§13

= 3En

10) and wears a

As “the Little YHWH",!''® Metatron

12, cf

§295)

Since in Hekhalot htera-

ture God is occasionally identified with His Name,!!9 it 1s not surpnsing that, on occasion,

Metatron

1s identified with the Deity

($§277-279,

678,

310) Even omnuiscience ts attributed to him (§14 = 3En 11) To be sure, an “orthodox” reaction to this Metatron speculation appears even within the

Hekhalot texts themselves

The story of Aher’s apostasy (§20 = 3En

16,

cf bHag 15a), which probably only belongs to a later redaction of 3 Enoch,‘ recounts Metatron’s humiliation, punishment and dethronement

11S Grozinger, “Namen Gottes”, esp 29 116 Gréznger, “Namen Gottes", 32-33 where Names of God receive worship

Cf also Schafer, Hidden, 56-57 Grdznger (32) notes §71 (=

3En

48B),

MITEg . Anafi’el (98°D3Y, $§241-242) and Sandalphon (77130, $655) among others Lis jopa

-r

LL9 "He ¢ & , God) 1s His Name, and His Name is He, He ss in Him, and His Name ts

in His Name” (§588) and "For His Name 1s His might, and His might 1s in His Name, it us His power, and His power 1s His Name” (§557)

Ehor, "Mysticism", 11

129 So Alexander, “Historical Setting", 178, idem, OTP 1 268, n I6a, and Schafer, Hidden,

133-138, where Schafer argues that the late redacnon of 3 Enoch reflects a more

orthodox and (traditional approach than the other Hekhalot texts

Rabbinic and Hekhalos Literasure

419

c. The Michael-Metatron Identification

As stated above, there are good reasons to argue that Michael and Metatron were originally the same angel, Metatron being his secret or esoteric name Later, the two names came to denote two separate angels Alexander, a recent proponent of this theory, wntes

A proper estimate of Metatron must begin with the fact that he bears a stnking resemblance to the archangel Michael. Both these angels stand in a peculiar relationship to Israel as Israel’s special heavenly advocate,

both are High Prest of the heavenly tabernacle, both are chief of the angels, what 1s said in one text about Metatron 1s said in another about Michael, and Metatron appears as a manuscript variant for Michael |)

These parallels, which could be multiplied,'2? make an interesting case for such an identification, but parallel traditions in and of themselves cannot demonstrate that the two figures were indeed identified However, we do possess a document which appears to offer JOD"R as one of Michael’s

esoteric names

The “Visions of Ezekiel” (2XPIN? NVINA), two (partial)

manuscripts of which survive,'?> shares many of the concerns of Merkavah mysticism, but differs in many respects from the Hekhalot macroforms, !*4 It may date from as early as the fourth century AD, although this 1s not certain.!25_ The second half of this work consists of a description of the firmament and the seven heavens, their respective distances, their contents, etc Of the second heaven, Zebul (9133) we read

121 Alexander, "Historical Setting”, 162, his emphasis refers to Tan8 Wa-ethannen

6 (ed

Buber 7a), which

The “manuscript vanant”

reads Metatron,

and MidrProv to

14 34 (ed Buber 39b), which reads Michael, but includes Metatron as a variant reading 122 E.g . both are entrusted with the divine Name JEn 69 13-25 (Michael) and bSanh

38b (Metatron); both are termed "angel of the Countenance” (O° xn) (Michael) and 3JEn

TanB | 17

3 1 and passim {Metatron), and both are identified with the “Pnnce of

the World" (OWN Ww) PRE 27 (Michael) and a tosafist on bHul 60a (Metatron) 123 See Halpenn, Faces, 263

124 Chief of which 1s the midrashic character of its opening section.

125 Scholem (Jewish Gnostiasm, 44-45) argues that the authonties cited all date from the fourth century Palestine Alexander ("Historical Setting", 162) in the main follows Scholem Halpern objects that the attnbutrons are not trustworthy (Faces 269-273), but on the basis of stnking parallels with Ongen’s homily on Ezekoel 1 1 16 suggests that

Ongen was familiar with a source that lay behind the "Visions" (Faces would place the source as early as the third century

327-331)

This

120

Part ll

What

1s in Zebuf?

Johanan

Michael in Jewish Literature

Levi quoted R

Hama

The Pnnce (107) dwells only in Zebu/

‘Ugqba, quoting R Thousands of thou-

sands and mynads of mynads are in his presence, serving him. Daniel says of them “While | was watching, thrones," and so forth “A nver of fire flowed” (and so forth)

What is his name?

Qimos is his name

R Isaac says Me‘attah is his name R ‘Anaym b Sasson says Bizebul 1s is name R Tanhum the elder says ‘tfyh is his name. Eleazer

of Nadwad

says

Metatron

(fo),

Power.

Those who make use of the name say.

like the name

of the

sins ts his name, gs bs

bs qbs 1s his name, similar to the name of the creator of the world '#6

Apparently Michael,

this passage 1s a conscious imitation of bHag the Great

heavenly altar

Prince,

stands

im Zebul offering

12b, where

sacnfices

the

If so, the “Prince” must be Michael and Metatron one of

his many names '??_ There is, however, one senous objection to this. According to the "Visions of Ezekiel" the heavenly Jerusalem, with its temple 1s in Shehaqim (O°PN@), the fourth heaven, not Zebul, the second 128 Nonetheless, WW preceded by the defimte article, with no other appellation, would certainly have been understood by most Jewish readers 1n the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods to have referred to Michael, the Great Prince '29

Further, one finds an interesting, if enigmatic, parallel to the High Pnest Michael appearing in a lower heaven than that which contains the heavenly

sanctuary in 3 Baruch

1116

There Michael receives the prayers and

righteous deeds of the saints in the fifth heaven and ascends to offer them in a higher heaven, perhaps the seventh

So the presence of Michael, here in

"Visions of Ezekiel", in the second heaven and the temple itself in the fourth 1s not necessarily a difficulty The text says that he “dwells only” in the second, but this need not mean that he also performs his pnestly minis try there At any rate, Alexander has argued that omginally Metatron was a secret mame for Michael, but that Metatron began to develop a separate

identity ‘3° The possible denvation of the name Metatron from the Greek !26 The translation, with some modifications, 1s Halperin’s (Faces, 267)

127 So Alexander, *Histoncat Setting", 163, Scholem, Jewish Gnostiasm, 44-47,

Segal, Two Powers, 66-67, and Fossum, Name of God, 321

128 Cf Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 140, n.28, and idem, "Re'uyyot Yehezgel" 128 129 Interestingly, this appears to be the only such occurrence of "7 in Hekhalot texts 7 is nearly always accompanied by the name of an angel in these texts, and on the few occasions When it 1s not the identtly of the WW ts clear from the context, except of course here

130 So Alexander, “Histoncal Setting”, 163, cf also Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 4446, Fossum, Name of God, 321, Segal, Two Powers, 66-67

Rabbinic and Hekhalot Luerature

title (=

ovvOpovog/pneradpovog)'3'

121

would support such a theory.

Once its

initial sigmficance was forgotten it became a name, and an esoteric one at that The process by which Michael and Metatron became independent must have been complete by the tume of the Hekhalot macroforms for here the two are clearly distinguished (e g , §148,

§21

= 3En

17)

In these

texts Metatron has completely obscured Michael as the principal angel

d To

Conclusions be sure,

Hekhalot

texts,

and

Merkavah

mysticism

as a whole,

are

probably too late for Metatron speculation to have influenced emerging

Chnstology.'32 Metatron

in either

Michael-Metatron Merkavah Metatron,

There

mystics

are simply

Rabbinic

identification, appear

into a divine

Hekhalot

literature 93

if true,

have

hypostasis,

no certain Tannaitic highly

transformed or at least used

references However,

significant

Michael, Michael

to the

The way

traditions

of in

constructing the portrayal of Metatron, the most significant of their divine hypostases. This parallels what we found in Philo’s use of principal angel

traditions in constructing his Logos doctrine

Surely this suggests the utility

Michael traditions would have had for early Christians in trying to explain the exalted Chnst as divine while attempting to remain monotheists To

demonstrate this I must now turn to Chnistian texts,

131 See esp Lieberman, *Metatron" 132° Contra Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God"

and

Morray-Jones,

“Transformational

Mysticism"

133 Indeed, one should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that Metatron speculation developed in reaction to Chnstian claims made for Jesus of Nazareth

Chapter 6 Michae] and Angelic Christology in the New Testament In this chapter ] turn to the evidence of the NT documents for the earliest Christian use of Michael traditions and their influence on NT Chnistol ogy I wall begin by bnefly sketching the angelology of the NT authors, as best we can reconstruct it The only two NT passages in which Michael 1s named (Rev 127, Jude 9) will then be examined at some length, along with a few other passages which may refer to Michael 1! will then turn to an investigation of those texts which may indicate that NT Chnstology owes

something to Michael or principal angel speculanon

I do not, of course,

mean to imply that there was one angelology, much less a single Chnistol-

ogy, agreed upon by all the NT authors I hope to show, however, that despite the sociological and theological diversity of NT Chnstiamity, 1) the angelology of all the NT authors was indebted to Jewish ideas about angels, and 2) the NT documents,

with one exception,

hold substantially similar

views concerning the question of an angelic Chnstology

1 The Angelology of the New Testament Authors “Ayyedos

times

appears

175

times

in the

NT,!

apxeyysdo¢g

another

two

Of the NT authors, only “James” contains no reference to angels

There 1s, however, a marked reluctance to use the term a&yyeAog in the Pauline writings 2? Here terms like apyai, éEovoiat and duydpets are much ) Of course a few of these are references to human, rather than heavenly Cf

Mark1 2, Matt

messengers

11 10, Luke 7 24, James 2.25

2 The epistles which are undisputedly authentic include the word dryyedos only nine times (Rom 8&8 38, | Cor 49, 6.3 1110, 131 2 Cor 1114 There are another four occurrences in the disputed epistles (Col

Tim

3 16,5 21)

Gal 18, 3.19, 4 14) 2 18, 2 Thess 17,1

The New Testament

123

more common It is possible that Paul avoided the terms ayyeho¢ and apxaryyedog out of concern that his Hellenistic audience would find them uncultured Philo (Gig 6; Som 1.141) appears to betray a similar apprehension.

a. Michael and Gabriel

As with the Rabbis, the angelology of the NT hes in broad continuity

with the angelology of Second Temple Judaism.

For example, the only

named angels to appear on the pages of the NT documents are the two most

familiar and important in Jewish itterature of the Second Temple period Michael (Rev 12 7, Jude 9) and Gabnel (Luke | 19, 26)? Asin / Enoch 9-10, 20, 40 and 1QM 9, the NT authors assume that Michael and Gabnel

hold high office in the angelic hierarchy apxayyedog

and,

Luke

1.19,

Gabriel

Jude descnbes Michael as o clarms

to be one of the few

granted continual access to the Divine presence.*

b Angelic Roles

The vanous functions angels perform in the NT are also found im earlier texts Gabriel serves as a heavenly herald in both the Book of Damel and the birth narrative of Luke's Gospel Revelation 4-5, clearly dependent upon OT (Iisa 6, Dan. 7910) and Jewish apocalyptic (/En 14, 39,1240.10,

2En

20-22) conceptions, descnbes a heavenly throne room full of

3 One apparent exception “Abaddon” (11aX) or “Apollyon" ( AxodAdwe) will be discussed below, see p. 127, n.22

4 Cf similar claims by Raphael in the Book of Tobst and Michael sn the Testament of Abraham

éya clus TaBpiid 6 tapsornews érurmiwoy tov Osod nai dxecradny Aadqoa mpd ot xal edoryyeNoaobai oo Tatra (Luke 1 19) éya elus Mixa

& a&pxiotparpyos & Tapeotyxws érurtiory Tob Peoi, nas aweoTcdnr

apdc ab Srwe cvcryyetXw gou Thy Tod Gavcrou prjpny (TAbr AT 11) éyds clue Paderjd, ele tar dra dryyAwr, of Kapeorixcot cai eomopevorran éxarmioy THe 56ENS cuplov (Totit 12 15 x)

124

Part Ill Michael in Early Christian Lareravure

angels whose primary purpose is to render unceasing worship to God (cf

Luke 21314)

The angels who appear to the women

in the various

evangelical accounts of the empty tomb (Mark 16 5-7, Matt

28 2-7, Luke

24 4-7, John 20 11-13) function in a manner not unlike that of the angel:

interpretes of the Jewish apocalypses

Other passages make it clear that

angels serve as messengers to, or helpers of, humamity (e g., Heb. 1.14, Acts 10 3, 12 6-10) The belief that angels delivered the Torah to Israel on Mt Sinai, already alluded to in Jubriees 1 27 2 1, 1s presumed by three NT

authors

Luke (Acts 7 38, 53), Paul (Gal

3 19) and the author of Hebrews

(2 2) 5

c The supenority of the Righteous over Angels

As we saw in the last host was a theme of great adopted this teaching, as However, the NT authors 39, | Cor6 2-3, 1 Pet

chapter, the superiority of Israel over the angelic significance to the Rabbis Apparently Christians did the Rabbis, from Second Temple Judaism specifically applied it to the Church (Rom 8 38

| 12, Heb

1 14)

d Heavenly Cultus Evidence

also exists that various

authors

subscribed

to the notion,

widely attested in Second Temple Judaism,*® of a heavenly cultus parallel to the earthly one and presided over by the angelic host

Heb

1 14 may

imply that the angels serve in the heavenly cultus and liturgy on behalf of

5 Silberman ("Prophets/Angels*) has questioned whether there was a Jewish tradition that the law was mediated by angels

He has quite rightly pointed out that all bar one, of

the rabbime texts cited by Strack-Bijlerbeck in support of angelic mediation of the law in

fact only attest angelic presence at the giving of the law

The one rabbinic text which

could support the existence of such a tradition, Cam#R | 2(R Yohanan [pA2]), 1s both late and obscure Silberman, however, ignores entirely Acts 7 38, 53 and Gal 3 19, and pro-

poses a reading of Heb 2 2 which will not stand scrutiny In the end, he has mussed the cumulative effect which results from reading Jub | 27 2 1, Apoc.Mos preface, Acts 7 38, $3 Gal 319 Heb 2.2, and CansR | 2 together = If the existence of the tradition cannot be said to be certain

it is nonetheless likely

® See above pp 32 43-46, 60-61, 100-102

The New Testameni

125

"those who will inhent salvation" 7 While this 1s not certain,® it 1s not unlikely since the Jewish tradition of angelic heavenly pnests provides the most probable background for the High Pnest Chnstology of the Epistle to the Hebrews ° In addition, the pnestly figure of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 1s probably drawn from Jewish ideas of angelic mediation '° At any rate, two passages from Revelation clearly depict a heavenly cultus First, in

8.3-5!! an angel offers incense mixed with the prayers of the saints on the altar before the throne Second, in 15 6 seven angels dressed as priests exit the heavenly temple as it 1s filled with that smoke which symbolizes the glory of God As I argued above,!? it 1s probably best to understand the Opnoxeian THY aryyéduv in Col. 2.18 as a subjective genitive, 1 e , it refers to worship which angels offer. Apparently, some at Colossae thought they could participate in this angelic worship through visions If this is the cor-

rect interpretation, then it 1s sigmficant that the author of Colossians does not call the existence of such a heavenly cult mto question, rather he merely objects to the disunity these visionaries are causing among his flock, through their arrogant boasting

e. Guardian Angels Related to the ideas that Israel or the Church are supenor to the angels and that the angels serve humans by means of a heavenly cultus 1s the

notion that humans, angels

especially the faithful, are protected by guardian

This concept, already established tn Second Temple Judaism (LAB

15.5, 3Bar 11-16, cf. Jub, 35 17, 1En. 100 5), certainly lies behind Matt. 18 10 and possibly behind Acts 12.15 as well '? Perhaps the ayysrko tov éxr& éxxd\nordv (Rev 1 20; 2-3) are to be understood as guardian angels of the seven congregations to which John writes

If so, it suggests a certain

TCf esp Tle 3 S46 8 It 1s rejected by Altndge, Hebrews, 49

Hebrews,

62 (but see the next note)

and Montefiore,

9 So Attndge, Hebrews, 97-103

10 So Attndge, Hebrews, 192-195 ‘CF

Rev

12 Pp 106-109 '3 So e.g , Haenchen, Acts, 385, Polhill, Acts, 282, Broce, Acts, 252 210; Lake and Cadbury,

Acts,

138, Conzelmann, Acts, 95, and esp

who potnts to the late paralicl m GenR 78 (R

next paragraph

Hamab

Hanma [pA2])

Marshall, Acts,

Barrett

Acts

585,

However, see the

126

Part iff

Mrchael in Early Christian Literature

fluidity of thought concerning guardian angels. If individual believers had guardian angels (Matt. 18.10), so could groups of believers (Rev 1.20, 23).

Certainly, the belief attested in Jewish apocalyptic, at Qumran,

and in

Rabbunie literature!* that Michael was the Patron of Israel offers an example of a guardian angel on the national or ethnic level

f Angels and the Resurrection In first century Judaism it was commonly held that the nghteous would at the

resurrection

either become

angels or equal

to them

(/JEn

51 4,

104 4, 6, 2Bar, 51 1-12, Philo Sac 5, cf Dan 122-3, JEn 891, 9, 36).'5 This belief 1s also reflected in the dominical saying recorded in Mark 12.25 and its paralleis,'© The statement of Acts 23 8 (Laddounator psy yap Asyovew pH eivar dvavragw pyre Gyyedov pHte TvEevpa) can be

understood along similar lines. The natural rendering, that the Sadducees deny the resurrection and the existence of both angels and spints, occasions the difficulty of placing the Sadducees at vanance with their chief source of authonty; for the Pentateuch clearly assumes the existence of angels This difficulty becomes intolerable when it 18 noted that Acts 23 8 is not sup-

ported in this by any other ancient source '? Thus, it has recently been suggested!* that a better translation of Acts 23 8 would run something like “For the Sadducees say that there 1s no resurrection, either as an angel or as a spirit", Daube has cogently argued!® that in this context both "angel" and "spirit" refer to the intermediate state prior to resurrection

Either way the

author of Acts would not be suggesting that Sadducees do not believe in angels, but rather would be offering further evidence that some Jews believed that after death the nghteous become angels or become like angels It is, thus,

possible that Acts

12 15 refers to Peter himself in an

inter-

mediate state, and not to his guardian angel *°

'4 Soe pp 33-38, 64-66, 99-100 'S Cf bBer 17a (Rab [bA1])

16 Matt 22.30 closely follows Mark, but Luke 20 35-36 1s different enough that some have suggested that Luke cites another version So Taylor, Mark, 483 \? Cf Daube’s ("Acts 23°, 493) assertion that it is inconce:vable "that so flagrant an excision of a major element of biblical theology would never be criticized in the sources*

'8 So Viviano and Taylor, “Sadducees" 496-498 19 Daube

“Acts 23°

29 So Daube, "Acts 237 495-496

The New Testament g

127

Angels and the Eschaton

Finally, angels play an important role in the eschaton in the NT docu

ments

A host of angels accompany the returning, tnumphant Chnst (Matt

13 41; Mark 13 26f pars , 2 Thess. 1.7; Jude 14-15; Rev. 19 11-16), an archange} heralds Christ's return (1 Thess. 4 16; cf 1 Cor. 15.52; Matt 24 30f, Rev. 8 1-5), and an angel captures Satan at the eschaton (Rev

20 1-3)

Ill this suggests the influence of Jewish apocalyptic {e g , Dan

12 1-3; ZEn 9-10, 90,20-27; cf. Zech. 14 5; Joel 3 11) These examples make it clear that the NT wnters viewed angels much as their Jewish contemporanes did The same 1s true of the specific references to Michael in the NT

Michael in the New Testament

a, Revelation 12

Many commentators believe that behind this chapter stands a Jewish source, either oral or wntten 27! My pmmary concern is the meaning of this passage within the present context Nonetheless, one piece of evidence for John’s use of sources 1s significant Rev 12 7 1s the only time he mentions

an angel by name 7? John does not seem to be interested in the names of angels

He generally refers to angels with phrases like "another ange!" or

“a mighty angel” or "the four angels who had been given power to damage

earth and sea", or something similar

For all the angels which appear in his

book, John does not seem that interested in their names and their individual characteristics, not even with one as important as Michael After introduc-

ing hum in 12.7 he drops him and never mentions him again, even when it might have been appropriate to do so--as at 20 1-3. This makes Michael’s appearance here somewhat surprising and could be explained as ansing

2! So e.g, Gunkel Schdpfung und Chaos, 200ff, Charles, Revelation, 1 299-314, Beasley-Murtay, Revelation, 191-197, Yarbro Collins, Combar Myth, 101-155

22 The only apparent exceptions to this are two fallen angels

First, in9 || the locust

demons from the Abyss have as King over them rév dyycdor rig GGGooov, whose name in Hebrew is JTV1N and in Greek AwodAiwy, both of which mean destroyer [173K as the name of a fallen angel also appears in bShab 55a and 89a. The other possible exception 15 Lerrawis/AidBodog [t 18 never stated that Satan is a fallen angel, but may be umplied in 12 4

128

Part Ill

from John’s source

Michael in Early Christan Literature

However,

even

if he found Michael

in his source,

John was too accomplished an artist to retain the name simply for that reason alone It appears that he must have had some reason for introducing Michael at this point >> Moreover, given the central importance of Christ in his apocalypse,

one

would

expect that John

would

view Chnst

rather

than Michael as the vanquisher of Satan 24 So we are confronted

with two closely related questions

First,

why

does John introduce {or retain) Michael here, especially as he has no use for

him anywhere else in his apocalypse? Second, why is Michael, rather than Christ, portrayed as casting the dragon out of heaven? There is, of course, no question of a rivalry between Chnist and Michael

in John's thought 25 This is clear when one contrasts 12 7 12 with 19 11 17 Michael’s victory over Satan depicted in chapter 12 1s only partial in nature, his victory, although real, 1s only an anticipation of one that ts yet

to come

Satan 1s cast out of heaven, but ts still free to work his poison on

earth (12 12) ‘The final and conclusive defeat of Satan 1s not recorded unt1l 19 11-20 10, where significantly it 1s Christ, not Michael, who leads the

heavenly hosts The victory which Michael achieves only expels Satan from heaven, the victory of the Logos will end Satan's threat forever Since it 1s John’s purpose to assert that Satan, although still very much at work

earth,

1s now

barred

from

heaven,

it would

hardly

appropriate to attribute to Christ an incomplete victory 2° the traditional apxiotparnyos, heavenly armies

have

been

Thus Michael,

offers a convement alternative leader of the

John apparently intended that these two passages, chapter 12 and 19 1120 10, be linked Miulitary imagery 1s common to both More importantly, both contain an allusion to Ps 29 (LXX) owmaveic avroic ev papi odnp@ The only other citation of or allusion to this verse in Revelation occurs in the epistle to the church at Thyatira (2 26-27), where it 1s a prom ise to those in the church who overcome In both 12 5 and 19,15, on the other hand, it ts used to describe Christ In other words, the reference to

29 in both passages serves to identify the one who mdes a white horse

and leads the armies of heaven (19 11ff} with the child of the heavenly woman who is caught up to God’s throne (12 5)

Of even greater significance 1s the hymn of 12 10-12, which interprets Michael's victory as dependent upon Chnst's victory accomphished by the *3 For John s artistry, see Bauckham

“Structure and Composition”

*4 This difficulty 1s noted by a number of commentators; see esp Card Revelation 153 154 Cf also Beasley Murray, Revelanen, 201 203, and Sweet, Revelation 198 25 Sull less of an identification of the two 26 Cf Roloff, Revelation 148

The New Testament Cross

Throughout

the Book of Revelation,

129 Chnst

1s presented as a con-

queror or victor (3 21, 5 5, 17 14, 19 14 15), but paradoxically his victory

was accomplished through his death (5 6, 12 11) 7?

Bauckham 1s surely

correct when he asserts that “the continuing and ultimate victory of God over evil which the rest of Revelation describes 1s no more than the working-out of the decisive victory of the Lamb on the Cross” ** For John,

this "working-out” of the Lamb’s victory consists primarily in the partrcipation in his death which Christians realize in their martyrdom (6 9, 7 14, and esp 1211) A comparison of 6 9, where the martyrs were killed dia tov Aoyov Tov Peot Kar [dal?? rr paprupiay Fr exxov, with 12 11, where the martyrs have overcome the dragon dca ro ata Tob a&priov Kai dia tor AOyor Tic papTUptas altay, Indicates that the martyrs’ death and their vic tory over Satan are one and the same Further, their conquering of Satan 1s accomplished through the blood of the Lamb, their victory depends upon his * This explains John’s paramount concern that his readers are vic

torious (2 7, 11, 17, 28, 3.5, 12, 21, 15 2, 21 7) All of this establishes that Michael's victory ts not decisive in its own right, but dependent upon Chnst’s It also suggests that Michael's tradi tional role of apxtorparyyo¢ makes him the logical choice for the angelic leader of the heavenly forces It does not, however, explain why an angelic

leader is needed

If John’s chief concern is the victory that Chnst achieved

and which Christians participate in through martyrdom,

angel?

why introduce an

Card 1s, I believe, fundamentally correct when he places Christ's

sacrificial victory on earth im conjunction with Michael's victory in heaven as its heavenly counterpart 3! Card argues that Chnst’s entire earthly career 1s encapsulated in vss 4b-5 = The birth and the snatching away of the man-child to God s throne refers to the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension The war in heaven of vss 7 9, then, ts “not to be regarded as a sequel to the birth and enthronement of the Messiah,

but rather as a second

view of the same events in light of a different myth” #2 And this explains

why 11s Michael, rather than Christ shares

the apocalyptic

conviction

who leads the heavenly army that

earthly

events

are

murrored

John by

2? See Bauckham, “Chnstian War Scroll” and Theology 66-108 28 Bauckham Theology 75 2° Perhaps the second dia should be omutted with A 1854 it Vg™*, Cypnan and Primasius The first da would then serve both phrases and mdjcate that roy Aoyor Tov bcot and hy paprupir iy efyor are two ways of expressing the same reality ® Bauckham Theology 7576 Cf Swete, Apocalypse 156 and Card

157

3) Caird, Revelation

153 157, and “Deciphering” 13 14

32 Card, Revelation

156

Revelanon

130

Part HJ) Michael mm Early Christan Literature

heavenly ones Michael (Dan

Just as the angelic princes of Persia and Greece opposed by 10 13-21) correspond to earthly empires, and just as the

epistles to the seven churches of Asia are addressed to the seven (heavenly)

angels responsible for them, so while Michael leads the heavenly host tn battle against the dragon, Christ fights the real battle, as it were, from the cross

“Because he ts part of the earthly reality, he cannot at the same time

be part of the heavenly symbolism" 43 As a number of commentators have noted, the idea of the Cross as the moment of Satan's defeat is well illustrated by a statement of Jesus mm the Fourth Gospel viv xpiou éoriv Tov KOOmOY TOUTOL, PUP 0 &pXwY Tov Koopov TovTov ExBANOHOETaL SEW

KayW Eav vywhe ex THS yiS, Tavrag edxvow xpd Bpavroy (12.31 32) # In summary,

m common

with Jewish tradition, John views Michael as

the angel who leads the heavenly hosts in a military sense and as the angel who stands for the people of God against their Accuser mm a judicial sense {cf vs 10), but as a Christian he views the work of Michael as subordinated to and dependent upon that of Christ Indeed, he mentions

Michael only once and even then he carefully interprets his victory, by adding the hymn Christ's

of vss

1012,

as participating

in and dependent

upon

b Jude 9 | have already discussed the source for the debate between Michael and Satan in Jude 9 in the chapter on Jewish apocalyptic Iiterature,3> and need only state here that it 1s generally considered an assured result of scholarship that Jude refers in vs 9 to the lost ending of an apocryphon which was known in antiquity either as the Assumnpnon of Moses or the Testament of Moses *

33 Card

Revelason

153.154

idem,

“Deciphenng",

13, and Bauckham,

Theol-

ogy, 74 Cf also the insightful statement of Lohmeyer (Offenbarung, 101) “Im Zusammenhang der Apc hat die Nennung Michaels dadurch besonderen Sinn erhalten daf sein Kampf und Sieg durch eine Tat Gottes, dic Entriickung, eingelestet und durch den groferen

Kampf und Sieg des Logos (19 1 ff) beendet wird" 4 So Card Revelation 155, and Kraft, Offenbarung, 168 Cf also Swete, Apocalypse 154 Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 102, Sweet, Revelation, 201, Roloff Revela tron 149 of Jesus

Note also Luke [0 18, where Satan's downfall is apparently due to the munistry

35 See above pp 41-42 36 So e.g , Charles, Assumption

235 280

107

Tromp, Assumption

271 273

Bauckham, Jude

The New Testament

131

Jude uses this story of the archangel’s reluctance to issue a sentence of blasphemy against the Devil to illustrate the arrogance of his opponents Even Michael, the angelic advocate of the mghteous, did not dare pronounce a verdict against Satan, for that mght belongs to the Lord alone as the only true Judge For Michael to have done so would have been an infringement upon divine prerogative Not even Michael, the greatest of the angels, had the authority to set aside the moral law with regard to a murder committed by Moses, on the basis of which the Devil was clarming Moses’ body Michael could only appeal to the Lord, who alone can set aside the due penalty of the Law 3’ He does so with the words, "The Lord

rebuke you"!**

This interpretation harmonizes well with the tradition of

Michael as the judicial advocate of the mghteous 3% Opposed to this interpretation, many commentators take xpiow 8raogénpiac as a genitive of quality According to this view, Jude uses the example of Michael, who did not dare to revile or blaspheme the Devil, to

enticize his opponents who “blaspheming what they do not understand", “blaspheme glorious ones”, 1.e, angels (vss. 8, 10). In other words, Michael

by not insulting the Devil serves as an example of the kind of

humility Jude’s opponents should have

This results in the implication that

even the Devil should be treated with a certain respect, and not be insulted Although this 1s how 2 Peter 2 11 understood xpiow Bdaodnuiag, it Is

surely odd that any NT author would be concerned that the Devil be accorded a proper amount of respect ‘' It 1s to be noted that the author of 2 Peter drops all mention of Satan and ends up directing the BAdodnpor xpioww against fallen angels

It seems best, therefore, to understand Jude as

commending Michael, not for his politeness toward Satan, but for recogmzing that judgement belongs to God alone 4 Everything here points to Jude alluding to a story which his readers knew well This explains his brevity That all reference to the legend is 37 xépto¢ 18 ambiguous

It could refer to either God or Christ and some scribes sought

to clarify the issue by replacing xupioc with 6 xupiog OF 6 fedg =However, xvpiog nearly always refers to Chnst in this Epistle, and he may very well be in view here

38 So Bauckham, Jude 273 274

idem, Jude 2 Peter, 43-44, 59-62

Paulsen, Judas-

brief, 68, Bigg, Epistles, 331

39 See above pp 41-42

49 So Kelly, Epistles, 263-265, Green, 2 Peter Jude, 169-170; Moule diom-Book, 175, RSV ("a reviling judgement") and NIV ("a slanderous accusation")

41 So Bauckham, Jude, 273-274

42 Kelly (Epistles, 263-265) approaches this understanding, although he takes xptoww §=Bdcrodypucrc as a genitive of quality, arguing that "a reviling sudgement” fits the context better than "a judgement on his reviling”

132

Pars Hf

Michael in Early Chnstian Lierature

dropped by the author of 2 Peter probably indicates that the story was either

unknown to him or to his readers, or that he did not approve of the source from which Jude derived this story. So we cannot conclude that the legend was widespread throughout the early Church, still less that it was widely beheved However, Jude's allusion to it indicates that at least Jude and his readers had adopted Michael's traditional roles of archangel,** advocate of the nghteous, and opponent of Satan Although no mention of his transferring Moses’ soul to heaven or paradise is made, it may have been assumed

If so, Michael's role of psychopomp has also been accepted by Jude and his readers

Nonetheless,

even

as archangel,

Michael

does not presume

usurp a prerogative which belongs to the Lord

c Other Passages Before leaving the NT evidence for Michael traditions, a few passages should

be discussed

which

while

not expressly

mentioning

Michael

name, may be construed as referring to him, for they speak of angelic roles with which he has been traditionally associated

1) 2 Thessalonians 2 6-7 I begin with o xa7exwy of 2 Thess

anti-God figure of 2 Thess

That “the Restrainer”*’ of the

2 3 12 denotes an angel has been suggested by

a number of commentators and probably remains the most popular solution

43 One should not conclude from the use of the article in 6 dpycryyedoc, that Jode Weotified Michael as the only archangel Although we cannot be certain, it is probable that he assumed the extstence of erther four or seven archangels, especially since he cites (Jude 14 15) a work, The Book of Watchers in which both traditions appear (JEn 9-10; 20)

4 For a fuller statement of the argument presented here, see Hannah,

“Angelic

Restrainer™

45 T take “to restrain to hold back, to check” as the most likely meaning of carréyw 1p 2

Thess 27 Not only ts this the most common meaning for the verb (see LSJ and BAGD), it also makes the most sense in the context On this see Menken, 2 Thess , 109 Note also the use of carrey with reference to the antichnst in GkApEzra 4,25, and with reference to the messuame woes in the Greek fragment of 2Bar 12 4 (Dems, Fragmenta,

118)

The New Testament

133

at the present time * This interpretation fits the author’s*’? apocalyptic world view It emphasizes that God 1s 1n control of history, even in the dark days of the messianic woes leading up to the parousia of Christ. The image of an angel restraining an evil personage, either Satan or one of his underlings, 1s comparatively common in apocalyptic Itterature In Rev 20 2 an unnamed angel binds (é5nosv) Satan for a thousand years, while in

En 10.4, 11-12 Raphael and Michael are commanded to bind {dj00r) Azazél and Semjaz4 (cf also Tob 83, /En 18 12-19 2, 21 1-6; 54 4-6; Jub

4815,

TLevi 1812)

Admnittedly “restraining” (xarexwr) and "bind-

ing" (dav) are different words, but they express similar concepts and KaTéxew can denote “imprisonment” (Gen 39 20 LXX, GkApEzra 4 25; and QuestBart God*

runs

412}

into

Furthermore, the suggestion that 6 katéxwy refers to

grief at vs

7b,

where

it is said that

"the

Restramer”

"taken away" or "disappears" This, of course, 1s not a problem if one of God’s agents is in view, God orders his angels and archangels as He sees fit.

Finally, the neuter form 76 xa7éxov of vs

6 can be explained as God's

plan which finds expression in the work of the angel or Restrainer in vs 7.49

To my knowledge no one, until now, has attempted to identify this angel with Michael, or any other named angel My case for Michael rests above all on the use of the Book of Dantel in 2 Thessalonians That our author's portrait of the Man of Lawlessness ts based upon the depiction of Antiochus

Epiphanes in Daniel 11.36-37 1s generally accepted by scholars °° We can, then, safely conclude that the Book of Daniel or, at the very least, a tradi-

tion denved

from

Daniel was known

to him

Now

according to Dan.

10 13, Michael restrains the Pnnce of Persia so that the "man clothed in

linen" can get away and deliver his revelation to Daniel

In addition, while

the verb xaréxew does not appear in either the LXX's or Theodotion's translation of Daniel, in 10 21 (0°) a similar word, avrexé6pevoc, is used for Michael's action vis-a-vis the princes of Persia and Greece Finally,

Dan 12 1 predicts that the coming of Michael will coincide with the career of "the antichnst" (11 36-123) All this suggests that o xaréxwv can be

46 So Menken, 2 Thess , 112-113, Holland, Tradition, 110-113, Miller, Anftinge

50-

51, Dibelius, Thessalonicher I-IT, 46-51, and Bockmuehl, Revelation, 195-196

47 The question of whether or not 2 Thessalonans 1s a genuine work of the Apostle Paul does not directly affect the interpretation | am here proposing

48Soe.g

Aus, "God s Plan"

49 So Menken, 2Thess , 112 50 Eg,

Menken,

2 Thess

288, Frame, Thessalonians, 255

104 105, Aus, “God's Plan", 541, Best, Thessalonians,

134

Part Ill

Michael in Early Chnstian Literature

seen as deriving from our author’s reading of Damiel 10-12%! or his understanding of a Damtelic tradition The cryptic o xaTréxwv may be related to the Pauline tendency to avoid explicit references to angels in favour of terms like a@pxat, sEovoian and duvaperc ** It hardly needs to be

said that the view of Michael as an opponent of a diabolic eschatological

figure easily coalesces with Jude 9 and Rev

12.7,

Another important piece

of evidence 1s an incantation from a magical papyrus copied in the first half of the fourth century (PGM 4, 2770) which reads MexayA .xaréxwr, ov xadéovot dpaxorta péyav ‘This demonstrates that Michael was known to

some individuals in antiquity, who were at least acquainted with Jewish or Christian angelology, as (6) xaTéxwr To be sure, this chapter of 2 Thessalomans remains one of the most difficult texts in the NT. By no means are all its difficulties solved by this suggestion, and I offer st merely as a plausible explanation of an otherwise obscure passage. The proposal takes seriously the author's apocalyptic thought and has the strength of locating the origin of the otherwise opaque o Karéxwy author

in a text or tradition known

to have been authoritative

for the

2) Galatians 3 19 Another extremely difficult passage which may include an oblique reference to our archangel 1s Gal 3.19b While the majority of interpreters

understand ev xeipi peoirov as a reference to Moses,*} Vanhoye has argued that two mediators are alluded to here, the "angel of the presence” (cf. Jub, 1 27-2 2) who represented the angelic host and Moses who represented the children of Israel ** Paul was not the only NT author who held that the Torah was mediated by angels (Acts 7 38, 53, Heb

22)

Significantly, as

I have argued earlier,*5 the "angel of the presence" in Jubrlees 1s probably to be identified with Michael That Michael was the mediator of the Law 1s also alluded to in the preface of the ApMos and Hermas vi 3 3, while in

5! Note vs 5

If2 Thessalomans was wntten by Paul, then it 1s possible that he had

previously taught this exegesis of Daniel while in Thessalomca

52 See above pp 122 123 53 E.g, Burton, Galanans, 189, Betz, Galanans, 170, Dunn, Galatians “Pauline Midrash” 555 54 Vanhoye, "Un médiateur”, esp 408-411 179

55 See above pp 49-51

190, Callan,

He 1s followed by Bruce, Galatians, 178-

The New Testament

135

4Q470 he appears as the mediator of a future covenant *® Furthermore, an interesting, but weakly attested, variant reading seems to support Vanhoye’s proposal 5?

All this could suggest that “the angel” was Michael and “the

mediator" Moses. Even 1f Vanhoye is correct, Paul may still have been unaware or uninterested that the “angel of the presence” and Michael are one and the same If he did mean to allude to Michael here, then he subordinates Michael, the mediator of the Law, to Chnst, the Seed to whom the promise

was given ingemous.

(vs 19a) Vanhoye’s suggestion is ingenious, perhaps too [ft 1s, at the very least, just as likely that Paul was referring to

Moses alone as to Moses and Michael

3) Revelation 8 3 and 20.2

Other possible references to Michael in the NT include Rey 8 3 and 20.2. Charles** suggested that the prestly angel of Rev 8 3 may have been indentified with Michael in an earlier form of Revelation Further, the identification of Michael with the angel who captures the dragon in 20 2

would be consonant with Rev, 12.7, Jude 9 and the proposed interpretation of 2 Thess. 26-7 However, as stated above, John shows no interest in angels as dividuals and only introduces Michael in chapter 12 for specific reasons While it 1s not possible to demonstrate that Michael did not appear m an earlier version of 8.3, Charles’ source theones have not found wide acceptance among commentators

4) The Johannine Paraclete

Finally, O. Betz, appealing to parallels from Qumran, has made a case for identifying the Johannine Paraclete with Michael °° Betz argues that the

55 See above pp 66-67 57 C* 3 209% 4°" Theodoret? all read & dryyéAoy rather than &: deyyihwe similar phenomenon at

Heb

Cf a

2.2 where codex L reads & dyyéAov rather than &

ay yew

58 Revelation, 1.225-226 59 Betz, Paraklet

esp

149-158

Contrast the opposite thesis of Johnston (Spirtt-Paraclete,

119-122), who argues that John opposed a Michael-Paraclete identification which was

current in certain quarters

136

Part Il)

Michael in Early Chnstian Literature

sectanan figure vanously known as “the Spint of Truth” and "the Angel (or

Prince) of Light” served as background for John’s Paraclete, who also has the utle “Spint of Truth”

(14.17,

15 26)

Although

he believes that the

sectanans originally distinguished Michael and the Angel of Light/Spint of Truth, they were well on the way to being identified as a single figure in the principal texts 1QS and 1QM = The Fourth Evangelist combined this figure with the Michael myth found in Revelation 12 to produce his Paraclete Betz marshals a wealth of interesting parallels from Qumran and elsewhere in support of his thesis, but in the end he has convinced few First of all, 2t should be noted that direct influence from the Qumran sect on the Johanmine circle cannot be demonstrated, at best they share some com-

mon assumptions and beliefs ® Second, the differences between the sectanan Michael/Prnnce of Light and the Johannine Paraclete must not be passed over The Paraclete 1s not said to be an angel and nothing 1n the text indicates that he should be identified as one ®! Furthermore, the two figures do not function in the same way the Paraclete does not have the military role attributed to Michael/Prince of Light, while neither the Johannine Paraclete nor the Qumraman Michael/Pnnce of Light appear as a heavenly Advocate, which 1s for Betz the central function of the Paraclete concept.*? Finally,

Betz’s dependence

upon the Apocalypse of John is a fatal weak-

ness, for there 1s litde or no evidence that the author of the Fourth Gospel was familiar with this work *

d Summary In summary, the picture which the NT documents afford us of the archangel Michael stands in broad continuity with that found elsewhere in the Second Temple penod

He leads the heavenly armies {Rev

12 7), and

defends the mghteous against the accusations of Satan (Jude 9; cf Rev 12 10) His office as psychopomp may stand in the background of Jude 9, and 2 Thess 26-7 may attribute an eschatological role to him. Significantly, in all these texts he 1s clearly subordinated to Chnst His victory over the dragon in Revelation 1s limited and dependent upon the victory

5! Brown. *Paraclete", 126 62 Burge

Anointed Community, 20; Johnston, Spirit-Paractete, 107

3 Burge, Anointed Community, 20 Johnston, Spirit-Paractete, 116-118

The New Testament

Chnst achieved on the Cross

137

In Jude 9 he does not condemn the Devil,

but defers to the Lord's judgement Finally, assuming that my proposal identifying him with “the Restrainer” of 2 Thess. 2 6-7 1s sound, he himself does not destroy the eschatological anti-God figure; that also belongs to Christ Michael merely restrains him so that his appearance 1s in accord ance with the divine plan

3 Angel or Angelic Christology It remains to examine those passages which might suggest that Chnist was identified with an angel in the NT period (1 e , an angel Chnstology) or that NT Chnstology may owe something to current Michael or pnncipal angel speculations {1 e , an angelic Chnstology) I will argue that the former 1s found, albeit indirectly, in the opening chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews and, perhaps,

in Jude _ The latter, I would suggest, is found in a

number of NT texts I will argue that the influence Michael and principal angel speculations had on Christology took two forms There are those

passages in which tasks that traditionally belong to the principal angel are transferred to Christ and, in addition, there is evidence that Chnst was at tumes viewed in ways reminiscent of the M17? x? of the OT I will begin with the evidence for an angel Chnstology, and then turn to both kinds of evidence for an angelic Christology Then, having discussed both angel and angelic Chnstology in the NT, | will turn to the dissimilanties which exist between portrayals of the pnncipal angel in Second Temple penod Judaism and the NT portraits of Chnst

a. Christ as an Angel in the New Testament Period I) The Epistle to the Hebrews The opening chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews have occasionally been cited as evidence for an angel Chnstology That the author here explicitly affirms the pre-eminence of Chnst over the angels has led some interpreters to suggest that he was attacking a view, shared by his readers, that Christ was an angel * Montefiore, for example, argues that such an

64 So Michel,

Hebrder,

131

132,

Lueken,

Michael,

139-148,

Montefiore,

39-42, Rowland, Open Heaven, 112-113, and tentatively, Bruce, Hebrews

Hebrews.

138 angel

Part lif Chnstology

was

Michael in Early Christian Literature a compromise

position

which

the

readers

of the

epistle, attracted by Judaism, were in danger of adopting If they reverted to Judaism they would be forced to deny the divinity of Christ, but given their experience as Chnistians, they would still wish to confess him as more

than a man, and so they began to confess him as an angel polemical language in Heb 1-2, however, makes this unlikely

The lack of Our author

at this early stage of his exhortation appears to be adhering to common ground with his readers, he 1s, in the words of Barnabas Lindars, "recalling

agreed positions" from the primitive kerygma.®> That the supenonty of Christ to angels was part of the pnmuitive kerygma 1s shown by explicit mention of it throughout the NT (Phil 29-10; Rom 8 38-39, Col 1.15 18, Eph, 1 21, | Pet 3 22). Luindars argues that the rhetoncal structure

of the Epistle shows that our author begins gently, aiming to “establish rapport with the readers before winding up to the main issue” *? Lindars supports this with two observations First, our author does not directly address the readers in chapter 1 Second, after 2 9 the issue of Chnst’s supenority to angels 1s not brought up again in the whole of the letter Indeed, the rhetoric of the opening chapter about Chnst's surpassing supenority to the

angels culminates, rather anti-climactically, in a seemingly unrelated paraenesis (2 1-4) Surely, if he opposed an angel Christology on the part of his readers, the author would have been compelled to dwell on it more than he does

Furthermore, 1t 1s difficult to account for the appeal to Mel-

chizedek in chapter 7 if our author was wormed that his readers were confusing Christ with an angelic figure. An argument based on Melchizedek would only encourage them to understand Chnst in terms of a heavenly, if

not angelic, high priest Nonetheless, it must be admitted the author of Hebrews does “go on a bit" in stressing Chmist's superiority to angels Why does he list a chapter and a half of proof texts if no one in his day was in danger of blurring the distinchon between Chnst and angels?

The answer may be that while this

was not an error which appealed to his readers,

it was in the air.

Indeed,

one could argue that he emphasized his agreement with them, building rapport with his addressees by stressing his "orthodoxy" over an tssue which

65 Lindars, Theology, 27-28, 37-38 Cf Isaacs, Sacred Hebrews, 51-52, and Stuckenbruck, Ange! Veneration, 123-139

Space,

% So Attridge, Hebrews, 53

®? Lindars

Theology 27

8 Lindars, Theology, 27-28 6? Cf

37 38

Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration,

7 So Isaacs, Sacred Space, 176.

126, and Lindars, Theology, 27

176,

Attndge,

The New Testament

139

was of no little concern to them, The appeal to Melchizedek does not tell against this theory; having established his opposition to angel Christology early on, he was then free to make use of the idea of a heavenly or angelic high priesthood without any danger of being misunderstood 7! If this interpretation 1s correct, then the Epistle to the Hebrews offers indirect evidence of an angel Chnstology in the first century We shall see that this 1s supported by evidence of a more direct character in Jude's epistle A number of commentators object that the purpose of affirming Chnst’s supenonity to angels serves merely to support the contention (2 2-3) that the salvation offered in Chnst transcends the Law delivered by angels In this view, the primary contrast 1s not Christ and angels, but Christ and the Law Therefore, no ange] Christology 1s in view.72 However, the two concepts are by no means mutually exclusive The author may very well have been combining the two arguments Christ supersedes the Law and He 1s supenor to al! angels. The latter point proves the author’s “orthodoxy”, while the former addresses an issue on which he feels his readers are in some danger of lapsing. He first concentrates on the issue in which he and they are in agreement; and only after establishing his doctrinal correctness does

he turn to the issue for which he 1s afraid for their “orthodoxy” .”?

2} Jude 5-6

While the identification of Chnst with an angel appears to have been opposed in Hebrews 1-2, such an equation may have been embraced and utilized in Jude 5-6, Here it 1s the pre-existent Christ who 1s said to have "saved the people from Egypt, but afterwards destroyed those who did not believe” This interpretation 1s explicit if, in vs 5, the omginal reading ts ‘Ingots. It may still be present, but only implicit, if the text onginally read 7. Cf Attridge (Hebrews, 52)

“[b}y clearly stating at the outset Chnst's supenor

status, he perhaps forestalls any possible objection to his christology that might among those familiar with the sources of his umagery of the heavenly High Prest"

anse

72 So Lane, Hebrews, 117, Manson, Hebrews, 50 Cf Westcott, Hebrews, 16 73 So Lindars, Theology, 38

Cf the sumiar interpretation of Stuckenbruck Angel Veneration, 123-139 However, Stuckenbruck 1) argues from a pre-history of the text which, while plausible 1s hardly demonstrable,

and 2) cannot decide whether an angel Christology or ange]

veneration 1s

being attacked The former ts the better alternative since the nature and function of Chnst and of angels are clearly contrasted {] 7-9), while an angel veneration 1s, at best, merely hinted at (1 6-7)

140

Part lll

xuptog may

Michael tin Early Chrisnan Literature

While the problems surrounding the textual vamants of this verse never

be completely

resolved,

there are good

reasons

to hold

that

Jude’s autograph read "Jesus" Its attestation 1s early and widespread, supported by both Alexandman and Western authonties 7* It 1s the most difficult reading and it best explains the others.

This last point has been dis-

puted ** Some would hold that xipto¢g best explains the others, not knowing which "Lord" was meant, later scribes substituted either Oe6¢ or Inaove 7 However, 1f this were so surely Xpio76¢ would have been substituted rather

than ‘Ingot¢ The umqueness of the pre-existent Christ being called “Jesus” in the NT makes this the most difficult reading it further accounts for the ongin of xuyptog faced with the difficulty of the reading Ingove, scnibes harmonized Jude 5 with Num 14 and 16 LXX, where xtpuog appears many times and to which Jude 1s alluding in the latter half of this verse 7 However

even if xuptog were orginal, the pre-existent Christ may still

have been intended since xipsog always, or nearly always, refers to Chnst, rather than God,

1n this epistle *

So Jude in all likelthood views the pre-

existent Chnst as actively leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. | Cor

10 4, 9 shows, Christians had already come to conceive of Chnst as

active in the central event of the OT Here Paul! identifies Christ with the supernatural rock which provided the Israelites with water and followed them

in their wilderness

wanderings 7°

But in what capacity does Jude

envision the pre-existent Chnst as active in the Exodus? 1 would suggest that it us as the Exodus angel, for Jude seems to be consciously echoing OT

language about this angel

Just as in Num

angel brought us out of Egypt” (xtpiwos..

20 16 the "Lord sending [his] amooreihag &yysedov etqyayer

nua>o éf Atvyirrov) and the Hebrew text of [sa 63 9 can be read as "the angel of His presence saved them", so here, Jude wntes, “Jesus saved the

people

from

the land

of Egypt"

(om

‘Inoote

Aaov

éx yi¢

Alyurrou

owouc)} © There was undoubtedly a great deal of speculation around this angel in

Judaism of the Second Temple penod From Ex 23 20-21 it can be seen that the two duties of the Exodus angel were to 1!) guard and lead the chil 7 Alexandnan

A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 Ongen Didymus

Western

it Vg Jerome

75 Bauckham, Jude, 309, Kelly, Eprstles, 255 76 It should be remembered that in the earlest uncial MSS fede, mipioc appear as OC, KC, and [C

and

Ingots

7 Cf Osbum, “Jude 5*, 111 115, and Metzger and Wikgren's minonty opinion in Metzger, Textual Commentary 726 78 So vss 4,17 21,25 and probably 14 Only vs 915 a possible exception 79 See Ellis, "Xptoré¢”

80 So Fossum, “Jude $7”

168-171, and Hanson, Jesus im OT

234

11 16

Cf Justin Martyr Dial 75 12

141

The New Testament

dren of Israel in the wilderness and 2) to punish their disobedience.

And

these are precisely the two activities attributed to Christ in Jude 5. Furthermore, the allusion in the latter half of vs. 5 1s to the plague recorded in Num. 16.41-50. In this text no angel 1s mentioned; it merely states that "wrath

went

abundant

out

from

evidence

that

the

Lord"

the

(Num.

first

16.46).

century

this

However,

"divine

there

wrath"

was

understood as a destroying angel (See Wis. 18.20-25, 0 odEOpsiav; 4 Macc. 7.11, a&yyedov; and 1 Cor. 10.10, tov oNoPpevTov). The latter half of vs. 5, then, seems to confirm the suggestion that Jesus saved the

people from Egypt as the angel of the Exodus.®! Some®2

would object that the following verse, Jude 6, tells against this

interpretation. Jude’s syntax is difficult here, but it 1s simplest to take the subject of vs. 5 as serving vs. 6 as well. Therefore, if my interpretation of vs. 5 is correct, vs. 6 would read as follows: “and the angels who did not keep their appointed place, but left their habitation, he (1.e., the preexistent Christ) has kept in eternal bonds under gloom for the judgement of the great day". However, since no tradition is known in which Christ, or indeed

the Exodus

angel,

imprisoned

reading of vs. 6 cannot be correct.

fallen angels,

it 1s argued

that this

This 1s not a real difficulty since Jude,

as in the previous verse, 1s taking a known tradition and adapting it to Christ. His source for this tradition is, in all likelihood, the Book of

Watchers, since he quotes the opening chapter of this work (vss. 14-15). 1 Enoch 10 records God charging Michael and Raphael with the binding of the two leaders of the Fallen angels. Jude appears to be taking this tradition about the two archangels and adapts it, applying it to the pre-existent Christ.83. The re-interpretation of /En. 10 by the author of the Simuilitudes of Enoch 1s instructive here. In JEn. 69,84 the story of the binding of the fallen angels is re-told, but here the roles of Michael and Raphael are coalesced and attributed to a single figure: the Son of Man. Jude seems to be doing something simuilar.®5 Thus, I conclude that in vss. 5-6 Jude intended to identify the preexistent Christ with an angel, the angel that “saved the people from Egypt".

81 So Fossum,

“Jude 5-7", 233

82 E.g , Kelly, Epistles, 255

83 Fossum, "Jude 5-7", 231-233 84 Cf esp vss 85 Cf

Osburn,

1-12 arti 26-28 “Jude

5",

112-113

Fossum

("Jude

5-7",

228-231)

also

sees Jude

attributing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to Christ in vs 7 The text itself cannot sustain this Sodom and Gomorrah are simply said to "serve as an example" (NRSV), and the context does not necessarily imply the activity of the pre-incarnate Christ here

142

Part III

Nonetheless,

Michael in Early Christian Literature

we cannot simply conclude that Jude was here espousing an

angel Christology. As we shall see, later authors, such as Justin Martyr, could identify Christ with the OT Angel of the Lord without implying that he shared an angelic nature.86 Such may have been Jude’s view. Vss. 5-6 of his epistle are simply too brief to be sure of alt the ramifications of Jude’s Christology. Furthermore, it should be noted that Jude is alone among NT writers in making this identification. The Exodus angel 1s also mentioned in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, but there is no indication that Luke saw Jesus in this angel.8” It would seem, then, that the NT affords us some limited evidence for

Christologies which understood Christ as an angel. Such a view was opposed by the author of the Hebrews, and, if my interpretation 1s correct, by his readers as well. On the other hand, Jude, who alone of NT authors explicitly identified the pre-incarnate Christ with an angel, may or may not

have intended to imply that Christ shared an angelic nature.

b. Principal Angel Speculation and NT Chnistology I turn now to those passages which, while not identifying Christ with an angel, seem to owe something to Michael or principal angel speculations.

begin with those which seem to draw on the tradition about the angel in whom

the divine Name

dwelt (Ex.

23.20-21)

and then turn to those pas-

sages which attribute to Christ a role or function belonged to Michael or other principal angels.

which

traditionally

1) Christ as the Angel of the Name

While Jude identifies the pre-incarnate Christ with the Exodus angel, other NT authors may have drawn on the single most distinctive element of

85 See below pp

202-212

87 Werner’s (Formation, 124) suggestion that in Luke’s account of the burning bush (Acts 7 30-34), the angel which appeared to Moses tn the bush 1s identified with o xipuos, and thus with the pre-existent Christ, has nothing to commend it

For 6 xvpioc 1s equated

with 6 @s6¢ in vss

31-32, but 6 Oed¢ 1s clearly distinguished from the angel in vs 35

thermore,

ignores the possibility that the tradition that both an angel

Werner

Fur

and God

appeared to Moses in the bush (ExodR 2 5, Justin Martyr Dial. 60 1) was known to Luke

The New Testament

143

the Exodus angel tradition: his relationship to the divine Name. The Israelites were told to obey him, "for he will not pardon your transgression; for my

name is in him”

(Ex. 23.21).

Name

did

proceed

not

always

While speculations about the divine

from

angelological

base

(cf.

e.g.,

GosTruth 38.6-41.14; GosThom. 13), Ex. 23.21 did inspire speculations about Michael (JEn. 69.13-25), Yahoel (ApAb.), and Metatron (bSanh 38b; 3En. 12 = §15).88 Even Philo’s Logos could be described both as an archangel and as the divine Name (Conf. 146). There are a number of NT

texts which seem divine Name. a) Phil.

2.9

to imply that Christ also had some relationship to the The earliest text which implies Jesus possessed the divine

Name 1s Phil. 2.6-11.

After recalling Jesus’ death on the cross followed by

his exaltation, the hymn continues, God kai éxapicaTo avT@ 70 dvopa TO UTép TAY Ovowa, tva év TH dvopatt ‘Inoot Tav youu Kapyy...".8° Many commentators agree that "the name above every name" can only be xvptoc,

which in the LXX renders 1170’, and which is explicitly attributed to Jesus in vs. 11.% The phrase év 7@ ovodpart "Incod must then be translated "at the name of Jesus", 1.e., the name which belongs to Jesus, rather than "at the name Jesus".°! In other words, the Lordship of God, and His Name which guarantees that Lordship, now belong to Christ. Significantly, the hymn culminates in transferring to Christ an OT text (Isa. 45.21-23) which

declares the universal worship of the one God, but does it in a way which does not set up Christ as a rival to that one God (vs. 11). In many ways this text parallels 1 Cor. 8.6, where Paul seemingly modifies the Shema to include a confession of Christ as xdptocg.°*

The deutero-Pauline Eph.

1.20-

88 See above pp 51-54, 110-111, 117-118 89 The article before the first Svoua 1s omitted by Western (D F G), Byzantine (MajT) and late Alexandrian witnesses (¥Y 075 0278 1881), but 1s strongly supported by early Alexandrian witnesses (P*6 8 A B C 33 1175 1739 Or), and should be retained. Lightfoot (Philippians, 114) notes the tendency on the part of scribes to alter the text when 76 ovone occurs absolutely

90 So Hawthorne, 237, Lightfoot,

Philippians, 92-94, Martin, Philippians, 101, idem, Carmen, 236-

Philippians,

God, 95, 293-297

113

Hurtado,

One God,

96-97;

and Fossum,

Name

Note the discussion by Fitzmyer ("Kyrios-Title", 120-123) on the pos-

sibility that pre-Christian copies of the LXX

did not use xupiog for 717?

Fitzmyer 1s too

cautious He does not take into account the evidence of Philo, whose text of the LXX clearly renders 3177” with xjpiog Nor can Fitzmyer account for the overwhelming substitution of xiptoc for the tetragrammaton in Christian MSS if it were not the traditional render-

ing 91 So Hawthorne, Philippians, 92, Lightfoot, Philippians, 114 92 See, among others, Hurtado, One God, 97-98, Dunn, Christology, Lacey, "One Lord", 199-202

179-183,

144

Part III

Michael in Early Christian Literature

21 and the author of Hebrews

(1.4) provide later but 1mportant parallels to

Phil. 2.6-11. The three texts taken together imply a conjunction between Christ’s exaltation and his possession of a new name.%3 This bestowal of the divine Name

upon Christ at his exaltation and in

consequence of his obedience, it must be admitted, differs significantly from the Exodus angel who possesses God’s Name so that he can take God’s place in leading the Israelites (Ex. 23.20-21,

32.31-33.6),

and from

Michael’s being given knowledge of the Name as the secret oath by which the world

was

created (JEn.

possession of the Name However,

69.13-25),

and even from

Yahoel’s

(ApAb.)

as the key to his status as the principal angel.

there 1s a significant similarity with Metatron’s reception of the

Name on the occasion of his exaltation to heaven and his elevation over the heavenly hosts in 3 Enoch 4-12 (= §§5-15).

Two other NT passages, Rev.

19.11-16 and John 17.11-12, offer parallels to the Exodus angel’s, Michael’s and Yahoel’s possession of the Name. b) Rev. 19.11-16 J have already discussed this passage briefly above in connection with Rev.

12.94

There I suggested that the allusions to Ps. 2.9

serve to identify the Leader of the heavenly host in 19.11-16 with the manchild of chapter 12. In addition, allusions to the vision of the resurrected Christ (1.12-20), which opens the book, in 19.12, 15 make 1t clear that it 1s the same resurrected Christ who will lead the heavenly armies at the climax of history. Significantly, Christ wears many diadems on which 1s "inscribed a name

which

no one knows

but he himself"

(12c).

It 1s just

possible that the longer reading supported by mostly late witnesses,9 éxwv OvOoLaTa ‘yEeypappéva Kot Ovopa ‘yeypappévorv, is original and _ that ovopaTta yeypaupéva Kai fell out due to haplography--the eye skipping from 6vopa to ovdpara.%® If so, then, the secret name cannot be explained as one of the names mentioned in this passage: mtord¢g Kat aAnOLWdc, O NOyos Tov Gov, or BaotrEvg Baothéwry Kat KUptog Kupiwv. For they are

merely examples of the “many names". The secret name must be another, unidentified name. Most commentators believe that this "name which no one knows but (Christ) himself" is unknowable.°’ However, the fact that the name is inscribed upon his diadems suggests that it is the tetragram-

93 Cf

Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 128-134

94 See above pp 128-129 95 1006 1841 1854 2030 MayTk Syrh 96 The argument which follows 1s not dependent upon this textual variant, but certainly harmonizes with it

97 So Swete, Apocalypse,

251-252, Kiddle, Revelation, 385, Caird, Revelation, 242,

Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 279-280; apparently Mounce, Revelation, 344 345

The New Testament

145

maton It was widely held in the first century that the divine name was inscribed upon the High Pnest’s diadem,™ and more than one interpreter, both ancient and modern, has concluded that the descnption of Chnst’s clothing in the opening vision is drawn from pnestly models *% Furthermore, elsewhere in Revelation (3 12, 14 1, 22 3-4) tt 1s the name of God and the Lamb’s new name which 1s placed upon the forehead of the martyrs Thus it seems the secret name inscnbed upon Chnist’s diadem 1s none other than

the ineffable Name of God ! If this is accepted, then the picture of Chnst here is not far from that of the Exodus angel, who had military functions in that by him God drove out the peoples of Canaan (Ex 23 20-28, 33 2) It

also provides a further link with Michael

Christ has not only taken over

Michael's role as leader of the heavenly hosts--he also possesses the divine Name as Michael does in /En 69 13-25 c) John 17 11-12

In John 17,11-12 Christ’s possession of the Name ts,

m some respects, similar to the portraits of Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham and Metatron in 3 Enoch

In this prayer Jesus affirms that he has

completed the work God had given him to do (vs 4) and that this was nothing other than revealing the divine Name (vs 6). Jesus can reveal the Name because it had been given to him (vss 11b-12) Further, the Name

shared between the Father and the Son signifies their unity

for keeping the

disciples in that Name will bring about their unity with both the Father and the Son (vs

11b)

Furthermore,

making known

the Name

to the disciples

secures for them a share in that love which exists between the Father and

the Son (vs 26) !°! In other words, Jesus’ possession of the divine Name expresses his unique relationship with God. This 1s not unhke Yahoel's possession of the Name in ApAb 10 3, 8 17 or Metatron’s in 3En 12 (= §15). In all three cases possession of the Name implies a special relation to

God different from and higher than every other being However, in the case of the two pnncipal angels the purpose 15 undoubtedly to sigmfy their role as God’s vice-gerent, whereas in the Fourth Gospel Jesus’ possession

of the Name expresses his unity with the Father '°? 98 See my discussion above pp

Further, in contrast to

87 88 and n 72, and the texts cited there

99 So Irenaeus, Adv Her iv 20 11, Victorinus and Arothas (acc to Swete) cautousty Swete himself, Apocalypse, 15-16, Farrer, Revelation, 65-66, Caird Revelanon 25,

Holtz, Christologie, 118-121, Mounce, Revelation

77 78, Sweet, Revelation

1 So Farrer, Revelation, 198

10} Note also vs 22, where the 86ta of the Father, which is given to the Son, 1s another expression of their unity

102 See Ashton, Understanding, 141-147 and Brown, John, Ll 754-756, for similar interpretations However, Ashton too easily adopts the suggestion of Barker that the fourth evangelist was not *a die-hard monotheist” He misses the significance of John 10 30

146

Part ill

Michael in Early Chnistian Literature

Metatron and Phil 26-11, but similar to Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Exodus angel of Ex 23 20-21, Jesus 1s not given the Name only upon his exaltation but already possesses it dunng his earthly mission,

The

Fourth

Gospel,

then,

seems

to use the tradition about

the

angel of the Name, but transforms it to present Jesus as both the revealer of

God and the Revelation of God--as well as expressing the Son’s unity with the Father

2) John

8.56, 12 41

All this shows

that NT

authors could and did make use of current

speculation about the Name of God, and that the authors of Revelation and

the Fourth Gospel may have made use of the Exodus angel tradition However, it 1s probably significant that no NT author ever cites Ex 23 2021 or explicitly identifies Jesus as the angel of the Name, A simular situa-

tion prevails in another passage which appears to make use of an OT 4x90 i177? text unrelated to the Exodus narrative Jesus’ statement in John 8 56 that Abraham had seen his "day", may imply that Jesus was one of the "men" who appeared to Abraham in Gen 18 This interpretation was common at least from Justin Martyr (Dial. 561, 57 2) onwards and, as we shall see, John could view the pre-existent Christ as active in OT events However, most commentators prefer to see here a reference to a Rabbinic tradition in which God showed Abraham the future of the world (GenR

44 22(R Yohanan b Zakkai (T1) and R Agiba (T2)]}, but already alluded to in 4 Ezra 3 14) or an allusion to Abraham's joy at the promise of a son in Gen 1717'% Because of the enigmatic nature of the saying it 1s impossible to say for certain to which event in the life of Abraham the Evangelist was alluding. However, if he does intend to recall the three men of Gen 18, the absolute 2yw zip saying placed on the lips of Jesus in 8 58 demonstrates that the Fourth Evangelist does not see Jesus merely as an angel 1%

103 So Brown (John, 1 360), Schnackenburg (John, II 221 223) 352) and Dodd

(/nterpretation, 260-262)

However,

Barrett John, 351-

Hanson (Jesus in the OT,

123-126)

argues that Gen 18 1s one of three OT passages the Fourth Evangelist has 10 mind

104 Contrast the Rabbinic interpretation of Gen

Michael,

Gabriel

and

Raphael

(bYoma

37a

6bBM

18 which identifies the three angels as 86b,

GenR

48.10,

50.2)

absolute gyw cil saying and its affirmation of Christ’s divinity, see esp } 366-367) and Dodd (/nterpretatton, 26-262), cf also Bultmann (John

For

the

Brown (John

327-328)

The New Testament

147

Mention should probably also be made of John 12 41 clear affirmation of the pre-existent Chnst’s activity during Evangelist wntes: “Isaiah said these things because he glory, and spoke concerning him". As most commentators an allusion

to the vision of the Lord

in Isa

615

'!%

Here we have a OT times The saw his [Jesus’] agree,'® this 1s Because of his

insistence that no one other than the Son had ever seen the Father (1 18, 5 37, 6 46, cf 14.9), the Evangelist could not have interpreted Isa 6 1 5 as a vision of the Father However, he can quite happily see this as a

vision of the pre-incarnate Christ.'°’ This is not far from Paul’s assertion that the Rock which followed the Israelites in the wilderness was Chnist or

Justin’s identification of the 717? X90 as the pre-incarnate Chnist All of this indicates that there was a reluctance on the part of the NT authors to identify Chnst explicitly as the Exodus angel, the angel of the Name, or the 7;

4K70

the text 1s in question

Only Jude 5-6 does so explicitly, and even there

The NT authors are not shy to state that Christ was

active in the events of the OT (1 Cor 10.4, John 12 41) or that he possesses the Name of God (Phil 29, John 171112) In other words, the

authors happily allude to traditions about the 717" 4X90

in their

portrayal of Chnst, but only once 1s an explicit identification made How 18 this reluctance to be explamed? Jt seems that we are left with two options Either the identification was assumed and simply never stated or it was never made because the NT writers felt it to be inadequate

When we

turn to the dissimilarities between the Christ of the NT documents and traditions about the principal angel in Second Temple Judaism 1t will become increasingly clear that only the second option adequately accounts for all the differences

105 Brown, John, 1.486-487, Barrett, John, 432, Dodd Jesus tn the OT, 104-108, Bultmann, John

Interpretanon, 207, Hanson,

452, 0 4

106 Note that Isa 6 1015 cited in vs 40

10? So Brown, John, | 487, Hanson, Jesus in the OT, 106-108, Schnackenburg, John, 416, Rowland,

“John 1 51°, 499

early Church, see Hannah

For a summary of the interpretation of Isa

“Isaiah's Viston”

6 in the

148

Part lil c

Michael in Early Chnsnan Literature

Pnncipal Angel Roles attnbuted to Chnst

1) Christ as the Leader of the Heavenly Hosts

The NT authors not only spoke of Chnst in ways reminiscent of the OT

min" 4X40, they also attributed to him roles which had been traditionally associated with Michael or other principal angels I have already discussed above how Chnst appears in Rev 1911-16 as the heavenly apxtoTpaTyyoc,

leading the heavenly armies.'%

John’s clear distinction

between Michael’s subsidiary victory and Chnst’s, on which the former depends, must not be allowed to obscure that Christ 1s here portrayed in an office which usually belongs to Michael in Jewish apocalyptic hterature '9 Indeed, in terms of their literary strategies, the arnval of Chnst in Rev 19.11-20 3 does for the Apocalypse of John what the advent of Michael (Dan

12 1) does for the Book of Damel

Given John’s knowledge and use

of Daniel, it 1s not unlikely that Daniel 12 1 served as a model for Rev 19.11-203 ''© The crucial fact to note here is that the Seer knew the role was traditionally Michael’s (12 7) and yet readily transfers it to Chmst and feels no need to defend this novel move ''' Of perhaps even greater sig nificance 1s the complete absence of Michael in Rev 19.13-203 He isn't even mentioned as one of Christ’s Lieutenants Chnst has not just taken over Michael's traditional role, he has completely eclipsed him When John relates Michael's victory over Satan he carefully indicates that that victory 1s subsidiary to Chnist’s. When he desenbes Chnst’s conquest of Satan, he feels no need whatever to re-introduce Michael

not with his the reality of Carrell!!? merely in an

Hts concern lies

readers’ perception of Michael, but with their recogmition of Chnist’s victory has quite mghtly pointed out that Christ is here portrayed not office frequently attmbuted to Michael He also assumes a

108 ]t 1s probable that both angels and saints make up the heavenly hosts which follow

Chnst So Charles Revelation, It 135-136, Mounce, Revelanon provides a precise parallel of an army of angels and saints Carrell cusses this question and concludes “ 1 does not, im fact, seem decide the composition of the armues one Way or the other What is are heavenly armies” (Emphasis onginal)

109 See above pp

38-40

both Chnst and Michael

346 Ascenls 414 (Jesus, 206-207) discrucial to attempt to umportant is that they

In Chnstian literature the title dpxcorpatryos belongs to

Chnst

Justin Martyr, Dial

the Nag Hammadi tractate Melchzedek (IX,1 18.5-6)

34 2, 61 1, 62.4-5 and apparently

Michael

EpApos

13 (Copt);

Origen PG 12.821 See below pp 165-166, for a discussion of the Michael texts 110 CF Carrel), Jesus, 209 'N' Cf Collins, "Son of Man”, 65-66.

12 Jesus, 207-208

The New Testament

role which in the OT often belongs to Yahweh.

149

In many OT passages it is

Yahweh himself who, as the divine Warrior, fights for Israel and leads the

heavenly host on behalf of his people (e.g., Ex. 15.3; Deut. 7.1-2, 17-24; Isa. 24.21-23, 27.1; Pss. 18.6-19, 68.1-35). Indeed, Rev. 19.13-15 alludes to one such OT passage in which Yahweh appears as the divine

Warnior (Isa. 63.1-3). This allusion serves to identify Christ with Yahweh. Just as in Isa. 63 it 1s the Lord who tramples the wine press alone and has stained his garments, so in Rev. 19.13 the mder wears garments "dipped in blood” and in 19.15 it 1s stated that he "treads the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty". As often in his apocalypse, in 19.11-20.3 John combines a number of symbols and images from the OT and apocalyp-

tic tradition.

Christ 1s portrayed

in a role which

usually belongs

Michael. He treads the wine press of God’s wrath as Yahweh does in Isa. 63. He 1s also presented as the messiah, for allusions to two classic OT messianic passages (Ps. 2.9 and Isa. 11.4) are included, both of which attribute messianic and militaristic roles to the returning Christ. This mixing of images 1s significant. Christ takes over Michael’s traditional role of apxioTparnyosg,

but in no way can Christ be explicated merely in terms

of his fulfilling of an angelic office. weh’s messiah. Finally,

it 1s possible

He also functions as Yahweh and Yah-

that this conception

of Christ

as leader of the

heavenly hosts 1s not limited to the Book of Revelation. A number of other passages (e.g., Mark 13.26 pars.; Matt. 13.41; 2 Thess. 1.7) appear to portray the parousia in terms of Christ leading armies of angels. However, in these the military imagery 1s far less explicit. At any rate, Christ 1s certainly portrayed as the heavenly apxtoTpa&rnyos in later Christian writings (cf. Justin Martyr Dial. 61.1, 62.4-5).

2) Christ as the Gate Keeper of Paradise Another example of an office traditionally belonging to Michael, but appropriated to Christ by NT authors, 1s perhaps found in the claim of the risen Christ to hold the keys of death and Hades in Rev. 1.18 and in the

promise of Paradise to the penitent thief recorded in Luke’s Gospel (23.43; cf. also QuestBart. 1.29). For Michael 1s often portrayed as the angelic gate-keeper of Paradisesin Jewish apocalyptic literature. !!3

113 E.g., 4Bar 95, 3Bar

11.2, ApMos. 37.4-5. See above p 47.

150

Part lil’ Michael in Early Christan Literature

3) Chnst as the Heavenly High Priest Similarly the author of Hebrews envisions Christ in Michael's office of heavenly high priest To be sure there 1s no direct evidence that the tradition of Michael serving in the heavenly sanctuary was known to thts author

However, tt is not unpossible For in developing his high pnestly Christology the author of Hebrews exploited the notion of a heavenly sanctuary (e g , 8 1-6), which in Jewish sources was officiated by angels and presided over by Michael

(7Lev: 3 4-7, 3Bar 11-16; bHag

12b; bMen

110a; bZeb

62a) Furthermore, he appeals to the pnesthood of Melchizedek to buttress his argument that Chnst's pnesthood 1s eternal and supersedes the Aaronic priesthood In light of the evidence from Qumran, it is possible that some contemporanes of the author of this epistle accepted an identification of Melchizedek

with Michael ''*

However that may be, it 1s clear from 7 3

that the author of Hebrews understood Melchizedek not only as a priest, but also as some kind of heavenly being, although whether he 1s merely an exalted patnarch or a patnarch transformed into an angel (cf JEn 71; 2En. 22) is unclear }'5) 11QMelch, 2En 71 72 and Meichizedek (NHC IX,1) demonstrate that speculation about a heavenly Melchzedek was not uncommon

in the first two centuries of the Christian era.

It 1s possible,

then, that our author knew of these or similar conceptions about Mel chizedek 16 If so, then, in writing of Chnst's high priestly office the author of Hebrews may have been consciously transferring to Chnst what had previously been Melchizedek's/Michael's To be sure, the author does not assert that Melchizedek’s, or Michael’s, pnesthood has come to an end. But the point of his argument 1s that now only Chnst’s presthood has any continuing validity for Christians Significantly, for the author of Hebrews, Christ’s high pnesthood implies

Other

a role of heavenly

authors

Christians (Rom

also

advocate

assume

and

that the

intercessor

exalted

(Heb

Christ

7 25,

9 24)

intercedes

for

8 34, 1 John 2 1). Here again is a role which belongs to

Michael, and other pnncipal angels, in Jewish literature (JEn 89 70-77, 90 17, 3Bar 11 16,!"? ExodR 185, RuthR proem 1, and bYoma 77a),''8 However,

while NT

authors

may

have been dependent

114 See pp 70-74 for my discussion of 11QMelch and 4Q' Amram 11S Contra Isaacs, Sacred Space, 163 164

upon

Michael

118 Attndge, Hebrews, 194, Lindars, Theology, 74-77, Hengel, *Son", 81

Longenecker

“Melchizedek Argument",

117 See above pp 43-46 118 See above pp 100-102

171-179, and Yadin,

Cf also

"DSS and Hebrews", 48-53

The New Testament

angelological traditions for this, at least Paul did not apply it exclusively t Christ. He assumes that the Holy Spirit, as well as the exalted Chnist intercedes for Christians (Rom. 8.26-27). To be sure, in attributing these principal angel roles to Christ the N’ writers avoid specifically recognizing Christ as an angel. He leads the heavenly armies, but he 1s not Michael. Melchizedek 1s likened to him (7.3), but the two are clearly distinguished.

The NT

authors found these

roles helpful in illustrating the present and future significance of Christ, but they go no further in the direction of an explicit angel Christology.

d. Dissimilarities

Heretofore I have examined the positive evidence for angelic Christology in the NT. In what follows I will be concerned with the negative evidence or the dissimilarities between NT Christology and principal angel traditions.

1) Christ Never Called or Portrayed as an Angel in the NT a) Rev. 1.12-18 and 10.1

Although the NT 1) describes Christ’s activity

in OT events i ways reminiscent of the 17? 4X2” and the Exodus angel and 2) contains significant and striking parallels between Christ and Michael or other principal angels of Second Temple Judaism, the fact remains that, except for Jude, the NT authors never identify Christ with an angel or describe him as an angel. Some would question these assertions. Rowland, to cite one of the most important examples, has argued that the description of Chnst in Rev. 1.12-18 draws upon the description of the glorious angel in Dan. 10.5-6.!!9 He quite nghtly points to the very similar language used to describe the appearance of the Glory of God in Ezekiel 1, the

"man

clothed

with

linen"

in Dan.

10.5-6,

Yahoel

in ApAb.

angel (possibly Michael) who appears to Aseneth in JosAsen. risen Christ in Rev.

1.12-18.

Rowland

has, I believe,

10,

the

14, and the

demonstrated that

John used the angelophany of Dan. 10.5-6 as a "quarry for imagery to des-

119 Rowland,

"Vision of the Risen Christ", idem,

Open Heaven, 94-113 tion, 209-221

"Man Clothed in Linen", and idem,

Rowland 1s followed in the main by Stuckenbruck, Angel Venera-

152

Part Il’ Michael in Early Christian Literature

cribe" Christ.!2° However, it is very doubtful that John intended to identify Christ with the angel of Dan. 10--or any other angel. First of all, nothing is taken over from Dan. 10 and left untouched. In concert with his use of the OT generally, John here transforms everything he borrows. For example, Damiel’s cai 70 tpd0wrov avTov wosi dpacic doTpaTihc,'2! becomes

Kal n risen Days divine

OYtg AUTO WS 0 HALOS daiver Ev TH duvaper avTov. Significantly, the Christ of John’s vision also wears the white hair of the Ancient of of Dan. 7.9 and JEn. 46.1, and so could be construed as having characteristics, !22

More important is a methodological concern:

similar and even parallel

imagery often indicates only very general comparisons.

As Rowland him-

self points out, in his description of "the One Seated" upon the throne (Rev.

4.3), John draws on the imagery of the Urmensch of Ez. 28.13.!23

But

surely no one will suggest that the divine Occupant of the throne of John’s vision 1s modelled on, even less is to be identified with, Ezekiel’s Urmensch! In the words of Dunn, Rowland fails to ask how

much

of the similarity of language of these visions is due to the

fact that descriptions of glorious heavenly figures in visions could draw on only a limited pool of metaphors and images? Hence the prevalence of the impression of fire and brightness. !24 One has only to recall the descriptions of God in JEn 14.20 and 2En 22.1 (LR), 39.5 (LR); of Michael in TAb.

A 7.2-7; and of the Woman

clothed

with the sun in Rev. 12.1 to see the truth of this. This “limited pool of metaphors and images" means that by necessity many of these descriptions will begin to sound familiar.!25 Indeed, to the angel of Rev. 10.1 belong

paraphernalia elsewhere associated with divinity;!26 however, for John he remains

simply

120 Open Heaven,

one

of the

many

anonymous

angels

(GAAov

cyyedov

100

121 Here the LXX and Theodotion have the same text, except that for Theodotion codices A Q and a few minuscules replace woei with wo

122 So, e g , Holtz, Christologte, 121-122 123 Rowland, "Visions of God", 146

124 Dunn, Partings, 218 125 One must also keep m mund the fluidity of apocalyptic images Rev

55 and 4 Ezra 11-12 a lion 1s used as a symbol for the Messiah

simile for the Devil

For example, in In 1 Pet. 5 8 itisa

Too much weight must not be placed on imagery alone.

126 He 1s‘clothed with a cloud, which traditionally belongs to theophames rainbow upon his head recalls the rainbow around the divine throne (Rev. 4.3).

Further, the

The New Testament

ioxupov) which Gundry),'?* the ter 1 are not so real parallel 1s awe 6 HALog (10

153

make up the heavenly hosts '2?. Contrary to Rowland (and sumilanties between this angel and the nsen Chnst of chapgreat as to make them almost indistinguishable !*? The only the comparison of his face to the sun’ 76 xp6owxov avrod 1) Compare 1 16° Kai 7 dyec abrod wo 6 HALOS daiver ev

7 Svvdye. avtod

Later when John intends to identify the Leader of the

heavenly armies (19 11-16} with the Son of Man from the vision of the opening chapter, he hfts whole phrases with very little variation (cf 1 14 with 19 12 and 1 16 with 19 15) In other words, one cannot decide on the basis of such imagery alone whether a heavenly being is divine or an angel or an exalted patnarch or an exalted saint. The imagery of Rev, | 12-18 certainly identifies the Son of Man figure as a heavenly being, but what kind of heavenly being can only be answered by close attention to the text of Revelation itself

There we

find clues which suggest a distinction between angels and Christ First, in 5.8-14 Christ receives the same worship that 1s offered God (cf also 4 11), while John’s angelic guide rejects any attempt to be worshipped by him (19,10, 22.8-9) Second, Chnist 1s associated with God’s throne (3 21, 7.17, 22 3) in ways which infer he 1s classed on the divine side of the

chasm between Creator and creatures '*° ‘This conclusion is further supported by Christ's claim to the divine titles "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (22 13, cf

1 8, 21 6)

To be sure, Rowland carefully avoids imply:ng that John understands Christ as an angel '3! Nevertheless, he assumes the glonous imagery of Rev 1 12-18 suggests that John was drawing on angelomorphic categones, when John’s imagery probably only points to the heavenly character of the risen Christ '32 What kind of heavenly being he 1s only becomes clear as John proceeds. Recently, Gundry has hike Rowland appealed to similarity of imagery, as well as similarity of function, for the identification of the "mighty angel" of 10.1, and a number of other angels in the Book of Revelation (e g , 18 1-3, 18 21, 7.2-3, 20 1 3), with Christ '33

He does not explain, however,

why

(27 For a cogent presentation of this “mughty angel" as the “angel of Jesus” mentioned 1D 1 1 and 22 16, see Bauckham, “Conversion”, 243-257, and idem, Theology, 80-84

128 Rowland, Open Heaven, 102, Gundry, “Angelomorphic", 663-668

129 So also Stuckenbruck, Ange! Veneration, 231-232 130 See Hall, "Living Creatures”

13) See esp “Man clothed in Linen”, 100 132 This same criticism applies to Stuckenbruck’s (Ange! Veneration, 209-221) exegesis as well

133 Gundry, “Angelomorphic*

154

Part Ill

Michael in Early Christian Literature

John, who elsewhere freely uses the names or titles "Jesus", "Christ", and "Lamb", should in these passages hesitate to identify explicitly these angels with Christ. Gundry’s reading of the text results in a certain incoherence. For example, in 7.2-3 the angel who ascends with the rising sun is 1n reality the ascending Christ.!34 Once in heaven he 1s no longer termed @y~vyedoc, but "the Lamb”

(7.9), but the text of chapter 7 itself offers no clue that

these two figures are one and the same.

To the contrary, the context sug-

gests that they be treated as distinct personages.

Chapters 6 and 8 depict

the Lamb in the heavenly throne room opening the seven seals. Chapter 7 also places him in the throne room (7.9-10, 17). Gundry’s identification of the angel of 7.2 with the Lamb must presuppose that the Lamb has left heaven after opening the sixth seal in 6.12, that he re-ascends into heaven in 7.2-3 and resumes opening the seals in 8.1. The text itself offers no support for such a complicated reading. For Gundry’s thesis to be sustainable he must produce a passage in Revelation which unequivocally applies the term G@yyedoco to Christ. He believes he has found this in the opening verse. Gundry understands this verse to affirm that God both gave a revelation to Jesus to pass on to God’s servants and sent Jesus as His angel to John. To arrive at this, he must take 0 Oe6¢ as the subject of the sentence even though it appears in a subordinate clause. The majority of commentators take Jesus as the subject of éonpavev amooTeinasg Sta Tov ayyédou avtov To S0tAw avTod ‘lwavrn.'3

In other words, da Tov ayyédov avrov refers to an angel sent by Jesus himself, a reading which 1s confirmed by 22.16.!36 Thus, dua ro ayyédov avrov in 1.1 refers,

not to Jesus, but to his angel,

and cannot be used to

support Gundry’s need for unequivocal application of @yyedog to Christ in the Apocalypse of John.137 b) Rev. 14.14-I15 | Nor can one appeal to Rev. 14.14-15 as 1f the @AXoc a&yyedoso implied that the dpotov viov avOpwarov was also an angel. Most commentators recognize that &AXo¢ wyyedog 1s John’s usual mode of referring to angels (7.2, 8.3, 18.1, cf. 10.1). In this chapter alone the phrase occurs six times (vss. 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18).!38 But how is it that an angel

134 Gundry, "Angelomorphic", 672-673. 135 Swete, Apocalypse, 2, Charles, Revelation, 1 1; Sweet, Revelation, 57-58, Bauckham,

Theology,

81-82,

idem,

“Conversion”,

254-255

also Farrer, Revelation,

59,

Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 50-51 136 Gundry

("Angelomorphic",

675, n 39) mentions this verse, but does not give suffi-

cient attention to it

137 So Bauckham, "Conversion", 243-257, and idem, Theology, 80-84 138 See, e g , Swete, Apocalypse, 188-189, Beckwith, Apocalypse, 662, Sweet, Revelation, 231; Dunn, Christology, 323, n 110 Contrast Charles, Revelation, II 21.

The New Testament

155

here gives the command to Chnst to begin the harvest? Does not this imply that the man-like figure, clearly a reference to Chnist,!5? 1s to be ranged with the angels rather than with God? Beasley-Murray is probably correct to emphasize that this ange! has come from the heavenly temple, that 1s from the presence of God, and is understood as conveying His command !° Stuckenbruck objects 1) that such an explanation does not alleviate the diffi-

culty which nses from the fact that an angel mediates between God and Christ and 2) that Christ performs a task (14.16: harvest of grain) parallel to that of an angel (14,19-20 harvest of vintage and treading of a winepress) '*' The first objection has weight only so long as this passage 1s examined in isolation from the rest of the Apocalypse Guven the angelic worship of Chnst (5 11-13) and other assertions of Chnst’s supenonty to angels in the book (1 16, 20, 22,16) it seems unlikely in the extreme that

Chnist is here being depicted as dependent upon an angel for communication with God The purpose of the angel issuing from the temple and relaying the command to Chnst 1s probably only intended to emphasize the

divine ongin of the edict

Further, we must allow for the fact that Revela-

tion 1s a narrative and an apocalypse, not a theological treatise

Thus, we

cannot make too much of certain inconsistencies which result from the limitations inherent to narratives ‘42 Stuckenbruck’s second objection neglects the parallel in 19.15, where Christ treads the wine press Reading

14.20, where the subject is not named, in light of 19,15 1t appears that the man-like figure, not an angel, is mtended as the unnamed subject of vs 20.143 c) Gal

414

the Galatians had

Some have argued that Paul’s statement in Gal accepted

Paul

ayyedor

Beov

4 14 that

Xpiorov

‘Inoovr

should be read as if the two we phrases were in apposition 144 This would

make Paul assert that Chnst Jesus was the angel of God, or at least imply that this was the Galatians understanding which he was seeking to correct The grammar certainly permits this, but it is hardly compelling

As Paul’s

own view, it finds no support elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, and con-

139 CF Carrell, Jesus, 192-195 140 Beasley Murray, Revelation, 229

Sweet's (Revelation, 231) appeal to Mk

13 32

141 Stuckenbruck Angel Veneration, 243-244 142 CF Carreli's (Jesus, 191) explanation that "Jesus" ignorance can be understood as a result of his being separated from God at the pornt at which God concludes that the harvest should be cut”

143 So Bauckham, “Conversion” 294-295, dem, Theology, 96-97 144 So Longenecker,

" Apostle”

"Distinctive",

532,

idem,

Chnsiology,

31,

and

Gieschen,

156

Part lll)

tradicts Gal

Michael in Early Christian Literature

3 19 where Paul contrasts the Law given by angels with the

promise which was fulfilled in Christ '*5

On the other hand, if this were a

view of the Galatians, which Paul 1s correcting, we would not expect Paul to be so allusive, and positive, in his only reference to this Galatian error It seems best, therefore, to take the second w¢ phrase as a progressive, rather than a synonymous, parallel '* d) The Son of Man As long ago as 1941 Werner appealed to the Son of Man tradition as evidence of an angel Christology On the basis of Daniel 7 13-14 and the Sumulttudes of Enoch, he argued that the earhest Christians understood the title “Son of Man” as a reference to an angelic being, whom God had appointed as an eschatological judge

Werner,

assuming that in

Jewish apocalyptic generally the Son of Man was understood as an angel, argued that the Synoptics took over this understanding when they descnbed the Son of Man as the pmnce of angels (Mark

1 13, 8 38, 13 26-27, Matt

13 41 42, Luke 22 43, cf. 1 Thess, 4.16) '*? Werner goes a step further arguing that just as Enoch was transformed into the heavenly Son of Man in /En 71, so in Acts 2 32-36 Jesus is said to have been raised by God, and, in fulfilment of Psalm 110, exalted to the mght hand of God 148

Leaving to one side the complex question of the onginal meaning of the phrase o voc tov avOpwrov on the lips of Jesus, to say nothing of the debate regarding the sayings* authenticity, there is little or no evidence that the Evangelists,

who

identified

the

“Son

of Man”

with Jesus,

understood

the term as referring to an angel In predictions of the parousia, angels are said to accompany the Son of Man and fulfill his directions, but no equation with an angelic being

1s ever made.

Werner,

at this point, depends not

upon evidence from the NT, but upon a scholarly construction which assumed a widespread expectation in apocalyptic circles of an angelic Son of Man This scholarly construction was, and 1s, dependent upon the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13, works which are contemporary with, or a little later than, the Gospels More recent interpreters have argued cogently that these and other works probably reflect a messtanic, not angelic, interpretation of Dan 713 which was current in the first century '4° More to the pomt, while many of the Synoptic Son of Man sayings are also based upon Dan 7 13 (e g , Mk. 8 38, 13 24-27, 14 62), there is nothing in the Synoptic Gospels to suggest that their authors

145 Dunn Christology, 155 14% Burton, Galanans, 242, Dunn

Christology, 156

147 Werner Entstehung, 302-304 (= Formaton, 120-121) 148 Werner, Formation, 126 149 Es | Horbury, “Messsanic Associations", and Collins, “First-Century Judaism*

The New Testament

187

understood the Son of Man of Damel 7 to be an angel, While a preexistent, heavenly messiah, such as we find in the Simuilitudes or 4 Ezra,

may not in our view differ much from an angelic figure, we must be careful before assuming that those who accepted such a messianic interpretation of Damel 7 would have happily identified the Messiah with an angel

As we

have seen, the evidence from Qumran suggests that at least some in Second

Temple Judarsm distinguished the expected messiahs from angelic redeemers '® More importantly, the Son of Man figure is never identified

with an angel in either the Swnilitudes or 4 Ezra

Indeed, especially in the

former the precise nature of the Son of Man figure 1s unclear While he 1s listed alongside the various angelic orders (JEn. 61 10), he is also termed "that child of woman" (JEn

62 5) 5!

We must, then, concluded that while

the Son of Man of the Sim:litudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra may be angel-like he 18 never explicitly identified as such and, even if he were, it would be too

much of a jump, without further evidence, to conclude that the Synoptic Evangelists thereby intended to 1mply that Jesus as the Son of Man was an angelic being Recently, Yarbro Collins has returned to a positron similar to, but more

nuanced than, Werner's

She follows Rowland in postulating the depend

ence of John’s vision of Chnst in Rey. | on Daniel's vision of the angel in Dan

10, but also emphasizes the role that the vision of the Son of Man in

Dan. 7 had on the author of Revelation She further argues that for Daniel the Son of Man represented the archangel Michael, but since John seemingly identified the angel of Dan 10 with the Son of Man he probably understood the Son of Man to be Gabriel Yarbro Collins appeals to the LXX text of Dan 7 13 which states that “the one hike a son of man came, and

as (the)

Ancient

of Days

(wo

radaxog

nuepwr)

he arrived".

She

assumes the LXX text identifies the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days '52 She proposes that this text was known to the author of Revelation and that he followed a tradition which identified both figures with hypostatic manifestations of God She concludes that John identified both Danielic figures with Chnst/Gabriel '53 The LXX text may have been known to John and it may have inspired him to attribute to the risen Christ the white hair of the Ancient of Days in

150 See above pp 58, 65-66 151 This reading 1s supported by one text-type (Eth II) of Man"

The other (Eth Treads

For "that child of woman” as the more difficult, and thus the preferred

"Son reading

see Black, | Enoch, 235-236 152 §o also Lust, "Danrel 7 13", 67-68, and Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneranon, 217-218 153 Yarbro Collins, “Son of Man", 548 558

158

Part HI

Daniel 7

Michael in Early Christian Luerature

Nonetheless, it should be recognized that we are uncertain of the

LXX reading's orgin and we cannot rule out the possibility that the LXX reading was introduced by Chnstian scnbes influenced by Rev. 1.12-20 More to the point, even if we assume the pnorty of the LXX version of Danie] over against John's apocalypse, it 1s hnghly questionable that the LXX text implies that "the one hike a son of man” and the Ancient of Days

are one and the same figure '** The LXX text, taken in its entirety, presupposes not one, but two figures

vs. 9

First, more than one throne is mentioned in

Further, the mynads of angels surrounding the Ancient of Days (vs.

10) approach'5> “the one like a son of man” (vs, 13) after his arnval, which

would be a nonsense statement if the two were to be understood as a single figure. Furthermore, vs. 14 states that authonty was given to "the one like a son of man", implying that the Ancient of Days confers this authority. In other words, the LXX envisions not the idenuty of these two figures, but rather expresses the similarity of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days '* Thus it 1s more natural to conclude that John identified the "one hike a son of man" with the nsen Chnst and “the Ancient of Days" with God = This means

that John

need

not have seen either figure as angelic,

but rather

understood the LXX text as emphasizing the Son of Man's affinity with the Ancient of Days.

2) Christ Superior to Angels tn the NT

Finally, there can be no question but that the NT authors held Christ to be superior to angels In the Synoptics, for example, at the parousia the angels

Chnst’s

bidding

gathering

the

elect

and

righteous from the unnghteous (Mark 13 26 pars ; Matt

separating

13 41; cf

the

Matt

25.31). Indeed, the angels are often termed either “the angels of the Son of Man" or "of Chnst" (Matt 1627; 2 Thess. 1.7) Similarly, vanous

authors affirm that Chnst at his resurrection or exaltation was elevated above

all the heavenly

beings

(Eph

1.20-22,

| Pet. 322,

Heb

1 1-4,

(54 To sustain ths, Yarbro Collins asserts that Greek-speaking Jews of the LXX version of Damel 7 “would probably have taken vss 9-12 and vss

13-14 as parallel accounts

of the same event” (“Son of Man*, 557) Thus seems to me to be extremely unlikely

bro Collins offers no positive evidence that Dan 7 LXX was ever so understood.

‘SS gpogrpyeryor air in Pap

Yar-

967 and the marginal reading of the Syro-Hexapla,

sapnoay in Cod 88 and the Syro-Hexapla

'$6 So also Kim, Son of Man, 22-24

The New Testament

159

Matt. 28.18, cf | Cor 15 23-28) Other passages imply that Chnst's supenority to the angels was a fact pnor to his incarnation (Col 1 15-20; Heb. 1 5-14).

In the Revelation,

the Risen Christ holds in his hand the

seven stars which signify the seven angels who correspond to the seven churches

Finally, while John’s angelic guide twice refuses worship, angels

venerate the Lamb with the very same language they use to worship God (Rev 4-5, 19 10, 22 8-9) All this, in and of itself, does not disprove the existence of an angel Chnistology, for by definition the highest archangel would have been con-

sidered superior to all other angels

The issue is whether this supenority 1s

one of degree or of kind Some passages can be understood either way First, those predictions of the parousia in which the Son of Man 1s accompamied by angels (e g , Mark 13 26-27 par Matt 24.30-31, Matt 13.41,

16.27, 25 31, 2 Thess.

1 7) could be construed as a supenonty of

degree; the angels are “his" in the same way that each angelic host was thought to be under the command of an archangel (Rev 127; 2En 19 1 3, Vita Adae 15 1, 161). These passages could also be understood as implying a superiority analogous to God's sovereignty over the angels, in which

case it would be a superionty of kind, rather than of degree tions of the parousia,

The descnip-

then, are ambiguous and can be understood either

way. Many of the passages which affirm that Christ at his resurrection or exaltation was elevated above all the heavenly beings (e g , Eph 1 20-22, 1 Pet 322, Heb 1 1-4; Matt 2818, cf Phil 210-11) are similarly ambiguous Even a text, Phil 2 6-11, which implies that Chnst was superior to all angels before his incarnation offers little help All of these are silent on the nature of Christ vis-4-vis the angels, they can all be construed as declaring a supenonty of degree or of kind. However, this 1s not the

case with Heb. | 5-14

Here the contrast of angels with the Son umply that

the Son differs not just in degree but also in kind

The author asks, “To

which of the angels has he ever said.. ?" (vs 13, cf. also vs. 5).'5’ In vss 7-8 he utilizes a pév, 42 clause to contrast angels with the Son Furthermore, in vs 6 the author declares that God commanded all the angels to worship the Son Clearly the author of Hebrews did not classify Chnist as

an angel, not even the highest of the angels, but rather held him to be of another order entirely.

Indeed, he affirms the Son’s eternality (1 11-12)

and twice calls him #ed¢ (1 8-9)

In a similar vein, the author of Colos

57 Cf 1QM 13 13-14 and 1QH 15.28ff (formerly 7 28ff) where this same rhetoncal device 1s used to contrast God with the angels

160

Part Il: Michael in Early Christian Literature

sians asserts that Christ was the agent of creation "through whom and for whom" the angelic orders of thrones, dominions, authorities and powers were created (Col. 1.16). Their creation not only depended upon him, so does their continued existence, for 7a wavTa év avTg ovvéarnxev (1.17). Here again, Christ’s superiority to the angelic hosts 1s a superiority of kind,

rather than just degree. Likewise, the saying of Jesus in John 1.51 that Nathaniel would see "heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man",

implies that the latter belongs to a different order from that of the

angels. John is here alluding to Jacob’s dream of the ladder between earth and heaven (Gen. 28.12). Many commentators would understand John to be interpreting the ladder of Jacob’s dream with the Son of Man: Jesus is the "bridge" between the heaven and earth.!58 However, Rowland has recently made a convincing case for understanding this passage in light of Jewish exegesis of Gen. 28.12, where the angels descend to look upon Jacob whose face 1s identical to an image engraved upon the divine throne. Rowland renders the final phrase "descending fo the Son of Man", taking the phrase émi 7ov viov Tov avOpa@mov only with KaraBaivovrasg. In this interpretation, the Fourth Evangelist replaces Jacob in the Jewish exegesis of Genesis, with Jesus, the Son of Man, in his own.

He thus presents Jesus

as the “embodiment

of the revelation of the divine Kabod".'5°

Both of

these

suggest that Jesus’

1s more

interpretations

superiority

to the angels

than just one of degree. In the first, the angels belong to the heavenly world and need the mediation of the Son of Man to descend to earth and reascend to heaven. In the second, they descend for the purpose of beholding the embodiment of the divine glory, who 1s none other than Jesus, the Son of Man. I argued above that in the Book of Revelation Christ fundamentally differs from the angels; for he shares the divine throne (3.21, 7.17, 22.3) and,

unlike the angels (19.10, (5.8-14; cf. John 5.23).

22.8-9),

he receives the same worship as God

Other evidence for the worship of Jesus in the NT

suggests that the practice was widespread in early Christianity.!© For example, Acts 13.2 pictures the leaders of the church at Antioch "worshipping the Lord”. Furthermore, Eph. 5.19 speaks of hymns which were sung to the Lord, 1.e., to Christ.

Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20, and John 1.1-

18 may very well be first century examples of these hymns to Christ.

That

158 So Barrett, John, 187, Ashton, Understanding, 347-348; cf Brown, John, I 91

159 Rowland, “John 1 51", esp 503-506. 169 Cf Bauckham, "Worship of Jesus", IIT 812-819, and Hurtado, One God, 99-114

118-149,

idem,

“Jesus,

Worship

of", ABD

The New Testament

161

they are not explicitly addressed to Christ, but rather recite his origin and deeds, does not tell against this just as ancient psalms (cf. e.g., Pss. 106, 107, 121) and modern hymns often do the same and yet were and are considered acts of worship. Indeed, Phil. 2.6-11 ends with a prediction that every creature in heaven and earth will eventually kneel before and confess Jesus Christ as Lord; two liturgical actions which at the very least imply the eschatological worship of Jesus. Confession of Jesus as Lord was an early practice of central 1mportance in the first century Church (Rom. 10.9-13) and one which seems to have had a cultic context (1 Cor. 12.1-3). Doxologies addressed to Christ (2 Tim. 4.18; 2 Pet. 3.18; Rev. 1.5b-6;

5.13) and a benediction which include him alongside God (2 Cor.

13.13)

are also found in the NT. Petitions were directed to Christ (2 Cor. 12.8; 1 Thess. 3.11-13; 2 Thess. 2.16-17, 3.5; 1 Cor. 16.22; Rev. 22.20; cf.

Did. 10.6). Finally, the Lord’s Supper, at least in Pauline circles, probably included the idea of communing with the Risen Christ (1 Cor. 10.14-17). This evidence for the worship of Jesus 1s varied; some of it early, much of it late. Some of the evidence carries more weight than others. However, taken as a whole the passages listed above offer the startling and

exceptional phenomenon of cultic actions being rendered to a man who just decades earlier had been executed by crucifixion. And the authors of the writings in question all make claims of monotheism. The NT authors go to great lengths to ascribe honour to Christ, while none give evidence for the honouring of angels in a cultic setting. Indeed, 1t was widely assumed that the angels worshipped Christ (Phil. 2.10; Heb. 1.6; Rev. 5.8-13)! This cultic veneration of Christ indicates that Christ’s superionty to angels was

understood by many NT authors as one of kind, and not just of degree.

4. Conclusions:

The

evidence

ambiguous.

Use and Transformation of Principal Angel Traditions

reviewed

this

chapter

is,

sure,

somewhat

The NT authors used Michael and other principal angel tradi-

tions in their portrayals of Christ. Christ appears in Revelation as the Leader of the heavenly armies, in Hebrews he 1s the heavenly High Priest, in both Luke and Revelation he is the Keeper of Paradise. He has been entrusted with the divine Name. All of these roles belong to Michael in Jewish traditions. However, Christ 1s never called an angel and never portrayed as an angel, except in Jude 5-6, where he 1s identified with the

OT 717° 482%.

Further, Christ was held to be superior to the angels.

162

Part Ill Michael in Earty Christan Literature

least n Colossians (1.16-17), Hebrews (1 7-8, 13), Revelation (5.8-13), and the Gospel of John (1 S51), this is a supenonty of kind and not just of degree When pnncipal angel motifs are used to elucidate Chnist or his work, they are used cautiously and, with the exception of Jude, an explicit identification with Michael or the 7° 3R2D 1s meticulously avoided However, the fact that they are used means that angelology did have some effect on NT Chnstology The NT authors found traditions about principal angels convenient for asserting the activity of Chnst in OT events and in clanfying the heavenly and exalted nature of Chnst. Thus we are jushfied in speaking of NT angelic Chnstology In the following chapter we shall see that this ambiguity resulted in different Chnstologies among Chnstians in the following centunes. Some understood the pre-incarnate Chnst as an

angel

Some even identified this angel with Michael

While “orthodox”

Chnstians found this unacceptable, they could and often did call Christ an

angel and identified him with the OT 7177 X22

Chapter 7 Michael and Angelic Christology in the Second and Third Century There 1s evidence that during the second century a Christology which identified Chnst with the highest of the archangels gained ascendancy in certain circles Not surpnsingly such an angel Chnstology, on at least one occasion, equated Chnst with Michael The various forms this angel Chnistology took, especially its Michael-Chmst form, will be the subject of the bulk of this chapter, but I begin by bnefly summanzing Michael tradi-

tions as they and Patnstic the chapter’ discussion of

appear in both Christian apocalyptic, and related, literature works Discussions of two ancillary phenomena will conclude First, the theme of Chnst disguised as an angel, and second, a the “theophanic” angel Chnstology of Justin and Irenaeus

1. Michael in Second and Third Century Christianity As we found to be the case with the NT documents, the Michael traditions

which

appear

in Chnstan

wnitings

of the

second

and

early

third

centuries Owe a great deal to Jewish angelological traditions of the Second Temple period, Indeed, 1t would seem that Chnstians adopted many Jewish beliefs about Michael

Significantly, many of the traditions taken over by

Christians are found in wntings outside the Jewish Scnptures.

This 1s true

both of the treatises of intellectuals, like Tertullian and Ongen,

and of

"popular" literature, like Hermas’ Shepherd and the Epistula Apostolorum

164

Pant Ili

Michael tn Early Christian Literature

a Leader of the Heavenly Angels

Michael remains the leader of the angels in many of these texts

For

example, in the Ascension of Isaiah (3,16) Michael 1s the apxwv rav ayyékwy Tay ayiwey There is an emerging consensus which would place the origin of this early apocalypse in the opemng decades of the second

century or earlier ' Another second century Chrisuan work, the Epistula Apostolorum, in a list of the four archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Unel) refers to Michael as “the archistrategos of the angels” (Chapt 13) 2 In the Questions of Bartholomew,> Satan claims to be the first created angel and that “Michael, the captain of the hosts above", was the second (4,28-29) This implies that Michael should now be reckoned as the pnnce of those angels who did not fall 4 Finally, on the basis of Hermas Sim vii,3 3-6, Origen’ argued that mdividual Christians when they first believe

are placed under the guardianship of Michael, but when they fall into sin they are transferred to lesser (Uxodséo7epov) angels This probably indicates that Ongen held Michael to be supenor to all angels 6

'So Hall “Community Sttuahon Date” 300-6 Acerbi, L'Ascenstone, 277-82, Pesce, isaia, 299-300; Kmight, Diseiples of the Beloved One, 33-39, and Bauckham “Gospel

Traditions", 9-14.

Mast of these scholars would also stress the unity of the Ascension of

fsaiah = Earlier scholarship tended to divide the Ascension into three sources

So c.g ,

Charles (Ascension, xliv-xlv) who placed each of the three sources in the late first century but dated the final redaction to the second or early third centuries, Barton (AQT, 779-781)

who basically follows Charles, and Muller (W7A taken the most recent research into consideration

604-605) who docsn‘t appear to have Knibb (O7P [I 149 150)

one of the few

recem scholars who still finds three distinct sources behind our text, places all the constitu tive parts in the first or second centuries, but the final version in the third of fourth centuries

2 Coptic version The Ethiopic (~ the archangels Michael and Gabnel, Une! and Raphael followed me ") smoothes the rough grammar of the Coptic and should probably be considered secondary Cf Schmidt Gesprache Jesu, 47 4 Scholarly opimon on the ongin of QuestBart

is divided

Elhott (ANT, 652) reports

tha! others have suggested dates from between the second and sixth centunes Scheidweiler (NTApoc 1 540) asserts that there is no reason not to assign the onginal recension to the third century 4Cf Rohland

Michael

40-41

5 CommMatt xiv 21 According to Eusebtus (HE vi 36 1 3) the commentary on Matthew 1s one of Ongen s latest works and thus dates from the muddle of the third century

® Cf also ApPaul 14 43-44 48 be earlier than the fourth century

However

this apocalypse in its present form cannot

Second and Third Century Christianity

165

b. Protector of the People of God and Opponent of Satan The passage 1n Hermas appealed to by Ongen portrays Michael as the guardian ange! of the people of God, the Church (0 6& &yyéhos 0 pé&yas Kai évdokoo Mixandy 6 éExwrv trHY éEkovainy Tovbrov rol aot Kat d:vaxvBeprar favrovs] Hermas Sym vin.3.3).? This is an example of how

the traditional belief of Michael as the protector of the Jewish people was taken over by early Chnstian writers and applied to the Church While Ongen (CommMatt xiv) used it to support the :dea that Michael was the guardian

individual

Christians,

elsewhere

retains

the

notion

Michael as the patron of the Jews In a catena fragment on Jos. 5.14 (PG 12,821), Ongen affirms that after the death of Moses the people were turned

over

Michael,

the

apxiorparnyog

who

appeared

to Joshua

Onigen's interpretation here 1s very similar to one found in Rabbinic sources (ExodR 32,2-3, GenR 97 3), God himself led the children of Israel until the death of Moses when he handed them over to an angel The Rabbis interpreted Jos 5 13 15 as the story of this angel taking up his role as patron of Israel ® Similarly, Hippolytus identifies Michael with the angel who led the children of Israel in the wilderness and opposed Moses at the inn (CommDan 1v 36-40), In these vartous texts Michael’s role as protector of the people of God,

both of the Jews

in the OT

penod

and of

Christians in the present, 1s affirmed, Sigmficantly, none of our extant sources argue that Michael 1s no longer patron of the Jews Rather 1t would seem that his guardianship of Chnstians denves from the assumed continuity of the Church with the saints and prophets of the OT °

The adoption of this tradition takes an interesting form in the passage from Hermas cited above (Sim 111.3 3-6) Here Michael delivers the Law to believers This recalls the role attnbuted to him by the Jewish apocalyptic tradition of mediating the Law to Israel on Mt Sinai '© However, ? The final form of the Shepherd of Hermas 1s generally dated to the middle of the sec-

ond century So Quasten, Pairology, [ 92-93, Dibelus, Hirt, 421-422, Brox, Hirt, 22 25 Lake, Apostolic Fathers, It 3, and tentatvely Laghtfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 293-294 The avrot¢ 1s omitted by the Greek MSS A and M, but was apparently present in the Greek text(s) which stood behind the two Latin versions and the Ethiopic

8 Ongen elsewhere (HomJos

vi 2, cf HomJud

1x.1 and HomEz

i 7) interprets this

passage as a reference to Christ rather than Michael On balance if 1s probably best to see this as an example of an mconsistency in Ongen’s thought, but it ts not impossible that this

catena fragment has been incorrectly attributed to Origen 9 One exception im Chistian literature of the second century may be found in Ascenis 3 14-16 where “the angel of the Church” appears to be distinguished from Michael

10 Jub above pp

1 27-21, ApMos 49-51, 66-67,

124

{arch)angel of the covenant*

Preface, 4Q470; cf Gal Cf

also ApPaul

319; Heb. 22, Acts 753, and

14, 44 where Michael

ts called “the

166

Part HI) Michael uns Early Christian Literature

Hermas interprets the Law neither as the wntten Torah nor as oral tradi-

tions, but rather as the proclamation of the Son of God (6 88 vépog ovrog6 vidc Tov Gsov goTtry xnpuxbeic eg Ta Fépara THs ic; Sim. vu 3.2) Indeed, as the context makes clear, for Hermas "the Law” 1s the Chnsnan way of I:fe."!. Hermas, then, while probably indebted to Jewish apocalyptic thought for this conception, has adapted 1t to his own purposes. In due course, [ will return to this passage for a far more significant adaptanon of Michael traditions by Hermas In Jewish apocalyptic, the lnterature of Qumran, and in Rabbinic thought Michael’s guardianship of Israel often implied a military role '* Such a role 1s probably also assumed by those early Chnstian texts which give him the ttle apxtetpatyyos (EpApos 13 [Coptic]; QuestBart. 429 v1, Ongen, PG 12 821) '* However, just as in Rabbinic literature, in early

Christian documents military functions could be attributed to other angels. For example, Ongen (Princ 1 8 1 3) held that the supervising of wars was Gabniel’s responsibility Related to this military office is the theme of Michael as the opponent of Satan on behalf of humanity.'' This theme appears in QuestBart. 4 52-55 Here Beliar recounts the story of his fall* Machael orders Beliar to worship Adam, the image of God In his pnde Beliar refuses, Michael insists and

when Beliar continues to refuse, he 1s cast out of heaven.'®

c Heavenly Pnest

Turning to the tradition of Michael as a heavenly priest, a passage from Origen’s De Principiis (1 8 1-3) 1s very significant. In it Ongen attributes to Raphael "the work of curing and healing", to Gabnel “the supervising of ‘CE e.g. Sim vin 3.5-8 So Lake, Apostolic Fathers, 11 199, 01 \2 See above pp 33-42, 64-66, 99-100 '3 One Grk MS

Cod G, reads MixonjA, Tor apyiorpcemyyor Tar Grw byrapéuv, but

the other, Cod H, omuts everything after Miya. H 1s usually the more reliable, but in this instance. Scheidweiler (NTApoc, 1 547) prefers G

1$ Cf also the ange! of QuestBart 1 23-26 who has military funcvons and whom Scheidweiler (NTApoc, 1.551, 0.8) Wentifies with Michael This unnamed angel's supenonty to the other angels certainly fits the depiction of Michael later in this document (4.28-29, 52-55), but 1t seems odd that the author would choose not lo identify hum here as Michael when cartier in the same vision he mentions Michael by name (1 9)

15 See above pp. 41-42, 64-66, 127-130 6 This story is based on the legend found in Vita Adae 12-16 and various other

sources See above, p 42

Second and Third Century Christianity wars",

and to Michael

167

"the task of attending to the prayers and supplica-

tions of mortals".!7_ Although the whole passage is typical of Ongen’s thought, the roles attributed to the three archangels are probably traditional. This association with human prayers recalls Michael’s priestly office in Rabbinic and apocalyptic literature '8 Although tts date 1s uncertain, one recension of the Ascension of Isaiah!° also presents Michael in an intercessory office which may be priestly. In the seventh heaven Isaiah asks his guide about an angel who appears more glorious than the others. His guide tells him that this 1s "the great angel Michael ever praying on behalf of humanity and the poor" (magnus angelus Michael deprecans semper pro humanitate et humilitate).2° A priestly office is certainly in view in Sim. vi1.2.5, where Michael charges the Shepherd, or angel of repentance, with

the careful examination of those committed to his charge. Michael is concerned that none who are unworthy get past the Shepherd. "But," he says, "if anyone does bypass you, I shall test them at the altar". Simularly, EpApos. 13 records how Christ, during his descent to earth, conferred upon Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel the ability to serve at the heavenly altar. Here, however, the priestly office 1s shared by the four archangels and seemingly amounts to a substitution for Christ during the time of his incarnation.

d. Eschatological Roles Finally, Michael fulfills various eschatological roles in early Christian thought. As in Jewish apocalyptic and Rabbinic literature,?! Michael often appears in early Christian literature as the escort of the souls of the righteous to Paradise or, alternatively, as the Gatekeeper of Paradise. For 17 Cf

Cels

125 and Jerome CommDan

1816

According to Eusebius, De Principus

dates from Origen’s Alexandrian period (HE vi 24 4), which ended with his removal

Caesarea in 231 or 233, while Contra Celsum dates from late in his Caesarean period (HE vt 36 2) Jerome, of course, dates from the late fourth to early fifth century

18 See above pp 43-46, 100-102 19 Charles’ G2 The witnesses of this recension are the so-called second Latin (L”) and the Slavonic (S) versions

20 9 23 acc to L2, S differs slightly

C Leonardi, who edited the Latin text for the

Corpus Christianorum series, believes that the words et humulitate are a later addition; see Norelli, Ascensio, 227

also 9 29, 42 (L2 S)

tinually prays for humanity

21 See above pp 46-47, 102

ApPaul 43 also asserts that Michael con-

168

Part lil

Michael in Early Christian Literature

example, we have descriptions of Michael transfernng to Paradise the souls of Isaac and Jacob in a Testament under the name of each,?? the soul of the Virgin Mary in a complex of narratives and traditions preserved in texts of various languages,*? and the soul of Jesus’ human father in the History of Joseph the Carpenter.4 Admittedly much of this literature is late, dating from the fourth century and beyond. However, the common theme of Michael as psychopomp certainly denves from an earlier tradition since it 1s attested in the Testament of Abraham*5 and the Apocalypse of Moses,** works

which,

although

Jewish

in origin,

were

preserved

by Christians

Examples of Michael as the Majordomo of Paradise in works of Chnstian ongin, such as the Apocalypse of Paul?’ and the Gospel of Nicodemus,*4 are also late Nonetheless, here again earher works of Jewish ongin which were adopted and re-wnitten by Christians demonstrate that this concept was accepted in Christian circles as early as the second or third centunes 2° However, given such scriptural passages as Rev 1 18 and Luke 23 43, it 1s not surpnsing that some Christians concluded that Majordomo of Paradise was a task more suited to Chnst than to an angel Thus, in QuestBart | 29 Jesus says "and unless I am present there they (1e, the souls of the righteous) cannot enter into paradise” One could also point to Passio Perpetuae | 3, where Chnist greets Perpetua in a heavenly garden *¢

Mention should probably be made of QuestBart trumpet

calls up

Beliar bound

with

fiery

chains

4 12, where Michael's and

restrained

by 660

angels Although this 1s not an eschatological event, it contains eschatological imagery It 1s just possible that this text 1s based upon a tradition which held that Michael will be the angel who blows the trumpet heralding the Eschaton That the final judgement wil] be preceded by a trumpet blast

was

apparently

well

established

tn Biblical

and

apocalyptic

tradition *!

22 Note esp Tisaac2 Iff, 6 24 28, Tyac 1 5-6 23 The Assumption of the Virgin {Lat B), or The Narranve of Pseudo-Melue, 9 2,17 1 {ANT, 711, 714), and the Syriac Obsequies of the Holy Virgin 1 (ANT, 721-722)

24 Chapts 22-23 (ANF VIII 392)

25 TAb B14 7 Inrec A (20 10-12) Michael shares this duty with all the angels 26 ApMos 374-6 Cf Vita Adae 47 2-3 2? ApPaul 22, 25-27 49

8 GNic 251 261

29 See esp 4Bar 9.5 and 3Bar 11 2 30 In the Apocalypse of Peter (early second century) Uriel 1s the angel “appointed over the resurrection of the dead on the day of judgement* (4) However, in the two examples given {chapts 6 and 12) Unel delivers up not the souls of the mghteous, but of the damned 31 CF Isa 27.13, Joel 21 Zeph 11416 1 Thess 4 16; 1 Cor 15 52, Matt 24 3031, and 4 Ezra 6 23) Cf Bockmuehl "The Trumpet Shall Sound”

Second and Third Century Christianity

169

And, in at least one Jewish work, Michael 1s responsible for a trumpet call prior to a scene of divine judgement, although not the final judgement. In ApMos. 22.1-3, Michael summons the angels for the judgement of Adam by means of a trumpet blast. Muchael’s connection with the final trumpet reappears in much later works of both Jewish and Christian provenance.>?

e. Gnostic Michael Traditions

The Gnostics also preserved Michael traditions, although they seem to have been less interested un him. Probably his traditional association with the Jews made him suspect to those who disparaged the God of the Jews as

the ignorant Demiurge. the Nag Hammadi

At any rate, Michael appears only once in all of

documents

(Ap. John

[NHC

II.1] 17.30).

Gabriel, on

the other hand, 1s referred to six times in the Nag Hammadi: Corpus (Gos. Eg. [NHC III.2] 52.23, 53.6, 57.7, 64.26; and Zost. [VIH.1] 57.9, 58.22). In addition,

Michael

and Gabriel play an important role in the rescue of

Pistis Sophia from Chaos in Pistis Sophia 64-67.33 Gabriel also appears, without Michael, in Pistis Sophia 7, a Gnostic re-telling of Luke’s annunciation story.*+ Thus, Michael seems to have been eclipsed somewhat by Gabriel

the

Gnostic

works,

at least

those

which

have

survived.

Finally, a diagram belonging to a Gnostic sect called the Ophites and described by both Origen and Celsus,3> lists Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Suriel among “the seven archontic daemons" (7av émT& dapxévTwv datnovev) who attempt to impede the Soul in tts ascent through the heavens

after death. Here Michael is not merely eclipsed by another archangel, but transformed, with all the archangels, into an evil demon. No doubt this resulted from the Gnostic programme of re-interpreting the OT God and his agents as the evil or ignorant Demuurge and his archons.

32 Apocalypse of St John the Theologian (ANF VIII 583) 9 [Fifth to Ninth century], and Signs of the Messiah (UPA

MMX,

BHM II 58-63) 8-9 [Early Medieval]

33 Piss Sophia is generally dated to the third century Pétrement, Separate God, 73

34 See below pp 35 Cels

vi 24-38

196-197

So Rudolph, Gnosis, 27, and

170

Part lll

Michael in Early Chrisnan Literature

f Summary In summary,

Michael traditions in Christian writings of the second and

third centunes look similar to what we have found elsewhere

In these

texts Michael is the Leader of the angels He stands in a special relationship to the People of God as their protector and defender This implies a

military office, as well as a special role in opposing Satan He serves as a heavenly pnest and as an intercessor on behalf of humanity He 1s the angelic guide for the souls of the nghteous at their death and presides over

the gates of Paradise

To be sure, not one of the works cited 1n this chapter

attributes all these traditional roles to Michael. The second and thirdcentury Chnstian portrait of Michael which | have summarized here 1s a composite one, dependent upon very different sources. However, it 13 significant that most,

if not all, of these vanous elements are denved

either Jewish sources, both canonical and apocryphal, or the NT,

from

This

underlines the degree to which early Chnstians were dependent upon Judaism for its conceptions about angels 1n general and Michael i particular Furthermore, as with the NT documents, most of the wntings examined

to this point clearly picture Michael as subordinate to Chnst For example, in the Ascension of Isaiah the Risen Christ emerges from the tomb on the shoulders of Michael and of the angel of the Holy Spint (3 16-17). In the Epistula Apostolorum the four archangels are only able to serve at the heavenly altar because of the gift of a wondrous voice bestowed on them by Chnst (13) %

Christ commands or beckons (&vevgev) Michael to blow his

trumpet at QuestBart

412, while in 1 9 Chnst descends to Hades because

of Michael’s request (xa7[a] rHv xapaxdynow Tov apyayyedou Merxanar) As we shall see, Tertullian (Carn xiv) argued that Chnst 1s not to be understood as an angel “by nature, .in the sense of a sort of Gabnel or Michael", but rather as their supenor *? However, in what follows, it will become clear that Hermas, in his Shepherd, assumed the identity of Christ

with Michael While this conception always remained a minonty opinion in early Chnstranity, 1t may not have been unique to Hermas

36 Following the Coptic The Ethiopic and Latin has Christ distracting the archangels by means of this voice Schmudt (Gespritche Jesu, 49) prefers the Coptic 37 Cf also Ongen, Cels vuni 13

Second and Third Century Christianity

171

2. Angelic Christology in Second and early Third Century Christianity I tum now to the angelic Chnstologies suggests that various useful for elucidating

evidence for angelic Chnstology or, more correctly, in the second and early third centunes The evidence Chnstian groups found the pmncipal angel category the work and person of Chnst, but they found 1 use-

ful in different ways.

A number identified Chnst with the highest of the

archangels At least one went further and identified that archangel with Michael. Still others found the concept of archangel useful in other ways { will begin with the less specific examples of Chnst as the highest archangel and then move to the evidence for a Michael-~Chnist equation,

a Chnist as an archangel 1) “Heretical Angel Christologies" In this section I am concerned with only the clearest evidence in the early Church identified Chnst with an archangel, They into four groups, which I wall discuss zn the following order’ Ps De Centesima, Eprphanius’ descnption of the Ebionites and the Elchasaites,

Tertullian’s

attack

Valentinian

Christology,

that some easily fall -Cypnan’s sect of the

and

certain

magical texts, especially the Testament of Solomon. a) Ps -Cyprian Sometime near the end of the second century an unknown, North Afnean Christian ascetic with encratite tendencies composed a sermon, subsequently ascnbed to Cypnan, on the rewards awaiting martyrs, virgins, and “the rmghteous" (1.e, those who remain continent within marnage) ** Sexual ethics and continence, not Christology, are the

pmmary

concerns of this preacher,

38 De Centesima

Sexagesima

("Eine friihchnstliche Schnft*}

Tricestma

Nonetheless,

in two very significant

First published in 1914 by Reitzenstein

1 follow the line mumbers of Reitzenstein’s text

Many earlier scholars dated this document later than the second century E.g , both Koch (“Die ps-cypriamsche Schnft", 270) and Wohlenberg ("Eine pseudocypriamsche Schnft", 219) place it im the fourth century

Damélou (Latin Chnsnanity, 63-92), on the

other hand, has demonstrated that this writing was known and used by Cyprian Thus, 1t cannot be later than the mid-third century Damélou opts for the late second century, as did Rettzenstein ("Eine frihchnstliche Schnft", 73) Beatrice (EEC| 223) places xt in the period “late 2nd to mud 3rd c(entury)"

172

Part tt!

Michael m Early Chnstan Literature

passages he appeals to the example of Chnst and, in so doing, reveals an unequivocal example of angel Christology First, in // 50-54 he speaks of Christ's creation by divine fiat If Christ, he who 1s Son of God and who was created by the divine mouth, resolved not to do his own will, but the will of the Father, for

he 1s His Word and Will, how much more must we who name God Father, also do His will (and} not that of the world, selves are also His will 3°

because we our-

Here Christ is created by God's speech, just as the angels are in Rabbinic and early Christian literature *? Later, the preacher returns to this theme in HT 216-220 When

the

Lord

created

the

seven

principal

angels

from

fire,

determined to make one of them his Son [he says that the Son 1s a creature, against the Catholic faith] He it 1s whom Isaiah declares to be the Lord Sabaoth We see that there remained then six angels who had been created with the Son, whom the ascetics rmitate 4! The words in brackets are, of course, a scnbal gloss

Christ 1s again said to

have been created, but in this passage he 1s created from fire, a motif common to early Jewish and Chnstian angelology.*? Furthermore, Christ 1s here explicitly numbered among the seven archangels and is identified with the divine figure who appeared to Isaiah in the Temple (Isa 6) Interestingly, in Hermas Sin 1x 12 8, the Son of God ts surrounded by the six, not the expected seven, first created angels *? Another example, this ume from the fourth century, of Chnst numbered amongst the seven archangels

39 5 Chnstus cum sit det filius atque dtuino ore creatus uoluntatem suam non disposuiut facere sed patris cuius ipse uerbum et uoluntas est, quanto magis nos qut dewn

patrem uocamus, et uoluntatem eius

non quae sunt saecul: facere debemus

quta et ipst

uoluntas etus sumus 4? Rabbimc bHag 14a(R Samuel b Nahmani [A3] in the name of R Yohanan [A2]), ef JEn 40.4 (§58) Christan Ps -Clem. Hom ui 33 2 *! angelos enim dominus cum ex igne principum numero vit [creaturam filtum dei dtcit

contra catholicam fidem} crearet, ex his unum in filtum stbi constituere, quem Ismas dominum Sabaot [ut] praeconaret, disposutt remansisse ergo repperumus sex quidem angelos cum filio creatos, quos agonista tnitatur

42 Jewish

2En

291-3,

ExodR

156 (UA), ANR

B 24 (UA), MidrPss

1047

Yohanan [A2]) Chnstian QuestBart 454, Clement Alex Ex Theod 12.2, Hipp x 29, Tertullian Mare 11 9 43 For these six as “the first created" see Vis 1 41 2 and Sim v 53

(R Ref

Second and Thitd Century Christiantry

173

is found in an inscnption on an amethyst The gem bears an image of Christ with the Chi-Rho symbol behind his head On hus left ev &pxf nv o NOvyos 1s inscribed, while on his nght stands

PAPAHA PENEA OTPIHA IXOTC MIXAHA TABPIHA AZAHA “ Here

IXOTC,

as the Chi Rho

makes

abundantly

clear,

stands

for Chnst

The central position of IXOTC, flanked on either side by three archangels, recalls Hermas Sim

1x 128

In these three texts Christ 1s numbered among

the seven archangels, in De Centesima, he 1s unambiguously said to have been created as an archangel

God" b)

Epiphamus,

the

and promoted

Ebiomtes

and

the

to the status of the "Son of

Elchusaites

Significantly,

Epiphanuus attributes to the Ebionites an angel Chnstology identical to that

found in De Centesuma But they say he 1s not begotten of God the Father, but was created as one of the archangels [and is even greater than they}, and that he ts the ruler both of angels and of all xxx 164, cf also xxx 3 4) 45

creatures

of the

Almighty

(Pan

However, Epiphanius’ descnption of the Ebtonites bristles with difficul ties

First of all, Epiphanius himself admits that the Ebionites held a num

ber of conflicting Christologtes (Pan xxx 316) In this he ts joined by other heresiologists of the early Church Tertullian (Carn xiv}, Ongen

44 See Damélou

Theology

122

Barhel

Christos Angelos

208

and Leclerq

“Anges”

DACL | 2088 2089 45 op daoxova: Si sx Bsov TaTpos avTow yeyerinoton Ade Kextlobar we Eve tur apxoryyéruy [eae En Kepiocorepws| avrev bc xupieve noe dry yéhwy xen Tavtaw [rw] UNO TOU TavtoKparopos

KeTonpEerav

The phrase in brackets 1s supplied by the editor (Hol] 354) The MSS are corrupt or lacunose at this point) The corrector of one MS supplies im the margin pectora 68 av7wer Ortat

174

Part II]

(Cels

v 61),

Michael in Early Christian Literature

Epiphamus

(Pan

xxx 22,

xxx 346),

and

Eusebus

(HE

i 27) all state that at least some Ebiomites held that Christ was a mere man, born through natural generation by Mary and Joseph On the other hand, Ongen (Cels v.61), Eusebius (HE 111 27), and Jerome (Ep. exu 13 1 2) know of some Ebionites who beheved that Chnst was born of

the Virgin Mary. Hippolytus (Ref

Significantly for this study, Irenaeus (Adv vu 34),

Epiphamus

(Pan

xxx 36,

Haer, 1,26,2),

xxx 18 5-6), and the

so-called Gospel of the Ebtonites (Epiph Pan xxx 13 7-8) all attribute to this Jewish-Chnstian sect a doctrine which depicts Christ as a pre-existing heavenly power or spirit which descended on and entered into the man Jesus at the latter's baptism *® Similar expressions of “adoptionistic Chnstology” are well attested both in heresiological and heretical texts It appears to have been especially popular among Gnostics 4? Finally, Epiphanius claims that some

Adam (Pan

Ebionites identified Chnst with the first man,

xxx 34 6, cf also xxx 3 3-5)

All this raises the question of just how much first hand knowledge the Fathers had of the Ebionites and similar movements Clearly, some of the heresiologists were guilty of shifting the evidence to fit their presupposed systems of the orgin and growth of early heresy.*8 Another difficulty wath the Patristic reports of the heretical movements

lies in the fact that later

Fathers mvanably depended upon the findings of earlier Fathers course

means that unless independence can be demonstrated,

This, of

the witness of

several late Fathers carries no more weight than that of one early Father 46 Irenaeus in Adv Haers 26.2 does not attribute this “adoptionistic angel Christology” to the Ebiomites per se Rather he describes the adoptionistic angel Christology of Cennthus

(i 26 1) and

Carpocrates

(125 1)

and

then states that the Ebiomtes

held

Chnstology “similar” to that of Cerithus and Carpocrates There ts, however, a very important textual vanant here The Latin MSS read non simuliter asserting that the Ebionites’ Chnstology was not simular to that of Cennthus and Carpocrates This cannot be nght, if the Ebronte Chnstology differed, one would expect a discussion of 1, pot a single

sentence

denying

its simlanty

Furthermore,

Hippolytus’

Refutano

follows

Irenaeus 50 closely here that it can be used to supply Irenaeus onginal Greek and it omits the negative particle (Ref v1 34) Theodoret of Cyrus (4dv Haer 1 3), who also used Irenaeus work, further supports this conclusion Cf Simon, Verus Israel, 476, n 14 Contrast Klin and Reimnk, Patnstre Evidence, 20

47 See e.g, Irenaeus Adv Prot

(NHC XItL 1) 5012-13

Haer

17 2, 11161, Gos

Cf Rudolph, Gnosis

(NHC Ifl 2) 64 1-4, Tru.

162-163

48 A classic exatple of this fact 1s the creation of "Ebion” (referred to by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Hilary, Epiphanus among others), the supposed “father” of the Ebiomites. Ebion was seemingly introduced to fit the Patnstic assumption that all herestes orginated with an individual heretic See Simon Verus /srael, 240-247, Schoeps Jewish Christianity 10-11, dem, Theologie, 8 9 49 This is especially the case with Lrenaeus, whose Adversus Haereses was immensely influential on all subsequent Patrisnc atlempts to discuss and classify heretical movements

Second and Third Century Christianity

175

Thus, one simply cannot assume accurate knowledge of the Ebionites on the part of the Fathers. One cannot even be certain that a given Father did not subsume a number of different Jewish-Christian groups under the title "Ebionite" °° To return to Epiphanius, it 1s clear that while he was dependent on the writings of earlier heresiologists, especially Irenaeus and Eusebius, he also used sources which he believed to be Ebionite in origin. These include the Ilspt6d0. Hérpov (Pan. xxx.15.1-4), Hpaéerc 68 &AKaC...uTOOTONWY

(Pan. xxx.16.6), the "AvaGadpot laxaBov; (Pan. xxx.16.7), and a gospel called by the Ebionites "according to the Hebrews” (Pan. xxx.3.7), but which scholarship has named the Gospel of the Ebionites. Of the Gospel nothing has survived apart from Epiphanuus’ citations of it. However, the situation 1s very different with the other three works. Many scholars would see these as sources which lay behind the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. The Iep.6d50. Hérpov appears to be either the Grundschrift, used by both the Homilist and the author of the Recognitions, or a work closely related to it.5! The ‘AvaSaéuoi ‘laxwBov appears to have been extensively used in Rec. 1.33-71.°? While it 1s, therefore, probably safe to conclude that Epiphanius knew certain sources which lay behind the pseudo-Clementine literature, we cannot simply assume that Ep:phanius was correct in attributing these works to the Ebionites. Indeed, Epiphanius’ accuracy on this point has been questioned by a number of scholars.*? If they were used by the Ebionites, then the information Epiphantus derived from them would have to be accorded a high level of trustworthiness. As it is, when Epiphanuus appeals to one of these documents we cannot be sure that the source in question is truly Ebionite. Nonetheless, there 1s no prima facie reason to doubt the existence of such writings or to suggest that Eprphanius cites them inaccurately. In other words, even though Epiphanius may have been incorrect in attributing these sources to the Ebionites, they did belong to some group within early Christianity. We are probably not far wrong in ascribing them to Christian circles of a Jewish-Gnostic bent.*4

50 However,

Klin

and

Reimink

(Patristic Evidence,

67) go too far in asserting that

"Patristic observations on Jewish Christianity have no great historical value” SIE g., Schoeps,

Elchasat,

130-131

Theologie, 461, Strecker, Judenchristentum, 265, and Luttikhuizen,

See Jones,

"Pseudo-Clementines",

for a history of research on the

Pesudo-Clementines 52 Strecker, Judenchristentum, 251-253, Klin and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 31 53 E g, Strecker, Judenchristentum, 256-266, n 1, and Khyn and Reimnk, Patristic Evidence, 38

54. Cf Simon, Verus Israel, 245

Second and Third Century Christianity

175

Thus, one simply cannot assume accurate knowledge of the Ebionites on the part of the Fathers. One cannot even be certain that a given Father did not subsume a number of different Jewish-Chnistian groups under the title "Ebionite"5° To return to Epiphanius, it is clear that while he was dependent on the writings of earlier heresiologists, especially Irenaeus and Eusebius, he also used sources which he believed to be Ebionite in origin. These include the Tlepiod0. Tlérpov (Pan. xxx.15.1-4), Tpatero 6&8 &dAac...aTO0TONwY (Pan. xxx.16.6), the "AvaBSa@poi ‘laxaBou; (Pan. xxx.16.7), and a gospel called by the Ebionites "according to the Hebrews" (Pan. xxx.3.7), but

which scholarship has named the Gospel of the Ebionites.

Of the Gospel

nothing has survived apart from Epiphanius’ citations of it.

However, the

situation is very different with the other three works.

Many scholars would

see these as sources which lay behind the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. The Ieptod0. érpouv appears to be either the Grundschrift, used by both the Homilist and the author of the Recognitions, or a work closely related to it.5! The ‘AvaSaOpyoi ‘laxwBov appears to have been

extensively used in Rec. i.33-71.% While it is, therefore, probably safe to conclude that Epiphanius knew certain sources which lay behind the pseudo-Clementine literature, we cannot simply assume that Epiphanius was correct in attributing these works to

the Ebionites. Indeed, Epiphanius’ accuracy on this point has been questioned by a number of scholars.5> If they were used by the Ebionites, then the information Epiphanius derived from them would have to be accorded a high level of trustworthiness. As it is, when Epiphanius appeals to one of these documents we cannot be sure that the source in question is truly Ebionite.

Nonetheless, there is no prima facie reason to doubt the existence

of such writings or to suggest that Epiphanius cites them inaccurately. In other words, even though Epiphanius may have been incorrect in attributing these sources to the Ebionites, they did belong to some group within early Christianity. We are probably not far wrong in ascribing them to Christian circles of a Jewish-Gnostic bent. 5° However, Klijn and Reinink (Patristic Evidence, 67) go too far in asserting that "Patristic observations on Jewish Christianity have no great historical value".

51 E.g., Schoeps, Theologie, 461; Strecker, Judenchristentum, 265; and Luttikhuizen, Elchasai,

130-131.

See Jones,

“Pseudo-Clementines”,

for a history of research on the

Pesudo-Clementines. 52 Strecker, Judenchristentum, 251-253; Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 31.

53 E.g., Strecker, Judenchristentum, 256-266, n.1; and Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 38.

54 Cf. Simon, Verus Israel, 245.

176

Part Ill) Michael in Early Chnsnan Literature

Epiphanus’ statements about Ebiomte Christology fal) into four categones 1) Jesus was a mere man, born though natural generation (Pan

xxx 2 2, xxx 3 1, xxx 14 4), 2) Christ was the greatest of the archangels (Pan xxx 162, 4, cf xxx 34), 3) the spint called “Chnst" descended upon and entered into the man Jesus at his baptism (Pan xxx 3 6, xxx 14 4, xxx 16 3), and 4) Christ and Adam are identified; that 1s, Christ clothed himself in the body of Adam (Pan xxx.3 3, 5, xxx 34 6). Two of

these

conceptions

are

paralleled

in the

Pseudo-Clementines,

Christ

identified with Adam (Hom wi 17-28), and Chnst 1s descmbed as the highest of the archangels (Rec 11 42 3-8, Hom xvi 4) In addition, the passage in Epiphamus which speaks most clearly of Chnst as an archangel,

Pan xxx 16 2-5, appears to be a quotation from or allusion to the "Ebionite Gospel" ** Another category, the “adoptiomstic ange! Chnstol ogy", 1s attributed by Epiphanius to this Gospel (Pan xxx 13 7-8) All ths indicates that each of the categones listed above, except the first, can be found in written sources known to Epiphanius

Thus, Epiphamus testifies to two different angel Chnstologies which he found in sources known to him On the one hand, Epiphamus was familiar with the clam that Christ had been created as the highest of the archangels, a position paralleled in De Cenfesima and on the amethyst described above On the other hand, Epphanius knew of an "adoptionistic angel Christology", in which the power or spirit "Christ" descended upon and entered the man Jesus at his baptism As we have seen, this conception 1s supported by parallel accounts of the Ebronites and other heresies in Irenaeus and Hip-

polytus

These two approaches appear side by side in Epiphamus {Pan

xxx 16 2-5), and may have been harmonized by him into a single, complex but, it must be admitted, coherent picture 1m which the pre-existent power "Chnst", who entered Jesus at his baptism was, prior to this incarnation,

the highest archangel "Ebionite

Gospel”

However, if Pan then

Epiphanius

xxx 16 2-5 does denve from the

found

this

complex

harmonization

already in his source I suspect that the two conceptions were originally independent and only later combined, since the first appears alone in De Centesima Whether they were first combined by the author of the Gospel according to the Ehomtes or by Epiphaniws we cannot be certain given the fragmentary nature of our sources In attempting to account for the contradictory christological systems within the one sect of the Ebionites, Epiphanius supposed that, after the death of their founder, a group of Ebtonites had come under the influence

of another sect known as the Elchasaites (Pan

55 Cf Vielhauer and Strecker

NTApoc

1 170

xxx 3 2, xxx 1748)

Second and Third Century Chnistianity

177

the scant remains of the Revelations of Elchasai,*® we indeed find an angel Christology, but one very different from that which emerges from Epiphanuus’ depiction of the Ebionites. This Revelations of Elchasai probably originated in Mesopotamia, sometime near the end of the reign Trajan.57 Not enough of this work has survived to be sure of its character. It certainly contains Jewish, as well as pagan, ideas. Scholars are divided over whether it was originally Jewish or Jewish-Chnistian or pagan.°8

What

is clear, however, 1s that 1t found its way into Christian circles, by the early third century at the latest, and its teachings were opposed by the Church’s theologians. According to Hippolytus the book claims to be a revelation communicated to Elchasai by a huge male angel, 96 miles in height, who was accompanied by a female angel of equal proportions. According to Hippolytus the male angel 1s called the Son of God, while Epiphanius records that he 1s identified with Christ. The female angel 1s named the Holy Spirit (Hipp. Ref. 1x.13 2-3; Epiph. Pan. xxx.17.7). Huppolytus (Ref. 1x.13.1) states that Elchasa1 was the name of the man who received the revelation from the angel This 1s accepted at face value by most scholars.°? However,

Luttikhuizen has recently argued that Elchasai was the name of

the male angel who revealed the book. In his view, the identification of this angel with Christ would have been a later development which took place after the sect had come into contact with Chnistians.°° The name doubtlessly goes back to the Aramaic °02 °°n which means "Hidden Power", as Epiphanius already recognized (Pan. xix.2.2). The similar sobriquet for Simon Magus, 7 dtvvapig Tov be0v 4 KadovpLEevy pwEyaNny (Acts 8.10), suggests that "Hidden Power" could have been adopted by a human leader of a sect.

At the same

tyme,

however,

it must

be admitted

that

within an apocalyptic or gnostic sect the "Hidden Power” would have been

56 Most of which are preserved in Hippolytus’ Refutatio and Epiphanius’ Panarion 57 Luttikhuizen, Elchasat, 190-192, Strecker, "Elkesai", RAC ITV 1172-1173

and Irmscher,

“Elchasai",

NTApoce

{1 686

58 Luttukhuizen (Elchasat, 88, 128-129, 190) and Klin and Reimink (Patristic Evidence,

66-67)

understand

the

book

as essentially

Jewish

For

Irmscher

("Elchasai",

NTApoc Ii 686) the work "is Jewish, but it 1s a syncretistic and not a pure Judaism" Strecker ("Elkesai", RAC IV 1185) characterizes it as a product of “synkretistischgnostisches Judenchristentum" For Schoeps (Theologie, 330) 1t is essentially a pagan work, with Jewish and Jewish-Chnstian elements artificially grafted on 59

eg,

Irmscher

("Elchasai",

NTApoc

II 685)

and

Strecker

("Elkesai",

RAC

IV 1171-1172) 69 Luttikhuizen, n.3.

Elchasat,

186-188

Klyn and Reimink,

Patristic Evidence,

55.

Second and Third Century Christianity

177

the scant remains of the Revelations of Elchasai,*® we indeed find an angel

Christology, but one very different from that which emerges from Epiphanius’ depiction of the Ebionites. This Revelations of Elchasai probably originated in Mesopotamia, sometime near the end of the reign Trajan.5? Not enough of this work has survived to be sure of its character. It certainly contains Jewish, as well as pagan, ideas. Scholars are divided over whether it was originally Jewish or Jewish-Christian or pagan.** What

is clear, however, is that it found its way into Christian circles, by the early third century at the latest, and its teachings were opposed by the Church’s theologians. According to Hippolytus the book claims to be a revelation communicated to Elchasai by a huge male angel, 96 miles in height, who was accompanied by a female angel of equal proportions. According to Hippolytus the male angel is called the Son of God, while Epiphanius records

that he is identified with Chnst. The female angel is named the Holy Spirit (Hipp. Ref. ix.13.2-3; Epiph. Pan. xxx.17.7). Hippolytus (Ref. ix.13.1) states that Elchasai was the name of the man who received the revelation from the However,

angel. This is accepted at face value by most scholars.‘? Luttikhuizen has recently argued that Elchasai was the name of

doubtlessly goes back to the Aramaic °0> 9°

which means "Hidden

Power",

xix.2.2).

as Epiphanius already recognized

(Pan.

The similar

sobriquet for Simon Magus, 7 dvvayicg 7ov Beov 7 Kadoupévn peyadn (Acts

8.10), suggests that "Hidden Power” could have been adopted by a human leader of a sect.

At the same

time,

however,

it must be admitted

that

within an apocalyptic or gnostic sect the "Hidden Power" would have been 56 Most of which are preserved in Hippolytus’ Refutatio and Epiphanius’ Panarion.

57 Luttikhuizen, Elchasai, 190-192; and Irmscher, "Elchasai*, NTApoc. 11.686.

Cf.

Strecker, "Elkesai", RAC IV.1172-1173. 58 Luttikhuizen (Elchasai, 88, 128-129, 190) and Klijn and Reinink (Patristic Evidence, 66-67) understand the book as essentially Jewish. For Irmscher ("Elchasai",

NTApoc. 11.686) the work “is Jewish, but it is a syncretistic and not a pure Judaism”. Strecker (“Elkesai", RAC IV.1185) characterizes it as a product of “synkretistischgnostisches Judenchristentum". For Schoeps (Theologie, 330) it is essentially a pagan work, with Jewish and Jewish-Christian elements artificially grafted on.

59 So e.g., Irmscher ("Elchasai", NTApoc. 11.685) and Strecker (“Elkesai", RAC IV.1171-1172). 6 Luttikhuizen, Elchasai, n.3.

186-188.

Cf. Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 55.

178

Part Hl) Michael in Early Christan Literature

an eminently appropriate title for an angel of revelation

At our present

state of knowledge, with so little of the work surviving, it 1s not possible to decide between these two options °! However, once the book had passed into Chnstian or Jewish-Chnstian circles, the "Son of God” in the book would have been identified with Christ

This explains why Hippolytus and Epiphanius were so exercised by

the book and its teachings In the above functions as an angel of revelation The ures recalls a common motif in Jewish For our purposes, the most important

passages, immense and early parallels

the angelic Son of God size of both angelic figChristian apocalyptic ** appear in Hermas Sim

1x 6 1-2 and 1x 12 8, where the Son of God 1s described as “a man so tall,

that he overtopped the tower”,

and in Sim

vin | 2 and vin 3 3, where

Michael is described as “an angel of the Lord, glomous and very tall”.

As I

will argue below, the Shepherd of Hermas implicitly identifies Chnst with Michael Further indication of the work's Jewish or Jewish-Chnstian origin lies in

a cryptic prayer, preserved by Epiphamus (Pan taught his followers to repeat

xix 4 3), which Elchasa

aPap amd HNP vaxrhe dace

vurxthé puis avid &Bap cehap

arn daacip

This transliterates into Aramaic as

NIT NIT OF PD-Sy Woy NIN Wop poy OVI NIT NIN OV Reading outward from NIN this 1s seen to be a single phrase repeated twice, with the Aramaic word for peace appended to the whole This phrase can be translated as "I am witness over you (plu ) on the day of the great judgement” ® This, along with other considerations, has led some scholars to

posit an Aramaic orginal behind the Greek version known to Hippolytus and Epiphanmus %

in the Greek version, the phrase has become an esoteric

$! Fossum (Name of God, 65-68) assumes that "Elchasai" or "the Hidden Power" was the name which the wruer of the book appropnated to himself in conjunction with his claim to be “the final mamfestanon of Christ" This assumption falters on the recognition that in the fragments which have survived the angelic "Son of God” 1s the source of the revelation and ts distinguished from the whiter It is extremely unlikely that the wnter would clam to have received the revelation from the angelic Christ and at the same time to

be his final manifestation

62 Cf CD2 19 TReuwb 57, 2En

14, 3En

9 2 ($12), 48C 5 ($73), GosPet 40, Pas-

sio Perpetuae 10, 4 Ezra 2 43° This motif may ultumately go back to 1 Chr 21 16 For a sumular concept m Hekhalot texts regarding the greal stature of the appearance of God,

see Cohen's

The

Sn ur Qomah

Texts and Recenstons and

The Sht‘ur Qomah.

Liturgy and Theurgy

*4 Lutukhuizen, Elchasar, 124-125, 193-194, Irmscher, “Elchasai”, NTApoc Contra Strecker {"Elkesar“”, RAC ITV 182 183)

[] 685

Second and Third Century Christianity

179

mcantation whose meaning 1s not to be investigated (Pan. x1x.4.3). In its original form, however, the statement appears to be a promise to intercede for the believers. Luttikhuizen has argued that in the original Aramaic ver-

sion this promise was given by the huge male angel, ’oD 7°.

If he is

right, then in the onginal Aramaic version this angel, later identified with

Christ, served as a heavenly intercessor. All this indicates that the Revelations of Elchasat, at least as it was read in certain Christian or Jewish-Christian circles, understood Christ as an angel of revelation, and perhaps as a heavenly intercessor. This may be

related in some way to the conception of Christ as one of archangels and their chief. It certainly does not contradict it. On hand, it appears to have little in common with the other type Christology we have been investigating: the "adoptionistic angel

the seven the other of angel Christol-

ogy" with its strong emphasis on the historical Jesus as the one in whom the

heavenly Christ dwelt. However, both Hippolytus (Ref. 1x.14.1) and Epiphanius (Pan. l1u.1.8) attribute to the Elchasaites, but not explicitly to the Revelations of Elchasai, a Christology related to the Adam-Christ doctrine of the Pseudo-Clementines (Hom. 11.17-28), which Epiphanius also attributed to the Ebtonites (Pan. xxx.3.3, 5; xxx.34.6). In all these sources Christ appeared in Adam and then again in Jesus. Epiphanius (Pan.

li1.1.8) appears to accept that both notions, the Adam-Christ doctrine and Christ as the highest of the first created archangels, were held by some of

the Elchasaites. Again, however, we may be dealing with nothing more than Epiphanius’ desire to systematize and find links between the various sects. c) Tertullian and

Valentinian Christology

In the fourteenth

chapter of

his treatise De carne Christi, Tertullian takes issue with yet another type of angel

Christology.

clothed Christus

upon {ll.1,

Tertullian

by an angel” 5,

10,

cf.

disputes

(lit. "wore

27]) and that

with

those

an angel";

who

say

"Christ

was

ef angelum...gestavit

"there was an angel

in the Son"

(1.25),6 Some have supposed that Tertullian is here attacking the Ebionites, for he mentions "Ebion” (xiv.32ff).©? However, Tertullian’s language leaves little doubt that he does not have "Ebion" principally in mind

Rather, he

merely introduces him as an example of someone who would have found the Christology here opposed convenient: "This view of the matter could have suited Ebion,..." (poterit haec opinio Hebioni convenire...; 1.32).

65 Luttikhuizen, Elchasar,

196

66 The line numbers are from Evans’ edition of De carne Christi 67 So Werner, Entstehung, 331, Schoeps, Theologie, 463

180

Part Il

Indeed,

when

Tertullian

Michael in Early Christian Literature

goes

to describe

"Ebion’s"

Christology,

asserts that "Ebion" held Jesus to be merely a man and a prophet (//.32-33). Apparently, the Ebionites known to Tertullian held Christ to be a man who was more glorious than the other prophets only in that he had an angel within him. Applying Zech. 1.1468 to Christ, they argued that Zechariah and Christ were inspired by angels who dwelt "within" them. Tertullian counters that neither Zechariah’s saying, nor anything like it, can be found on the lips of Christ (//. 32-39). However, given the overall context, it 1s clear that in Tertullian’s reference to "Ebion" we have a short digression consisting of an attack on a second group, the Ebionites, who could have found the view he was primarily attacking convenient, for it suited their assertion that Christ was merely a human prophet.

Whom, then, 1s Tertullian attacking? unnamed unnamed the same man. In

The context’? would suggest that

Valentinian gnostics are in view.’! According to Tertullian, these Valentinians held that Christ was "clothed upon with an angel" for reason that orthodox Christians held that he was "clothed" with a other words, according to Valentinians, he was "clothed" by an

angel for the salvation of angels (//.1-4).’*

This appears to fit one element

of Valentinus’ system. According to Clement of Alexandria’s Excerpta ex Theodoto, the Valentinians taught that the salvation of the superior seed among humans, that is the Valentinians themselves, and of angels 1s inextricably tied together (22.5,

35.1-4).

In this conception,

the unity of

the Pleroma rested on the principle of Syzygy. The fall within the Pleroma, and the flawed creation by the Demuurge which took place because of 1t, resulted in the separation of what previously had been united. Thus salvation consisted in the reuniting of the angels, conceived of as male, with the superior seed or the "spiritual" among humans, conceived of as female (21.1-3; cf. Irenaeus Adv.

Haer 1.7.1).

Christ, as "the angel of

the Pleroma" (&yye\og qv Tov mANpamatoc; Ex. Theod. 35.1), accomplished this re-union.’3 Tertullian’s objection that God in Christ was concerned only with the "restitution of humanity" (7.19, cf. 7/.2-10) seems to have this Valentinian doctrine in view.

68 “And the angel that spoke in me said unto to me

“. Apparently, the Old Latin text

available to Tertullian read Ez ait mihi angelus qui in me loquebatur, rendering °2 with in me, just as the LXX translates it as év eyoi 69 Cf

Klyn and Reinnk (Patristic Evidence, 21-22).

70 Cf chapters x-xu1 and xv-xvu 71 So Barbel, Christos Angelos, 71, 204-205 72 This appears simular in some respects to a doctrine found in Orngen 211-212 73 Note Irenaeus Adv Haer 12 6 and 145, system 1s conceived of as an angelic being

See below pp

where the second Christ of Valentinus’

Second and Third Century Christianity This angel Christology appears to play a much

181

more significant role in

the system of Theodotus, who belonged to the Oriental branch of the Valentinian gnostics,”* than it does in the system of Valentinus, as described by Irenaeus. Tertullian himself only discusses it as one among many errors held by Valentinians regarding Christ.

For our purposes, this

Valentinian conception, and that of the Ebionites known to Tertullian discussed above, demonstrate the diversity of forms which angel Christology could take.” d) The Testament of Solomon and other Magical Texts Another source of evidence for heretical angel Christologies lies in magical texts. A prime example of a magical text which interprets Christ as an angel is the Testament of Solomon, a document often dated to the early third century or earlier,76 but, in view of the document’s fluid textual tradition, any proposed date for this text must be treated with extreme caution.”” This entertaining story recounts how King Solomon with the aid of a magic ring delivered by the archangel Michael captures various demons, compels them to divulge the names of their "thwarting angel", and then conscripts their help in the building of the temple. Among the various angels who thwart (xatapyéw) demons we find the familiar Uriel (2.4, 18.7), Raphael (5.9, 13.6, 18.8), Gabriel (18.6), and Michael (18.5, cf. also 1.6-7). Many of the other

names of thwarting angels are unattested elsewhere in Jewish or Christian angelological literature, especially those in chapter 18. Some are known from other contexts. Azael (Afand), for example, elsewhere appears as a

74 Rudolph, Gnosis, 324 75 In Carn vi Tertullian challenges the position of Apelles, that Christ assumed a human body but was never born Apelles, and others who held this position, appealed to OT angelophantes to prove that a heavenly being could take a human body without being born This ts not necessarily an example of an angel Christology Apelles does not assert that Christ was an angel He merely appeals to angelophanies as analogous to his docetic Christology 76 Duling,

However,

"Testament of Solomon",

Preisendanz

OTP I 941-942,

("Papyrusfragment",

McCown,

Testament,

106-108

161-162) has opted for the first or second

century

77 Since writing the first form of this chapter I have, for a period of two years, participated in a seminar on the Testament of Solomon, under the direction of Dr Loveday Alexander of the University of Sheffield During that time, having worked closely with McCown’s text, I have become convinced that we are here dealing with a textual tradition im which pericopes were freely added and deleted over the centuries in the various recensions and manuscripts The situation 1s not unlike that encountered in the Hekhalot texts One must be very careful, then, when analyzing the evidence of the Testament of Solomon We simply cannot be certain what the Grundschrift contained and what was added later.

182

Part Ill Michael in Earby Chnstian Literature

fallen angel,”* but in the Testament of Solomon 1s mentioned as an angel who thwarts the demon "Lix Tetrax” (7 7).

However, it is the frequent mention of Christ, most often referred to by the name

“Emmanuel*,

as a thwarting angel (6 8, 11 6, 123,

15 10-12,

17 4, 22 20, cf 4.11) which demands our attention,”? The Testament does not contain a consistent Chnstology Some texts speak of Chnst or Emmanuel as if he were an angel among others In 123 a demon tells Solomon that he 1s thwarted “by (the site) which 1s marked ‘Place of the Skull’, for there the Angel of Great Counsel foresaw that I would suffer, and he shall dwell publicly on the cross. He 1s the one who will thwart me, being the one among (the angels) to whom I am subject". In 11 6 Emmanuel can be “conjured” (xaeréyerar, lit “brought down") by magicians

who

know

the

nmght

three

letters

the other

hand,

the

prophecy attributed to the demoness Enepsigos in 15 8-12 explicitly affirms the supenority of Emmanuel to all other thwarting angels This author’s confession that in Christ all the demons have been overcome (15 10-11), stands in an uncomfortable tension with the continuing need to use the names of thwarting angels and other magical acts to overcome the power of demons This inconsistency 1s perhaps best explained by the Testament’s

very chequered textual history Solomon

1s a document

which

However, the fact that the Testament of ts above all concerned

with magical prac-

tices, and not theological doctnne,*! has doubtless contributed to this inconsistency Nevertheless, this is not to conclude that such a work had no influence upon the thought of some Chnstians Judging by the repeated remonstrances of Church Fathers*? and the legislation of Church councils,®

Eg, 1En 81, 96, 1048, 13 Iff, 54.5, 55.4, 692, ApAb 13 1-14, 20 1-7, 23:31 315, 3&v 45 59, Targ Ps-Jon Gen 6.4, and bYoma 67b (attnbuted to the School of Ishmael [T2-T3])

79 Ail of these passages appear in at least one MS of both McCown's recensions A and B, with the possible exception of £5 10-12, which, although 1 appears in a MS of B, may or may not have been present in Rec A, the question cannot be finally settled because of lacunae inall three MSS of Rec A None of the passages, except 4 11, appear in MSS of Ree C However, 6.8 may have appeared in an ancestor of two MSS of Rec C

80 b9d rod onuswopérov Torey &yxedadov, éxei yap xpodpier tryyehog Tie peyadnc Bov\ic we Todetr, xox riv Garepads éxi Evhov olmpoe: Oy bxorérory wot

éxecivds me carrapynoc ty ols Kai

The reading é» oi¢ xan Br, of MS L, and followed by McCown and Dulng, is difficult and probably best explains the others which are sumplifications of it H reads éy ef¢ dv ecxi, while P reads é ©

81 See esp McCown, Testament, 89-90. Cf Duling, “Testament™, OTP | 944 $2 Irenaeus Adv Haer 1132, Ongen Cels vin 60-61, Augustine De doc Chnst n 29 45, Chrysostom Ady Judaeos viu.5 83 Eg, the 36th decree of the Counal of Laodicea (c AD 350) declares “It 1s not right for pnests or clergy to be magicians or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers,

Second and Third Century Christianity

183

it would appear that many Christians in the early Church beliefs similar to those found in the Testament of Solomon.

held

magical

Furthermore, it is probable that the inscribed amethyst, described above,®4 was made and used as a magical amulet. First, Azael’s appearance as one of the seven archangels supports this. As noted above, Azael is

generally considered a fallen angel, but in the Testament of Solomon, which is clearly magical, he is an archangel. apotropaic charm printed in Papyri Azael appears alongside of Michael, angelic names. To my knowledge, good angel. Second, according to

In at least one other magical text, an Graecae Magicae (XXXVI.168-78), Raphael, Suriel and a number of other only magical texts present Azael as a Metzger, while passages of Scripture

appear often in magical amulets, the Gospel of John, especially its opening

chapter, 1s used most often.8> This amulet, then, 1s probably another magical text which understands Christ as an angel. We shall, in due course, encounter another magical charm, one which seemingly identifies Christ with Michael.

2) Other Examples of Angel Christologies Other, centuries identified Gospel of The

for our purposes less significant, texts from the second and third could be adduced to show the extent to which Christ was with an angel. These include’ The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the Nicodemus; the Testament of Dan; and the Epistle to Diognetus.

Gospel of Thomas

while

the

appropriate

Gospel for him.

(13) explicitly gives the title @yyedog

of Nicodemus While

(15-16)

implies

that

such

in neither case 1s it absolutely

to Jesus,%6

a title certain

1s that

awyyedog means anything other than "messenger", it 1s probable that in both cases a heavenly messenger is intended. The Testament of Dan, originally a Jewish apocryphon but preserved by Christians and used by them during

or to make amulets

souls

(duAaKxrypic)

as they are called, for such things are prisons of their

and we have enjoined that they which wear them be cast out of the Church"

Quoted

from Lightfoot, Colossians, 69

84 See above p 173. 85 Metzger, "Magical Amulet", 106-107, n 4 86 Peter’s identification of Jesus as "a righteous angel", while not equal to the insight of Thomas

that Jesus’

true identity

transcends

human

language,

1s not explicitly

rejected

Although the Coptic Gospel of Thomas in its present form dates from the mid-second century, it certainly contains earlier material

See Blatz, NTApoc

| 113

184

Part II] Michael in Early Christian Literature

our period,®’ presents an angel who intercedes for humans, serves as “the mediator between God and men"

(cf

1 Tim

25),

and 1s supenor to all

other angels (6 1-8) If this text was known to groups who advocated an angel Chnistology, it could readily have been understood as a reference to Chnist ** Finally, the assertion in the Epistle to Diognetus 7 2 that God sent neither a servant, nor an angel, nor an archon, nor "one who directs earthly elements",

nor

“one

entrusted

with

heavenly

administration",

but

instead

He sent the divine Logos, the very creator of the universe, 1s probably best understood as a reaction against some form of angel Christology %?

3) Possible Jewish Precursors Before summarizing the evidence thus far, mention should be made of

two pieces of evidence, which sources, and which may go a Jewish-Chnstian environment, Jesus in angelic terms a) The Prayer of Joseph The

possibly come from pre-Chnshan Jewish little way in explaining why some, in a could have come to understand the man Prayer of Joseph testifies to the belief that

a high ange! could appear both as an angel and as a man__

Indeed, it is even

possible that this text presents the man Jacob as the incarnation of the angel israel Although, to be sure, J Z Smuth ts quite nght when he admits that whether the earthly Jacob-Israel 1s to be understood as a thoroughly docetic figure, the incarnation of a heavenly power, or a heavenly mes

senger ts not clear ” Not enough of this important text has survived to be sure which conception is in view Nonetheless, one can see how this text could have easily sug

gested an angelic incarnation, even if this was not the author’s onginal intention According to Ongen this text was known and used by Jews in his day (CommJo 11 31), but his and Eusebius’ (Praep Ev vi 11.64) cita-

87 Cf Ongen HomJox xv 6, and de Jonge, "Transmission", 15 22 88 See above p 44 89 Cf also Hippolytus Ref x 29 One could also add that Celsus frequently calls Jesus G&yysdoo (Ongen Cels v 52-55}

u 44, 70,

While Celsus may be dependent on Jewish Chnshan circles for this, it 1s more

likely that he understands d&yysAoc only in a pagan sense 78

® Smith, “Prayer of Joseph”, OTP I] 704

See Barbel, Christos Angelos,

Second and Third Century Chnstianty

185

tions from it demonstrate that it was also known among some Chnstians The fact that neither Ongen nor Eusebius applied this text to Christology 1s no reason to suppose that other Christrans were as judicious, In fact, Justin Martyr (Dial 75 1-2) appeals to a tradition which 1s similar to that found in the Prayer of Joseph, and may have been dependent upon :t_ In both, the

Prayer of Joseph and Justin, the name “Israel” belongs to a high heavenly being an archangel and the Logos, respectively Justin, however, differs from the Prayer of Joseph in that he does not equate the historical Jacob with the heavenly Israel, for him two distinct persons merely share the

same name

While it 1s not certain that Justin knew this apocryphon, he

may have been

Origen,

familiar with a tradition similar to it.

Eusebius,

The witness of

and possibly Justin, demonstrate that the Prayer of

Joseph was not unknown among Chnstians in the second and third centuries. It 1s possible, therefore, that the Prayer of Joseph provided the

catalyst for a Jewish-Chnistian understanding of Chnst as the incarnation of an angel

b) The “Pre-existent” angel of the Magharians that the shadowy

the

human

Similarly, wt 1s possible

Magharians also attest to a pre Chnstian Jewish belief in

incarnation

of an exalted

angel

According

to very

late

sources,?! the Magharians flourished at the turn of the eras and taught that the world was made by an angel created by God for that very purpose In addition, the Magharians apparently held that the Torah was revealed by this angel, that he was the subject of all the anthropomorphic language about God

in the OT,

that he possessed

the Name

of God,

and that he

appeared on earth in the form of a man as the messenger of God *

Since

none of our sources for the Magharians pre-date the ninth century, we must exercise extreme caution We simply cannot be sure that our authors are

correct about a sect which flounshed nine hundred years, or more, before their times, especially in their placing this sect in the first century A later date would justify identifying the Maghanans with Epiphanius’ "Ebuonites” 91 These include Qurqisam s Kitab al Anwar w al-Marakib (Book of Lights and Watchtowers) chapt 7, and Shahrastam’s Kilab al-Milal wa‘al-Nihal (Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects) 119

Qrrqisam and Shahrastan:

both of whom flounshed in the

tenth century, appear to be dependent upon Da'udb Marwan who lived a century earlier In addihon, Qirgisam speaks of 3 certain Benjamin al Nahawand: (9th century) who held views similar to the Magharians and may be an independent witness to their views Cf Wolfson, "Pre-Existent Angel", Harkavy “al-Qirgisami*, and Fossum, Name of God 329332

% Created world Qurgisam, Nahawand: Revealed Torah Nahawandi, Shahrastans Subject of anthropomorphic language in OT = Qurqisami, Shahrastami Possessed the Name of God

Shahrastam

Appeared on earth asa man

Shahrastani

186

Part Ill Mtchael in Earty Chnistian Literature

or a similar Jewish Chnstian sect.

On the other hand, if our authors are

correct that the Maghanans were a pre-Chnstian Jewish sect, the Maghanans may constitute even earler evidence than the Prayer of Joseph that some non-Chnistian Jews belreved that an exalted angel could appear on earth as a man

4) Summary All that has been said thus far indicates the variety of forms angel Chnstology could take in Chnstian circles in the second and third centunes Some held that Christ had been created as an archangel and then "promoted”

to the rank of Son

(De Centesima,

Eprphanius,

Pan

xxx 16 4),

others that Chnst was the spit or angel which descended on and entered into the man Jesus at his baptism (Epiphanius, Pan, xxx 3.6, 18.5-6). Sul others saw in Chnst a particularly powerful “thwarting” angel :n their battle against demons ({7estament of Solomon), while some Gnostics believed that

Chnst had an angelic nature and appeared as an angel for the salvation of angels (Tertullian, Carn 14} To be sure, every example of angel Chnstology mentioned to this point would have been rejected, even in the second and third centuries, by the Great Church as heretical

Finally, in none of

the texts cited to this point 1s Chnst identified with the archangel Indeed, in two texts, the amethyst amulet and the Testament of Chnist and Michael are clearly distinguished However, it would been a large step for the author of De Centesrma or “Ebronites"

Michael. Solomon, not have known to

Epiphanius to have equated Christ with Michael

b Christ as Michael

We must now examine one work which demonstrates that in the second and third centuries at least one author did indeed make such an identificatron of Chnst with Michael I mean Hermas’ Shepherd Moreover, other more ambiguous texts, which | offer only as supporting evidence, may indicate that Hermas’ Michael-Christ Christology was by no means unique

Second and Third Century Christianity

187

1) The Shepherd of Hermas The early Chnstian apocalypse, the Shepherd of Hermas, provides us with evidence for a Michael-Chnist identification in a text which was widely known and which held a certain authonty in many areas of the Church from late in the second century until, perhaps, the end of the third. a) The Glonous Angel Throughout this document reference ts made to an angel variously named "the glorious Angel" (0 &rd0foc Gyyedog; Sun, vu.2, v.4.4), “the Angel of the Lord" (0 a@yysdo¢ rov xupiov; Sum vu 5), and "the most venerable angel" (rod oepvorcarov cryyédov; Vis v 2, Man

v.1.7).

It 1s this angel who sent the Shepherd, or angel of repentance, to

Hermas (Vis

v.2, Sim. yn 2), and who 1s responsible for the justification of

believers (Man v 17) This glonous Angel, then, appears to be more than an angel of high standing He justifies sinners and commissions angels in his service Further, in one passage he 1s seemingly identified with “the Lord” (Sim, v.4.4),™

b) The Glorious Angel. great

willow

injmrog.

tree

being

Michael pruned

In the eighth Similitude Hermas sees a by

Gyyedo¢g

rou

xupiou

Evdo—og

Nay

The judgement of believers is portrayed in terms of this angel

giving the branches he prunes to believers and then, after a time, inspecting the branches. Those that have borne frust or remained green are allowed to enter into the kingdom, those that are dred or cracked are tumed over to the Shepherd that he might discipline them and lead them to repentance This relationship between the glorious angel and the Shepherd indicates beyond doubt that this is the same "glorious” or "most venerable" angel that we

encounter

"parable"

throughout

Hermas’

work

In the

interpretation

of this

we learn |) that the willow tree represents the Law of God,

which 1s none earth", and 2) Michael (Sim. is the Law of

other than the Son of God "preached to the ends of the that the glonous angel who prunes the tree 1s the archangel vi.3.2-3) The affinity here between the Son of God, who God, and Michael, who gives the Law, 1s to be noted

Indeed, elsewhere in the Shepherd it 1s the Son of God who gives the Law and governs his people (Sim _ v 6 2-3, 1x 145). All this suggests an

identity between Michael and the Son of God,

First, Michael

1s the

glonous angel who seems to have divine characteristics, in that he justifies sinners and other angels serve him, and second, in two different passages,

B suxcudnoar yap Tavres ted ToD osprorérou aryy£dov 4 od 88 ErScdurayuapsros urd Tov srddEOU ryyéAou Kon ciAndws Tap avTot TOMY Evrevkty cai pA Oe apyoc, dori ovx alti rapa tov xuploy ovveotw nal ANapSdve rap adtrod,

188

Part Hl

Michael in Early Christian Literature

both Michael and the Son of God are accredited with the giving of the Law

and the government of believers

Finally, in Sem. vin Michael exercises the

divine prerogative of judgement c) The Glorious Angel The Son of God This identification of Michael and the Son of God 1s confirmed by the ninth Simlitude, which corresponds in many details with the eighth In ths “parable”, Hermas witnesses the building of a tower which represents the Church Later he watches as the tower 1s inspected by sts “Lord”,

who

15 “so tall that he overtopped the

tower” (Sim 1x 6.1) Further, this “Lord of the Tower” 1s termed "the glonous man" (6 avap 0 Evd0zog; Sim. 1x 7 1) and 1s surrounded by the six “glonous men" who were in charge of the tower's construction (Sun ix 3.1-5,6 2) After inspecting the tower, the Lord tums over those stones which do not measure up to the Shepherd, that he might bring them to repent

In the interpretation of this parable 1t is disclosed that these six men

are six glonous angels and that the glorious man 1s the Son of God (Sin. 1x, 12, 1-8) As many interpreters have recognized, the many parallels between these two parables demonstrate that Hermas intended Michael to be understood as the Son of God *5 Some would counter that the Son of God 1s distinguished from Michael in Sim vm 3 2-3, where the willow tree represents the Son of God and Michael stands by tt pruning its branches % Such an objection, however, fails to consider the fluidity of Hermas’ use of symbols In the ninth Similitude, for example, the Tower, the door of the Tower and the glonous man are all identified as the Son of God (Sim 1x.12 1, 6, 8) Fur-

thermore, in Vis an old woman.”’

11 3 3, the Church is represented both by a tower and by Furthermore, it should be added that if Michael in Sim

vi.3,3 1s not understood as the Son of God, then the reader 1s left with the

ridiculous image of the infenor, in this case the archangel Michael, "pruning” the supenor, the Son of God! Given Hermas’ flexibility with symbols, there 1s no difficulty in recognizing that the Son of God 1s symbolized by the willow tree, and at the same time identified as Michael.”

ogy,

95 E.g , Brox, Hermas, 362 365, 490-492, Kelly, Doctrines 94-95, Daniélou, Theol“God and His Angel", Gieschen, “Angel”, 799-802, and very 123-124, Moxnes

tentatively Lueken, Michael, 155

% Pernvedeo, Church 59 97 So also Brox 363, 491-492 78 Cf John 15 1-2

®% Sim

1x 14.5 may be mentioned as a final proce of supporting evidence

Here it is

Stated the “name of the Son of God*, which appears to be synonymous with the Son of God himself, 1s “great and incomprehensible, and supports the whole world" The incomprehensibility of the Name and us role im creation both recall /En 69, in which Michael is the angel of the Name See above pp 51-53

Second and Third Century Christianity

189

d) The Pneumatological Christology of Hermas Some commentators have attempted in various ways to explain away Hermas’ Michael-Christ equation. Dubelius, for example, suggested that the presence of the name Michael at Sim. viu.3.3 resulted from the author failing to fully christianize an underlying Jewish source.!° Similarly, Barbel asserted that the Michael-Christ

identification

due

Hermas’

compositional

clumsi-

ness.!°! However, the careful attention which Hermas gives 1n constructing parallels between Similitudes viu and 1x make it highly unlikely that he did not intend to equate Michael, in the former, with the Son of God, 1n the lat-

ter.!02_ On another track, one could argue that this apparent identification arises from Hermas’ muddled thought, rather than from his limited writing ability. It is generally recognized that Hermas was not a skilled theologian and that his Christology seems to lack a systematic unity. Some would suggest the existence of both

an angel Christology

and an apparently

adop-

tionistic Christology (Sim. v.6) in the Shepherd demonstrate the degree to which Hermas could accommodate contradictory positions.!°3 Nevertheless, while a certain tension between these two Christologies 1s undeniable, they can be understood to cohere to a considerable degree. In Sim. v.2, the Shepherd tells Hermas a parable about a landowner who, before going on a journey, entrusted the care of his vineyard to one of his servants. Upon returning and discovering the servant had exceeded all his commands and expectations he proposed to elevate this servant to be a joint heir (ovyxAnpovopzoc) with his son, a proposal welcomed by the son

and the landowner’s friends.

In the interpretation, the Shepherd explains

that the son, in the parable, 1s the Holy Spirit, while the servant stands for the Son of God (fo 5& vidg 76 TrEdpa 76 GryLOV é0TW'] 0 b& SoUAOS O VIO

Tov Beod gor’ Sim. v.5.2).!°* When he 1s questioned by the puzzled Hermas, the Shepherd explains that the pre-existent Holy Spirit was united

100 Dibelius, Hermas, 576 101 Barbel, Christos Angelos, 232

102 So Brox, Hermas, 364

103 E.g , Brox, Hermas, 485-486, Pernveden, Church, 70-71 104 The

Greek

words

in double brackets

are a translation of one Latin version (L})

which reads: filius autem spiritus sanctus est This sentence 1s omitted by A L? E and, unfortunately, M 1s lacunose However, there are good reasons to suppose that this 1s the original reading

skipping from OAE

The omission can be explained as an example of haplography,

to OAE

cerns, for 1t teaches that there are two divine Sons (so Chadwick, Hermas, 106 and such a statement

words in brackets

the eye

The omission could also have resulted of dogmatic con-

Dibelius, Hermas, 569) Sim Cf Brox (Hermas, 315-316)

“Hermas", 275, Snyder,

1x 11 shows that Hermas could make and Whittaker’s text, which prints the

Second and Third Century Christianity d) The

Pneumatological

Christology

189

of Hermas

Some

commentators

have attempted in various ways to explain away Hermas’ Michael-Christ equation. Dibelius, for example, suggested that the presence of the name Michael at Sim. viii.3.3 resulted from the author failing to fully christianize

an underlying Jewish source.!© Similarly, Barbel asserted that the Michael-Christ identification is due to Hermas’ compositional clumsiness.!0! However, the careful attention which Hermas gives in constructing parallels between Similitudes viii and ix make it highly unlikely that he did not intend to equate Michael, in the former, with the Son of God, in the lat-

ter.!02,

On another track, one could argue that this apparent identification

arises from Hermas’ muddled thought, rather than from his limited writing

ability. It is generally recognized that Hermas was not a skilled theologian and that his Christology seems to lack a systematic unity. Some would suggest the existence of both an angel Christology and an apparently adop-

v.2,

the Shepherd

tells Hermas

a parable about a landowner

who, before going on a journey, entrusted the care of his vineyard to one of his servants. Upon returning and discovering the servant had exceeded all his commands and expectations he proposed to elevate this servant to be a joint heir (ovyxAnpovoyoc) with his son, a proposal welcomed by the son and the landowner’s friends.

In the interpretation,

the Shepherd explains

that the son, in the parable, is the Holy Spirit, while the servant stands for the Son of God (fo 5é vidg 1o xvevpa TO ayiov got]

tov Beov éoriv'

Sim. v.5.2).'°4

When

0 5& S0UdAOG O Vid

he is questioned by the puzzled

Hermas, the Shepherd explains that the pre-existent Holy Spirit was united

100 Dibelius, Hermas, 576. 101 Barbel, Christos Angelos, 232.

102 So Brox, Hermas, 364. 103 £.g., Brox, Hermas, 485-486; Pernveden, Church, 70-71. 104 The Greek words

in double brackets are a translation of one Latin version (L!)

which reads: filius autem spiritus sanctus est. This sentence is omitted by A L? E and, unfortunately, M is lacunose. However, there are good reasons to suppose that this is the original reading.

The omission can be explained as an example of haplography,

skipping from OAE... to OAE....

the eye

The omission could also have resulted of dogmatic con-

cerns, for it teaches that there are two divine Sons (so Chadwick, “"Hermas", 275; Snyder, Hermas, 106 and Dibelius, Hermas, 569). Sim. ix.1.1 shows that Hermas could make such a statement. Cf. Brox (Hermas, 315-316) and Whittaker’s text, which prints the words in brackets.

190

Part HI

with the human

Michael in Early Chrisnan Literature

Jesus during

the incarnation to form

“the Son of God”.

After the incarnation, the humanity of the Son of God 1s exalted to become a “companion with the Holy Spint” (Sim. v 6 5-7a) Thus, for Hermas, “the Son of God” signifies the umon of the pre-existent Holy Spint with the human Jesus !°5 Two observations need to be made regarding this adoption motif First, this identification of the pre-existent Son with the Spint (or a spint) is by

no means unique in second and third century Christianity The most stnking parallel probably occurs in 2Clem. 9.5, but similar conceptions can be found im Justin Martyr (7 Apo! 33), Tertullian (Marcion im 16, Praxeas xxvi), Hippolytus (Noetus 4, 16), and Cyprian (/dols x1) '° Second, this

pneumatic-adoptionistic Chnstology 1s not necessarily inconsistent with Hermas’ angel Christology As we have seen with Epiphanius’ account of the Ebiomtes (Pan

with

xxx 16 2-5), an angel Christology could be harmonized

an adoptionistic Chnstology

[f it could

be shown

that

Hermas

identified the pre-existent Holy Spirit with an angel, then st would be likely that he shared with Epiphanius* "Ebronites" an adoptionistic angel Chnistol-

ogy Significantly, in an important passage Hermas seems to suggest that the Holy Spint 1s an angel (Man x19) !° In this text, Hermas places the "Holy Spint" and “the angel of the prophetic spimt” in parallelism and seems to imply their equation '

We must be careful not to attribute too much precision to Hermas’ thought. He clearly did not work out all the theological implications of his mmagery

Nonetheless, based on what has been said thus far, it 1s possible

that Hermas’ pneumatic-adoptionistic Christology and ms angel Christology were, in his mind, complementary The Holy Spint, who 1s also an angel, pre-existed At the incarnation, the Spint 1s joined to a human nature

resulting in "the Son of God" identified

with

the archangel

identified

the

pre-existent

Since this "Son of God" Michael,

Chnst/Holy

however, cannot be demonstrated

it 1s not

Spint

impossible

with

Michael’?

can also be that

Hermas

This,

[t must be admitted that Hermas never

103 So e.g, Lake, Apostolic Fathers, 11165, ni Kelly, Doctrines, 144, Brox, Hermas, 320-322, 486-488 Dibelius Hermas, 573, Harnack, Dogma, 1191, n1 and 1193,n1

, Snyder, Hermas,

108-109; and Pernveden, Church, 42-52

106 Cf Kelly Doctrines, 142-145, 149-151 and Dix, “Epiciesis*, 188-190 107 The reading 4 &yyedo¢ rol zrsvparos Tov rpodnTixod, found in L? and E, 1s now confirmed by P Oxy S

Cod

A reads 6 d&yysho¢ 100 xpodyjrov

108 So Gieschen, "Angel, 791 792 107 Note that in the Ascen/s the Holy Spirt”

Cf Reiling, Hermas, 104 109

the Holy Spint 1s understood as an angel, the "Angel of

Second and Third Century Christianity

19}

explicitly takes this step and allows the two Chnistologies to stand in his work without any attempt to harmonize them. e) The Status of the Shepherd in the Early Church Before leaving

Hermas, it must be asked how a work with a heretical angel Chnstology came to be so popular in certain circles of the Great Church

To be sure, it

was not universally popular. As with many early Christian works, Hermas’ Shepherd did not have a umform reception, It had its enthusiastic champions

(Irenaeus,'!° Clement of Alexandna,'!!

Ongen!!?),

its equally

enthusiastic detractors (Tertullian''+), and others whose op:mon of the text can only be called ambiguous (author of the Muratonan Canon). More importantly, however, im many provinces of the early Church Hermas’ work seems to have been unknown or steadfastly ignored, This 1s especially true of Syna, Asia Minor, and Greece '!4 It was certainly known in the West and Egypt and, after Orgen’s removal to Caesarea, in Palestine as well. The witness of Ongen 1s instructive here He regarded the Shepherd highly,

at times

citing

it as Scnpture

After

his

move

to Caesarea,

however, he becomes more cautious, almost always (introducing) a citation with some apologetic formula, protesting his personal belief in its divine inspiration but well aware that he cannot expect its authority to be taken for granted by all his readers (an Palestine), !!5 Indeed, even in Princ. iv 2.4, which dates from his Alexandnan period, he

must admit that it 1s “despised by some” In both the West and in Egypt the Shepherd appears to have been gradually demoted from a “canonical” work to a document accepted for private reading !!® It is conceivable,

110 Irenaeus quotes Man

11 once (Adv Haer

1 20.2), referring to it as scripture (}

youd?) He also alludes to this verse on a number of other occasions (i 155, u 10 2, 1 309, iv 201, Dem 4)

1 Strom

11.1,9

i 22 1,

12, iv 9 vi IS

2 Princ iv 2.4, CommRom

x 31, CommMatt. uv 21

113 In Modesty x, which dates from his Montanist period, Tertullian is extremely nega-

uve toward the Shepherd

However, in Prayer xvi, which 1s from hus catholic penod, he is

neutral

114 See Chadwick, “Hermas”, 275-280 "IS Chadwick, “Hermas™, 276 For an example of Origen’s Caesarean attitude, see esp CommMart uv.21 116 For the West, contrast Irenzeus Adv Haer ww 20 2 with the Muratonan Canon, for Egypt, contrast Ongen or the early Athanasius (/ncarmanion 3) with the late Athanasius (Festal Epistle 367)

192

Part lil

Michael in Earty Christian Literature

although hardly certain, that the work's Christology contributed to its decline in some circles and its being ignored in others Moreover, some of those who held Hermas in high esteem, especially Clement and Origen, had

at their disposal an allegorical method of interpretation which enabled them to avoid the implications of particularly difficult problem passages Hermas’ Michael-Chnist identification rests above all on reading two pas-

sages (Syn, vii 3 3 and 1x 12 8) in hight of each other, and the connection between these two passages does not seem to have occurred to any ancient exegete !!7

2) P Oxy 1152 The remaining evidence for a Michaei-Chnst identification in second and third century Christianity 1s admittedly more speculative than that based on Hermas and

therefore, 1s offered only tentatively

Another text, of uncertain date, which seems to have identified Michael

with Christ 1s a magical incantation wnitten on a scrap of papyrus (P.Oxy. 1152),

dated by its editors to the fifth or sixth century

dup "EAwe Adwraer Bonde. (MS

law LaSaw? Mixand

BonOc) nyiv xai trobry oiky

''®

It reads

wpwp

Inoobd (MS. ‘legov) Xprioré,

apjv

The meaningless words at

the beginning of the text indicate that this 1s a magical text and should be regarded as an incantation rather than a prayer The singular form of the imperative verb Sonféw may indicate that the composer of this incantation regarded the seven names as referring to the same imdividual Michael would

then

another

name

of Jesus,

as are

Eloi,

Adonai,

lao,

and

Sabaoth However, it 1s not unusual for the verb and subject to disagree in magical texts,'!9 so the author of this text may have intended an invocation to three different divine figures The Jewish God ( EAwer Adwraer ‘law LaBawt), Jesus Chnst, and Michael It 1s, consequently, not safe to assume that the author of this incantation was concerned

I? To my knowledge vinl 3 31n CommMatt

only the former ts ever commented on

about,

or even

Origen appeals to Sim

xiv 21, but does not connect it with x 12 8

118 So Hunt (Oxprhynchus VIII 253) and Wessely ("Anciens monuments", 403-404) 119 Cf the examples collected in Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 192-198 Arnold (Syncretism, 242-243) apparently understands every name in this text to refer to a different deity If this is so, given that four CEAwe, Adwrae:, law, Cafaw6} are traditional designahions for the Jewish God, we must conclude that the author s understanding of Judaism and Chnstuanity was linuted indeed

Second and Third Century Christianity

193

aware of, the theological implications of his composition. The text may be nothing more than the ramblings of a magician inadequately instructed in the teachings of Christianity. Nonetheless, it 1s just possible that the text reflects a popularization of a Michael-Christ Christology such as we found in Hermas. Possible, but far from certain.

3) The Gospel of the Hebrews One of the few surviving fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews offers a perplexing picture of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as the incarnation of Michael: It is written in the [Gospel] of the Hebrews that when Christ wished to

come upon the earth to men the Good Father called a mighty ‘power’ in the heavens

which

was called

‘Michael’,

and committed

Christ to the

care thereof. And the ‘power’ came down into the world, and it was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb for seven months. !7 This passage from the Gospel of the Hebrews 1s quoted in a sermon attributed, probably wrongly, to Cyril of Jerusalem and only survives in a Coptic translation. In other fragments of this gospel the mother of Christ is named "the Holy Spirit", not Mary.!2!_ This may be an indication that this passage does not belong to the same Gospel of the Hebrews. However, it is also possible that we have here further evidence that the Holy Spirit was understood as an angel, in this case as Michael. This 1s a difficult fragment to evaluate; far too little of its original context has survived.!22 At best it offers supporting evidence for the close relation of Christ and the archangel Michael in certain circles.

4) Epiphanius Pan. xxx.16.2 and the Dualism of Qumran The description of Christ as "one of the archangels” and "the ruler both of angels and of all creatures of the Almighty" (Pan. xxx.16.4) in the 120 Budge, Misc Coptic Texts, 637. 121 See Vielhauer and Strecker in "Jewish-Christian Gospels", NTApoc 122 Cf

I 177-178

Barbel, Christos Angelos, 225, n 200, who cites 1t only “als Kuriositat".

194

Part lil

Michael in Early Christian Literature

"Ebionite” Chnstology known to Epiphanws recalls Michael’s position in Jewish

and

early

Chmistian

apocalyptic

Significantly,

this

context

Epiphamius also attributes a cosmic dualism to the Ebionites. But as I said, Christ, but one world to come, the Almighty’s

they set two divine appointees side by side, one being the devil And they say that Christ has been allotted the but that this world has been entrusted to the devi)--by decree, if you please, at the request of both (Pan.

xxx 16 2}

This dualism, which 1s also found in the Pseudo-Clementines (e g , Hom m 2, vin 21, xx 2-3 and Rec 11.24, 1 $2), 15 not unhke the dualism of Qumran with its conflict between the "Pnnce of Light" or Michael, on the one hand, and "the Prince of Darkness” or Belial, on the other '°3 A number of interpreters have suggested the dualism of Epiphanius’ “Ebionites"

and the Pseudo-Clementines onginated with the Essenes of Qumran !*4

this 18 correct, tt could explain the ongin of the Michael-Chnist identifica-

tion

Once converted to Christianity or "Ebionitism", the former Essenes

kept their dualism and identified Chnst

with the Angel of Light, that 1s,

with Michael

5) The Pseudo-Clementines

While the above suggestion ts speculative, it receives support from two considerations First, the True Prophet Chnstology of the Pseudo Clementines seems to owe something to angel Chnstology For example, mn Rec 134 the True Prophet is identified with the angel who appeared to Moses in the bush and as the angel of the Exodus '75 Second, a passage appearing

in both

the Homilies and the Recogninons,

and thus probably

belonging to the Grundschrift, descnbes Chnst as the angel set over the nation of Israel (Rec

42 3-5, 8, Hom

xvi 4)

23CF e.g , 1QS 3 13-4 26 and 1QM 13 10-11 24

Ep,

Damélou,

CAnstianity, 86, 118 121

Theology, Indeed

144, Schoeps,

As we have seen, this 1s

174-9 See above pp 62 66 Theologie,

247-255,

idem., Jewish

Epphanius asserts that the Elchasaites, who influenced

the Ebionites, were influenced by the Ossaens (‘Oooawy, Pan xix 1 1-4, 22) been taken as a reference to the Essenes Cf Schoeps, Theologre, 251 252

125 CF Hom

This has

xvi 14, which identifies the “angel” who appeared to Moses in the bush

and who wrestled with Jacob as “Emmanuel,

who ss called the Mighty God”

Second and Third Century Chnstranity

195

Michael’s role in many Jewish apocalypses '26 To be sure, in neither passage 1s Christ explicitly identified with Michael, and the simple adoption of roles traditionally belonging to an archangel does not necessanly imply an identification with that archangel Nonetheless, the presence of a dualism

so characteristic of Qumran, and the influence of ange] Christology on the True Prophet Chnistology generally, certainly make a Michael-Chnst equation in the Pseudo-Clementines a possibility 27

6) Gabnel, the angel of the Holy Spirit? Finally, the Chnst Michael identification may have been paralleled by a Holy Spint-Gabnel equation

The evidence for this 1s, to be sure, tentative

and very limited The Ascension of Isatah envisions the Holy Spint as an angel, for it regularly refers to him as “the angel of the Holy Spint” (3 16, 7 23, 9 36, 40,

11 4, 33), or “the angel of the Spint” (4 21, 9 39,

It is possible that the archangel Gabnel 1s intended

10 4)

First, the orginal text

of 3 16 may have read Tafpink, 0 ayyedog rol mvebsatog rod a*yov The Ethiopic version does not include the name, but 1) the mention of Miyanry a&pxwr Tav ayyédwy Tov ayuay later in the verse seems to require

a name here as well, and 2) the fragmentary Greek manuscnpt of the Ascension of Isaiah has a lacuna here which shows that wt included a word before "the angel of the Holy Spirit" which is not found in the Ethiopic, and Teafpind would fit '** Second, at 11 4 at 2s “the angel of the Spint” who appears to Joseph in a dream to warn him not to put Mary away

secretly This passage 1s clearly based upon Matt 1 20, where it is an ayyedog xuptov who appears to Joseph Gabnel, of course, does not appear in Matthew’s account, but it was common in the early Church to harmonize

Matthew

with

Luke's

birth

narrative

and

conclude

that

Gabriel is referred to in both '?° So, if the author of the Ascension knew the Gospel of Luke, it 1s possible, but by no means certain, that he

126 See above pp 33 38 127 So also Daniélou

Theology

184 185

128 So Charles (Ascenston 19-20, 93) following a suggestion of Grenfell and Hunt However Norell: ("Resusrezione” 322 323) has questiuned this reconstruction and has

suggested another just as plausible

129 So Protiames 11 14 and Cypnan Testimonies ef

also Ps

7 (ANF V 519)

For later works,

Gregory Thaumaturgos Twelve Topics on the Faith (ANF V1 50-51) 4 [fifth

cent }, and History of Joseph the Carpenter 6 (ANF VIII 389) [fifth cent |

196

Part Ill Michael in Early Chnstan Literature

harmonized Matthew with Luke and identified Gabnel with the Holy Spirit 3° This conclusion, if accepted, offers a parallel to the MichaelChnist sdentification

c Chnist Disguised as an Angel 1) The Annunciation

[ turn now to a related phenomenon Some Christians in the second and third centunes while not identifying Chnst with an angel, did conceive of events, especially his descent into the world and the Annunciation, in which Christ disgussed himself as an angel For example, in a complex of texts Christ 1s portrayed "in the form” of the archangel Gabnel at the annunctatton to Mary (EpApos 14, SibOr vit 456-462; Pistis Sophia 7-8). The earhest form of this tradition appears in the Epistula Apostolorum, whose Coptic version runs as follows {Jesus said,] ‘For you know that the angel Gabriel brought the message to Mary.’ We answered, "Yes, OQ Lord’ Then he answered and said to us, "Do you not then remember that a litte while ago I told you: | became an angel among the angels 1 became all things in everything?’ We said to him, ‘Yes, O Lord”

Then he answered and said to us,

‘On

that day I took the form of the angel Gabnel, I appeared to Mary and spoke with her

Her heart received me and believed,

1 formed myself

and entered into her womb; I became flesh, for I alone was servant to myself with respect to Mary in an appearance of the form of an angel’,'3!

it must be stressed that no identification of Chnst with Gabnel 1s intended here, for the text explicitly states that Christ came to Mary in the 130 So Damélou, Theology, 127 131 Simonetti, “Crstologia’, 190 n 16 13! The Ethiopic verston is very similar Miller's (NTA, [ 257) translation { hold this text tu be dependent on and a correction of the fragment from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, cited above, for the following reasons It is more probable that Gabnel has replaced Michael than vice versa, for it ix more likely for a tradition to be revised towards a Gospel text (Luke 1) than away from one Second, the difficult phrase

*for | alone was servant to myself with respect to Mary un an appearance of the form of an angel” makes sense as a reaction against Chnst being “committed to the care” of Michael lo other words, the author of the Epistula Apostolorum protests that Chnst in the form of an angel, but »ithowt the aid of an angel or archangel, appearedto Mary

Second and Third Century Christianity

197

"form" of Gabnel '32. Indeed, Christ and Gabriel are clearly distinguished in the previous chapter. Christ merely appears in the guise of Gabnel, and in this guise only for the annunciation itself

flesh and becomes a man (cf. chapts

Thereafter, he assumes human

3 and 19)

By stressing that it was

Chnst himself, the author of the Epistula Apostolorum identfies Christ with the mvevpa ayov and the divayic vy¥iorou of the Gospel narrative (Luke 1.35), an exegesis common among Fathers of the second and third

centunes.!33_ The re-appearance of this tradition in the Sibylline Oracles and Pistis Sophia shows that 1t continued to enjoy some populanty in both Orthodox and Gnostic circles

2) Christ's Descent

Similarly, both the Eprstula Apostolorum and the Ascension of Isatah knew of a tradition whereby Chnst disguised himself as an angel in order to

keep secret his descent through the heavens This 1s merely alluded to in the Epistula Apostolorum (13 14), but it 1s a major theme of the Ascension of tsatah, especially of the vision which is descnbed in chapters 6-11 The divine commission (10 9-12) to the Beloved, or Chnist, to descend through the seven heavens to the earth particularly emphasizes this theme He 1s

told to make his likeness like that of all who (are) in the five heavens, and you shall take care to make your form like that of the angels of the firmament and also (like that) of the angels who (are) in Sheol.

And none of the angels of

that world shal} know that you (are) Lord with me of the seven heavens and of their angels '* In the narration of the descent of the Beloved which follows, the Beloved transforms himself to appear as an angel of each heaven as he enters that

heaven,

The purpose of each transformation 1s clearly one of camouflage

(cf also9 15) No attempt is being made to equate Chmst with an angel or to assert that he has taken on an angelic nature Rather, Christ's real nature 1g merely hidden as he assumes various angelic guises The power of this

motif comes when Christ, after the resurrection, ascends back through the

132 So Damélou, Theology, 131 132

133 Cf Justin, J Apol 33, Tertullian, Praxeas 26; and Cyprian, Idols x 134 Kmbb's translation from OTP II 173

198

Part lil Michael in Early Chnistian Literature

seven heavens

This time there is no disguise

The angels of each heaven

are dismayed to see therr Lord and wonder how he got past them without their knowledge In other passages, the author speaks of the Beloved’s transformation into a human (8 10, 9 13, 11 17)

Indeed, 3 13 alludes to two transformations

the first, angelic, by which Chnist passes through the heavens and the second, the transformation into a man

Although the author often attributes

the same purpose to these different kinds of transformations, te , to hide his true similar

identity (9 13, 1117), the two seem to be only superficially Whereas the taking of an angelic form 1s merely cosmetic, some

kand of real incarnation ts implied for the Beloved's transformation into a human For he really suffers and dies (3 13, 11 18-21) and, as an infant, he actually suckles the breast (11 17) '*

The first actual transformation into an angel which the Beloved undergoes (9 30) 1s descnbed pnor to the divine commission to descend through the heavens !3° It seems oddly out of place in this context and may have been misplaced in an early copy of the Ascension, or, more likely, this

first transformation serves a completely different purpose

Here the sense

seems to be that Christ was transformed so that he could be worshipped by Isaiah.

The parallels (9 33 and 9 37-39) appear to confirm this

The Angel

of the Holy Spirit is not transformed (9 33),'*" for as an angel the Holy Spirit does not need to be transformed to be worshipped by a human The Beloved, on the other hand, was transformed into an angel precisely at the

moment Isaiah begins to worship him Similarly, before Isaiah worships the Father “the eyes of (his) spint" are opened to enable [satah to see the Father (9 37-39) Even the angels without this special grace cannot see God (9.37) In other words, a human such as Isaiah needed help, in one

135 Contrast Tobit 12 19, TAb

A 49-10

Philo

Abr

118, Josephus

Ant

1197

and

GenR 48 14 These texts, all of which except the first refer to the three "men" who appear to Abraham in Gen 18, explain that the angels involved did not really eat or dnnk it only seemed to be so to the human observers By contrast, the Christ child im Ascents truly suckles He suckles not because he needs the nounshment but to hide fis true identity Cf

Clement of Alexandna, Strom

vi9

For a fuller statement of the argument of the last

two paragraphs see Hannah, “Docenc Chnstology* '36 Although L? and S have Isaiah being transformed, rather than the Beloved ("And ] was transformed and became hike an angel*)

the Ethiopic version, “And He (3,.e

Christ)

was transformed and became like an angel", has now been confirmed by a Coptic manuseript and 1s to be preferred as the more difficult

So also Kmbb

OTP, II 171, n.o2

137 Charles emends the text here, against all the textual evidence (Eth , L?, and S) to

support his preference of L? $ at 930

Charles believes the onginal read

was not transformed into accordance with their form" agree in reading “But his glory ~

"But my glory

But the Eth , L?, and $ versions all

Second and Third Century Chnsnamey

199

form or another, to worship either the Beloved or the Father, but this was

not necessary with the Holy Spint who ts an angel fsaiah

seemingly

speaks of Chnist’s

angel for two different purposes

transformation

Thus, the Ascension of into the form

of an

first, he transforms himself so that Isaiah

might worship him, and second, he assumes the form of an angel in each of the different heavens that his descent into the world might not be known. Netther implies that Christ actually became an angel, or that he was onginally an angel by nature

d. The Tradition behind the Ascension of Isaiah!38

Therefore, the Ascension of Isaiah does not contain an angel Chnstol Ogy. it does not assert, or even imply, that Christ 1s an angel At most it describes him disguising himself as an angel '°? However, there 1s reason to believe that the pnmuitive depicnon of the Trimty found in 9 27-42 and 11,32-33 depends on both an angel Chnstology and an angel Pneumatol-

ogy.

First of all, the Holy Spint continues to be identified with an angel

Second, Ongen

and more (Princ

importantly,

134,

14, cf

an exegetical tradition which appears in Cels

vi.18, Homlsa.

12,

w1,

Comm

Rom 11 8) may point back to an earlier source or oral tradition behind the Ascension of Isaiah The clearest passage in Ongen for this exegetical tradition is found at Princ 1 3 4 The Hebrew used to say that the two six-winged seraphim 1m Isaiah who cry one to another and say, ‘Holy, holy, holy, 1s the Lord Sabaoth’, were the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spint And we ourselves think that the expression in the song of Habakkuk, “In the midst of the two living creatures thou shalt be known’ 1s spoken of Christ and

the Holy Spirit 14°

Here we find Christ and the Holy Spirit identified with the Seraphim and offenng God worship The parallel with the Ascension of Isaiah 1s atl the more stnking when it is recogmzed that both texts, Princ. 1.3.4 and AscenlIs

6 11, result from reflection upon Isaiah 6

Interestingly, Ongen

138 For a more detailed and developed presentation of the argument of this sectron, sce Hannah, “Isaiah's Vision”

139 So also Simonetti, "Cristologia’, 187-193 140 Based on Butterworth's (Principles, 32) translanon of the Greek fragment

200

Part Hil) Michael in Early Chistian Literature

explicitly attributes this interpretation to a Jewish source, esther to his "Hebrew master", if the Latin translation of Rufinus is followed, or more

simply to "the Hebrew", if the Greek fragment 1s preferred '*' The limited state of our knowledge does not allow an identification of this person,!*? but given his distinctively Chnstian interpretation of Isa 6 we may perhaps assume

that he was either a Jew

converted

to Chmstianity,

or a Jewtsh

Christian !43 A number of scholars have pointed to a similar exegetical tradition in Philo’s understanding of the Cherubim (De Deo 3-6, Mos

2 97-100, Cher

27-28, 9 G 1 57)! The strongest parallel appears in De Deo 3-6 where Philo identifies the three men who appeared to Abraham as "the architect of the world (0 Koopowotd¢g)" and his two powers, one of which 1s known as Seog, or the creative (xointixfic) power, and the other as xipioc, or the royal (Saowtixys) power (3-4) Philo also finds this identification

appropriate for Ex. 25 21 where God speaks to Moses from above the two Cherubim, Here again he identifies the Cherubim as the creative (wornrexng)

and

royal

(Baotkcayg)

powers,

with God

enthroned

between

them speaking through His Logos (5) Then in chapt. 6 he connects this with Isaiah's vision of God flanked by the two Seraphim While the dif ferences between Philo's and Orgen's exegesis are not insigmificant, one could easily assume some Philonic influence, either directly or indirectly on

Ongen or his Hebrew master 4° Another text parallel to the Trinitanan passages of the Ascension

fsaiah occurs in Irenaeus’ Demonstration 10

This God, then, ts glonfied by His Word, who ts His eternal Son, and by the Holy Spint, who 1s the Wisdom of the Father of all And their Power(s), (that of the Word and of Wisdom),

who are called Cherubim

and Seraphim, with unceasing voice glorify God, and the entire establishment of heaven gives glory to God the Father of all '* '4l For the scant possibility that this refers to a Jewish Christian commentary on the Book of Isaiah, see Pritz

Nazarene, 22 23

'42 So De Lange, Origen, 23-27 43 So Hanson, Allegory and Event, 174 and Damélou

Theology, 135 136

De Lange

(Ongen, 43), however, ts of the opimon that "the Hebrew" may have been a non Chnstian

Jew and appeals to srmilar language in Philo to show thal a Jew could speak of "the onlybegotten of God” (Conf 146, Agr SI, Som

144 Esp

Kretschmar

Barbel, Christos Angelos

1 215) and the divine Spint

Trimdtstheologre, 8291

Daniélou

Theology,

134 140,

270-275

\45 So Daniélou, Theology, 135-136

146 Smith's (Proof) translation,

Irenacus’ Demonstration

1s unfortunately only

preserved in an Armenian translation The single MS reads “Power” rather than " Powers’, but all the translations I have consulted accept the emendation of the plural See Smuth

Second and Third Century Christianity Two

parallels should be noted, possibly three

201

According

to Irenaeus, the

Logos and the Holy Spint join the heavenly host in praising God in the previous chapter Irenaeus describes the seven heavens and

Second, implies

that God, His Word and Wisdom are situated in the seventh heaven Third, Damélou argues that this text identifies the Logos and the Holy Spint with the Cherubim and Seraphim He approvingly cites Lanne’s paraphrase that “the Word

and Wisdom,

called Cherubim

which

and Seraphim,

are powers

of the Father,

and are also

give glory to God with their unceasing

voice” 147 This last point seems to me to be very unlikely as the text now stands However, a simple emendation of would produce the same sense Consider the following Rousseau’s Text Tovtrup 8 at durapers rov te Adyou kat tHe Lodiac, aiTiwes KodovvTor XepovBip car Lepadip,

Suggested emendation,

Taira 52 a1 durapeig, 0 Aoyoo car 7 Lodi,

atrives KadovyTar XspouSip kat Lepadip,

If Irenaeus here utilized source maternal, he could very well have introduced the plural and other changes to avord the difficulty of identifying the Son and the Spirit with angels In other words, Irenaeus’ text, as it now stands, does not identify the Son and the Spirit with the Cherubim and Seraphim Nonetheless, this passage is suspiciously close to the portrait of the Trinity as 1t appears in Ascents 6 11 and Ongen’s exegesis of Isaiah 6-close enough to raise the possibility that Irenaeus has here used a source, but modified 11 in a more orthodox direction If this, admittedly speculative, suggestion is accepted, then we have here another witness to the same

exegetical tradition found in the Ascension of Isaiah Finally, the Elchasaite description of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as gigantic male and female angels is to be remembered Taken together, these texts, Philo through Ongen, point to an interpretive tradition which identified Chnst and the Holy Spirit as the two highest angelic beings who stood before or sat on either side of God’s throne While both Irenaeus and Origen are later than the Ascension of Isatah, the possibility of their mutual Proof, 148, 0.62

See also Rousseau s translation and commentary

seau's reconstructs the original Greek thus Asyod abrod, 3¢ gory Tlo¢ avrob, diqvexd¢

Lodia rod Tlarpdc tay Swe

Démonstraron

Rous-

Tovrwr 38 at duvaperc Tod Te Aoyou kot THC Eodlac.

airwe¢ xadodvron XepouBip xox Lepadip, awatarac dwraicg dotafover tor Gedy

147 Damélou, Theology, 138, emphasis added

202

Part Ill

mutual

dependence

Mrchaet in Earty Christian Literature

a Philomic

Chnistian exegetical tradition which

tradition

suggests

an earlier Jewish

stood behind the Ascension of Isaiah,

and which the latter seemingly corrects by avoiding any suggestion that the Beloved is an angel, emphasizing that he was merely disguised as one

e The “Theophanc” Angel Christology of the Fathers Dunng the second century a number of Church Fathers, influenced by

Platomc ideas of divine transcendence, interpreted the OT A?

JRoD

passages as referring to the Logos, that is, the pre-existent Christ In doing so, they did not shy away from giving Chnist the appellation a@yysdoc.!48 As we shall see, however,

ontology 14?

this title was more indicative of function than

The same 1s true of the early Patristic christological exegesis

of the phrase @yyedog peyadns Bovdng, from Isa 9 5 in the LXX

1) Justin Martyr Justin must be the starting point for any discussion of the second century

theophanic angel Christology, for he 1s the earliest, as well as the most prolific exponent of this type of angel Christology While Irenaeus’s works are more voluminous, his statements of this mouf are very bnef

a} The OT Theophanies

Justin routinely identifies the subject of OT

theophanies with the pre-existent Chnst or Logos

Thus it was the Logos

who, accompanied by two angels, visited Abraham at Mamre and destroyed

Sodom (Dial

56, 60, 26)

The Logos also appeared to Jacob 1n dreams at

Bethel (Gen. 28) and Haran (Gen (Dial

58)

148 Cf t12-li4

31) and wrestled with him at Jabbok

It was the Logos who appeared to Moses in the burning bush

my discussion above of the rabbinic exegesis of these same OT passages

149 Of course, I do not mean to imply that funchon and ontology are necessarily mutually exclusive However as we shall see when the Fathers examined in this chapter set out to discuss the chnistological use of d&yychos, they invanably offer only a functional nuance while at the same time affirming that Christ shared in the essence of God

Indeed,

Tertullian (Carn xiv) expressly appeals to the functional meaning of dryyzdor to the excluston of the ontological

Second and Third Century Chnisnianity

203

(Dial 59-60, 126-127, / Apel 62-63) and whom Joshua encountered out side Jencho (Dial 6! 62) In addition, the Logos spoke to the Israelites

from the pillar of cloud (Dial 38) and He 1s to be identified with the Rock from which the children of Israel drank in the wilderness (Dia! 113 114) While Justin does not refer to all the OT theophanic passages, he affirms

that even those he does not cite should be interpreted chnistalogically (Dial 127 1) 6b) The Philome Logos Justin may have been dependent, directly or indirectly, upon Philo’s Logos doctrine for his exegesis of the OT theophanic passages Regardless of influence, however, his philosophical starting point 1s certainly the platonic doctrine of the absolute transcendence of God These two points require further justification. Philo often identified the Logos as the subject of the very theophamies with which Justin is concerned For example, Philo identified both Jacob’s opponent in the nocturnal wrestling match (Som 1129, Mut 87) and the angel who appeared to him

in dreams (Som

1 70, Mig

5-6) as the Logos

While

Philo at times interprets Abraham's three visitors as God himself accompamed by Ins kingly and creative powers (Abr 119-132, Sac 59), he can also identify the central figure with the Logos (Som 1 70, Mig 173 174, ef. Leg

All

3217 219, Som

1 85)

In addition, in both Justin and

Philo we find similar hsts of names and descnptions of the Logos )” Indeed, just as Philo refers to the Logos as Gyyedog or apyayyedos (Conf 146), Justin frequently uses the former appellanon for Christ {e g , Dial 61.1, 128 1) Nevertheless, we should be careful not to press direct philomic influence on Justin's doctrine of the Logos First of all, many of Justin's interpreta tions are not found in Philo !*! Furthermore, if Justin depends on Philo, he does so only in the broadest possible sense and does not follow him

closely '?

Above all, for Justin the Logos remains intrinsically tied to

ISO Eg | Cf Conf 146 with Dra! 61 1,126] 92) and Goodenough (Theology, basis of these parallels

1281 Trakatellis (Pre-Furstence 53

168 175) particularly argue for philome influence

on the

1S! For example, the burning bush and Joshua's archistrategos are not found im Philo. For the burning bush, Trakatellis (Pre-Eoustence 73-80) can only appeal to Mos 1 66 and Pseudo-Ezekiel's Exagoge The latter is not phifome The former speaks not of the Logos, but rather of an angel which may or may not be identified with the Logos

importantly as Skarsaune (Proof 418) pomts out, Philo parallels Trypho's not Justin s interpretanon of the text’ Regarding Jos 5 13-52 even Trakatellis must adimut that nothing in Philo approaches Justin's exegesis of this passage 152 See Barnard Justin Martyr 92-99 Chadwick "Justin's Defence” esp Skarsaune's devastating entique of Trakatellis Proof, 409-424

296-297

and

204

Part Hl)

Michael in Early Chnistian Literature

Chnstian revelation The Logos became incarnate in Jesus There 1s, of course, no parallel to this in Philo Nonetheless, for Philo and Justin the subject of at least referred to as both "the second God” can call the Logos

some of the OT theophanies is a figure who can justly be "Logos" and "God" Indeed, while Philo's bold phrase (0 detrepo¢ be0¢, GQ G 2 62) 1s not found in Justin, he “another God and Lord” (@s0¢ xai xtptog Etepoc, Dial

56 4) So it is possible that, even if Justin did not know Philo directly, he was familiar with an interpretatrve tradition similar to Philo’s c) The Platomc Doctrine of God’s Transcendence There is a general agreement among interpreters that Justtn was moved to insist that it was the

Logos who 1s described in the OT theophames because of his adoption of the Platonic view of God's absolute transcendence '53 First of all, Justin himself informs us that he was a Platonist before he became a Chnistian (Dial 2-6) Secondly, when Justin undertakes to give his definition of

"God"

he is dependent

3 5) 154

Above

all,

upon

as m

Platonic conceptions and language

Platonism,

Justin's doctrine

of divine

(Dial trans-

cendence excludes anthropomorphic conceptions of the Deity, especially any suggestion of spatial movement In one very significant passage Justin explains to his opponents that since God 1s present everywhere he cannot be confined to a single location in the world, and thus could not have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, or Moses (Dial 127 1 3, cf 561, 602) All this

creates a problem for Jusun Who was the "God" descnbed in the OT who appeared to the patriarchs, saved Israel from Egypt, delivered the Law to Moses, etc ? Justin solves this by positing the Logos who shared the same essence with God (Dial 61 2-3, 1284) and as such could be called "another God and Lord” (Dial 56 4), but was also numenically distinct from the Father of all (Dia/ 56 11) whom he serves as minister or servant (Dial. 61.1) In effect, the Logos 1s Justin’s intermediary between the

utterly transcendent God and His creation d) The Relation of the Logos to the Father All this leads Justin to a view of the Logos which later theologians would regard as a dangerous example of subordinationism This subordination is clearly seen in Justin's use of phrases like 7@ rot xaTpo¢

133 §o e.g , Chadwick,

56-57 adds

Classroal

Trakatellis, Pre Faastence the important

Oerdnuatt

distinction

Tradttton,

vanpetwr,

15 16,

86-88, and Barnard

that Justin was

Barbel

to descmbe

the Logos’

Christos Angelos

Justin Martyr, 79 84,91

dependent

not on classical

38-45,

Barnard

Platonism,

but

Middle Platonism The Anstotelian element of God as the non-spatal Unmoved Mover suggests a system simular to that of the middle platonist Albinus (Justin Martyr, 29-37, 82 $3) 134 Cf Dial 41, where Justin cites Plato's descnption of God

Second and Third Century Christianity

relation to the Father (Dial.

205

113.4; cf. 127.4), and in his insistence that the

Logos acts only in accordance with the Father’s will (Dial. 56.11) and was begotten by the Father as an act of His will (Dial. 61.1). Justin even asserts that the Logos 1s worshipped in "the second place” after the Father (1 Apol. 13.3).'55

Precisely because he 1s not as transcendent as the Father,

the Logos can act as the former’s mediator. to conclude that the Logos’

However, it would be wrong

distinction from and subordination to God led

Justin to conclude that the Logos was simply an angel by nature, superior to other angels only in degree. As already stated, Justin held that the Logos shared the same divine essence with God (Dial. 61.2-3; 128.3-4). He further asserts that, although the Logos is numerically distinct from the Father, he nevertheless remains united with Him.!5° The Logos 1s the rational thought of the Father; the Divine Reason who was originally indistinct from the Father but was begotten of Him just prior to the creation of the world (Dial. 61.1; cf. 2 Apol. 6.3).'5’7 Justin does not seem to have worked out all the difficulties which arise from his understanding of God’s trans-

cendence and the role of the Logos, such as how one reconciles his implicit ditheism with his assertion of monotheism. He simply allows a certain tension to stand in his theology. e) The Logos as the Angel (Messenger) of God However, there 1s another reason why Justin could not have regarded the Logos as essentially an angel as other angels.

Although he often uses the term "Angel"

for the

Logos, especially in his exegesis of the OT theophanic passages, Justin clearly intends the term to be understood functionally. No less than three times in the Dialogue with Trypho (56.4, 10; 76.3; cf. 127.4) and once in his first Apology (63.5) Justin explicitly states that the Logos is called "Angel" precisely because he is the messenger from God to humanity. That is, he 1s "Angel" because he announces (ayyé\Aew/avayyeddatv) to men whatever the Father of all wishes. Indeed, in J Apol. 63.5 Gyysdog 18 equated with amooTodog. Justin’s statement in Dial. 56.10 1s particularly instructive:

The Logos was God even before the creation of the world (apo

Towjoewsg Koopou ovra Osdv), but is merely called angel (a yyedog xadetrat). The clear implication is that when Justin uses the term @yyedoc for the Logos he uses it functionally in the sense of "messenger". !58

155 See esp

Barbel, Christos Angelos, 52-55

Trakatellis, Pre-Existence, 87-88

156 Interestingly, in his first Apology (63 3-7) the Logos 1s both "Angel" and "Apostle" (azogrodoc), both of which imply subordination, and One" ( Ey expt o Hp), which, of course, implies umity with the Father

157 See esp Barnard, Justin Martyr, 89-91 158 So also Barbel,

Christos Angelos, esp

52, 56

(@yyeXoc)

“the Self-Existent

206

Part HI

Michael in Early Christian Literature

To summarize, Justin understood the OT theophanic passages as witnesses to the activity of the Logos in the period prior to his incarnation in Jesus. The Logos could with justice be called the "angel of God", because he was the messenger of God to humanity. But this appears to be a functional use of the term, without any indication that Justin grouped the Logos with the host of angels.!°° Indeed, although Justin was a subordinationist in that he held that the Logos

was

the servant of God

the Father,

he also

affirmed the essential unity of the Logos with the Father.

2) Theophilus Sometime before A. D. 180 Theophilus of Antioch addressed his Apologia for the Christian Faith to a certain Autolycus. In it he advocates a Logos Christology very similar to that of Justin in many respects. He does not use the term a@yyeXog

for the Logos,

but he does assert that the

transcendence of God means that He cannot be contained in any space, and thus could not have appeared on earth. When confronted with the difficulty of OT stories of God appearing to the patriarchs, he argues, as did Justin before, that the "God" who 1s meant is the Logos (To Autolycus 2.22). However, unlike Justin, he refers not to a 1:7” 482% passage, but rather to Gen. 3.8-21. He also asserts that the Logos 1s the Mind or Intelligence of the Father, thus implying a unity of essence. With Justin, he holds that the Logos was generated just prior to the creation of the universe (To Autolycus 2.22, cf. 2.10). While no angelic Christology can be found in the writings of Theophilus, his Logos Christology indicates that the foundational assumptions and formulations of Justin were by no means unique in the

Church of the second century.

159 7 Apol 62 stands regard Here Justin places asserts both that Christians angels" and that these good

out as an exception to the the rest of Justin’s thought in this the host of good angels after the Son and before the Spirit and “worship and adore" (osGépue0a kai tpooxvvotper) “the good angels “follow and are like" (émopépwr xo éEopotovpévwv) the

Son! However, other "trinitarian" passages in the same document (13 3, 61 3, 9-13), not to mention his Christology generally, demonstrate the umiqueness of this text mn Justin’s

thought Needless to say, any reconstruction of Justin’s thought must rest, not on the distinctive passages, no matter how interesting, but on his work as a whole Cf Barbel, Christos Angelos, 50-51

Second and Third Century Chnistianty

207

3) Irenaeus

At the end of the second century Irenaeus continued to interpret the OT

theophanic passages chnstologically (Adv However,

Haer

1161 2, Dem

43-49),

unlike Justin he never applies the term a@yyedos to the Logos,

except when he is citing or alluding to the LXX version of Isa 9 5 and, as we shall see, in one of the two such occasions he clearly understands the term “angel” in the functional sense of "messenger" Indeed, in commenting on Gen 2 7, Irenaeus asserts that angels did not assist when the Deity formed the first humans, but rather God's own hands, who are ever with Him, 1 e., His Word (Logos) and Wisdom (the Spint}, were his agents of creation (Ady. Haer 1v.20.1} Moreover, he twice cites Isa 63 9 to support his assertion that it was God the Word, and not an angel, who effected the salvation of humanity (Adv Haer wi 204; Dem 88) Barbe! speculates that Irenaeus avoids the title "Angel" because he 1s sensitive to its

misuse by Gnostics '® idenufy

Christ

with

As we have seen, certain Gnostic christologies did an

angel '*'

Such

a supposition

credible, if not likely. However, Irenaeus may with the term for other reasons as well He Justin's doctrine of divine transcendence and the which followed from it For Irenaeus, God 1s He cannot be measured or circumscnbed (e g

is,

then,

least

have been uncomfortable differs significantly from subordinationist tendencies invisible precisely because , Adv Haer 1v 20 1, 6)

However, the divine Invisibility 1s not absolute, for the Logos makes visible

the Invisible God Son

Indeed, “the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the

the vistble of the Father”

Irenaeus can write’

(Adv

Haer

1v 66)

In a similar vein,

"Well spake he, who said that the unmeasurable Father

was Himself subjected to measure in the Son, for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also comprehends Him" (Adv Haer iv 4 2) In addition, Irenaeus confesses the eternality of the Son alongside the Father (Adv Haer, 1 30.9; 1v,20 3).'8 Thus, Ircnacus’ understanding of the divine

unity does not allow him to follow Justin’s subordinationist tendencies

In addition, while Justin does not seem to have appreciated any sig nificant difference between

the various pre-incarnate appearances of the

Logos and the incarnation

itself,'®} Irenaeus understood the two to be of

entirely different orders

For Irenaeus, the purpose of the pre-incarnate

160 Barbel, Christos Angelos, 63, 68

161 See above pp 179-181

162 Cf Minns, /renaeus, 36-53, and Barbel, Angelos Christos, 63-68 163 7 Apol

6316

Dial

1134,

1281

Chadwick,

“Justin's Defence’

Trakatellis, Pre-Existence, 89-91, and Barnard, Justin Martyr, 119-120

290,

208

Part ll

theophanies the human m.17 1; m toward that

Michael in Early Christian Literature

was preparatory, the Logos chose such means to prepare both race and himself for the eventual incarnation (Adv, Haer. 202, iv 124, Dem 46) They point beyond themselves event of which they are merely types '*

Clearly, then, although Irenaeus followed Justin in interpreting the OT

theophamies as appearances of the pre-existent Chnst, he parted company with the former's doctnne of absolute transcendence and the subordinationism which necessartly follows from it He also distanced himself from Justin's tendency to regulate the incarnation to one of many divine appearances throughout sacred history It is hardly surprising then, that he also avoids the term ayyedog which could easily have been understood to imply a form of subordination, as well as to call in question the umqueness of the incarnation There

is one

possible occasion,

however,

in which

Irenaeus

refers to

Christ unambiguously as an angel, but it is of questionable authenticity The Synac and Armenian catena fragments from works of Irenaeus contain a parallel passage, which may be from a composition entitled On the Lord's Resurrection,'®5 and in which we find the following He 1s al! in all Patriarch among the patnarch, Law in the laws, Chief Pnest among priests, Ruler among kings, the Prophet among prophets, the Angel among angels, the Man among men, Son in the Father, God

in God, King to all eternity

For it 1s He who sailed {in the ark) with

Noah, and who guided Abraham,

who was bound along with Isaac, and

was a Wanderer with Jacob, the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the

Bndegroom

of the Church,

the Chef

Prince of the angelic powers, God of God, Christ, King for ever and ever Amen !*

also of the cherubim,

the

Son of the Father, Jesus

This creedal-like extract, confesses Chnst to be an angel in that he ts "the Angel among angels" and "the Prince of the angelic powers" But he 1s also affirmed to be divine tn no uncertain terms

In all this it differs from

Irenaeus’ work generally only in that it does not shy way from the word

164 Cf Minns, Irenaeus 41-42, 49 165 Frags

53 & 541n ANF (= frags

30 & 31 in Harvey, Sancu frenaei)

The Synac

MS does not give the ttle of the work from which the extract comes but the Armeman attributes it to this otherwise lost document 16 The ANF translation of the Synac The Armeman appears to be an expanded ver

ston but ts clearly the same extract Interestingly in the latter, Christ 1s not the "Chief of the cherubim", but the “Chanoteer of the cherubim*

Second and Third Century Christianity "Angel".

209

It certainly portrays the pre-existent Christ as active in the OT

period. Nonetheless, it 1s not certain that we have here an authentic fragment from the Bishop of Lyon. Indeed, parallel fragments attribute this "confession" or "poem", to Melito of Sardis.'67? Undoubtedly, the piece circulated in the early Church under many different names. Nonetheless, regardless of its original author, the extract ulustrates very well the attitude toward the christological use of the title Gyyedo¢ which was current in the

Great Church from, at least, the mid-second century: Christ 1s an angel in that he 1s the messenger of the Father, but he also shares God’s divinity and, thus, does not possess an angelic nature.

4) The Angel of Great Counsel a) The Origin of the Phrase

Before concluding, some remarks should be

made regarding the popularity of the christological title MeyaAn¢ BovAns &yyedos in the early Church. This title is found in the LXX version of Isa.

9.5 (9.6 MT).!6

It replaces the Massoretic text’s TY7°3N WWI 9X PY XID

oi>w-aw. It 1s impossible to be certain whether a different Hebrew text lay behind the LXX or whether the LXX 1s simply paraphrastic. However, the LXX reading 1s at least as early as Justin Martyr (Dial. 76.3; 126.1) and in all likelihood much earlier, given its widespread attestation in both the textual tradition and among the early Fathers. It 1s hardly surprising that the title MeyaAng BovdAng Gyyedog was understood christologically by the Fathers as the context in which it is found (Isa. 9.5-6) lends itself to mesSlanic interpretation.

b) The Popularity of rency. It is found in Empire: Rome, Gaul, tion, MeyaAng BovdAjs

the Title The title appears to have had a wide curwritings of Fathers from nearly every part of the North Africa, Egypt, and Asia Minor.!§? In addiGyyedog found its way into the liturgy (Apostolic

167 See the brief discussion in Hall (Melito, xxxvu-xxxvin) and the works he cites there

168 However, certain manuscripts of the LXX have been influenced, probably through Origen’s Hexapla, by the later Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, all of which follow the MT much more closely

169 Rome

Justin (Dial

76 3) and Hippolytus (CommDan

1 32 6), Gaul

(Dem 56), North Africa Tertullian (Carn x1v), Egypt. Clement (Paed Ongen (CommJo 131218, Cels v5322; viui276), Asia Minor. Thaumaturgos (Pan 4 42)

Irenaeus 15 24) and Gregory

210

Part ill Michael tn Early Christian Literature

Tradinon 4 4, Apostolic Consntunons vim 12 7), from where it would have

had a wide influence on all worshippers, not just on the Church’s theologians Finally, its appearance in the Testament of Solomon (12 3) shows that it had a certain appeal among Chnstrans with syncretistic tendencies c) Jusnn, frenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian The phrase MeyaAns¢ Bovdns

ayyedos

is ambiguous

BovAjs

can mean

either

“counsel”

“council” '” In the case of the latter, 1t could be taken to imply that Chnst was the principal angel of the angelic counci! However, the Fathers never concluded on the basis of this ttle that Chnst should be understood as an angel by nature With the important exception of Ongen, they invanably interpret MeyaAns BovdAng ayyedog functtonally Justin, for example,

understands the term as a prophecy of Jesus’ teaching mimstry (Dial

76 3)

Similarly, Irenaeus explains the import of the title as an indication of Jesus’ role as the “messenger of the Father, whom he announced to us” (Dem 56) '!71 Hippolytus, the student of Irenaeus, wmtes in the same vein “Scnpture (1e, Isa 95) also calls him ‘angel of God’, for he himself announced to us the mystenes of the Father" (CommDan 1 32 6-7) '”

Indeed, Tertullian explicitly denies that this title mmplies that Christ ts to be understood

analogous

to a Michael

or Gabriel

Rather,

it refers to his

office of messenger, not to his nature,'7) “for he was to announce to the world the Father's great project, that concerned with the restitution of man” (Carn

xiv) 174

d) Origen

Ongen was not unfamiliar with this functional interpretation

of MeyaAng Bovdns ayyedog

same

language

1 38 277-278) '75

Werner

Irenaeus However,

Entstehung,

Indeed, at times he affirms it in much the

and

Hippolytus

(Cels

v 53 22;

there can also be found in Ongen,

328 329 (=

Formation,

CommJo in the for-

132-133), and Tngg

“Angel”,

'7l Jrenaeus knew both the LXX and MT forms itative forin Dem of Great Counsel”

He evidently regarded both as author-

54-56 he cites and interprets both “Wonderful, Counsellor” and ” Angel

172 sobrov h yeah Kal dryyedhor Gcod wuoroynoey' avrds yap hy o dveryyeivare Huiy TQ TOU TaTpds wuoTHpLE

So the cntical text of Bonwetsch on the basis of the Slavonic version

The most umpor

tant Greck MS reads ta 7vov wrevpetos nuoTHpLa

173 officti non naturae vocabulo 174 Clement of Alexandna cites Isa 9 5 LXX once (Paed 1S 24}, but does not discuss the significance of peyGAns Soudae Gyyedoo

Rather his interest lies in the word ravdtor

Clement once refers to Chnst with the similar phrase yvorixos exelvog dryyedoo (Paed 1759) His intention appears to be purely funchonal On this cf Tngg, “Angel”, 43

Sef

492 {PG XIL 1449) which expresses the same idea, but 1s of

questionable authenticity

Second and Third Century Chnstianity

211

mulation of Joseph Tngg, a "dispensational" use of the phrase '**

In his

Commentary on John, Ongen cites Isa 9 5 to support his contention that the Saviour accordingly became, in a diviner way than Paul, all things to ali, that He might either gain all or perfect them, tt 1s clear that to

men He became a man, and to the angels an angel (CommJoi 31.218) Indeed, Origen leaves open the possibrhty that just as Christ suffered for humanity he will one day suffer for angels (Princ. frag 30) '7? Trigg 1s nght to insist that this does not imply a "separate angelic incarnation", for

Ongen assumed that humans and angels shared the same rational nature and were distinguished only by differing levels of perfection (CommJo u 23 144-148, Princ 1v 49) '%8 Therefore, it 1s not surprising to find Ongen assigning to Christ angelic roles, such as the guarding of Chnstian souls

(Cels

vi 266,

CommMatt

x1 26 607,

Commio

125 165)!

Nevertheless, even with this distinctive perspective Orngen refuses to equate Chnist, ontologically, with angels (Cels v 5322) For Ongen the Logos ontologically shares the divine nature '*° e) Heretical Use of the Title However, not all those who made use of the phrase MeyaAn¢ Bovdns ayysdog avoided the conclusion that Chnst was an angel as other angels, superior only in degree For example, the Valentinian Theodotus once refers to Christ as 0 rng Bovdnc ayyerXog (Clement Alex Ex Theod 432) Theodotus elsewhere refers to Chnst as the ayyehog nv Tov xAnpwparog (Ex. Theod 35 1) and, as I have already

argued,'8! his system seems to be advocating some form of angel Chnstology. To this ontological understanding can be added a passage from the Testament of Solomon

(12 3), discussed above,'#? in which Chnst

as the

"Angel of Great Counsel” ts portrayed as a particularly powerful angel for the “thwarting” of demons

176 Thgg, “Angel”, 37 17? A passage absent from Rufinus’ translation, but preserved by Justiman (Ep ad Mennam) and Jerome (Ep ad Avitum xu) For text and translation see Koetschau, De

Principiis, 344-345, and Butterworth, First Principles, 310 178 Tngg, "Angel", 45

Cf Barbel (Christos Angelos, 284-297)

179 Cf Ongen’s student Gregory Thaumaturgos, Pan 4.42, and Trigg, “Angel”, 45 180 See esp Crouzel, Orgen, 186-192 18] See above pp

180-181

182 See above pp 181-183

Cf Tngg, “Angel” 45

212

Part lil Michael in Early Christian Literature 5) Conclusions

This brief overview of Patnstic evidence from the second and early third centuries has shown that the Fathers of this penod felt lithe compunction in

alluding

to Chnst

as an

angel,

esther

in their

interpretations

of OT

theophanic passages or in ther use of the title MeyaAne Bovdns a&yyedor.

Nonetheless, it 1s clear that their assumptions regarding his divinity kept them from concluding that Chnst shared an angelic nature They, with the exception of Ongen, invanably use ayyedo¢ functionally when they use it with reference to Chnst Omngen uses it both functionally and “dispensauonally”

There is, then, a great difference between Justin or Irenaeus’

understanding of Chmist as an angel and that of the author of De Centestma ot Epiphanius’ "Ebromtes", who descnbe Christ as one of the first created angels.

Conclusions

In this chapter we have seen the diversity which angel, angelomorphic, and angelic Chnistologtes could take in the second and early third centunes Valentinian Gnostics speculated on Christ as an angel for the salvation of angels (Tertullian Carn xiv) Among circles which practiced magic Chnst was viewed as an especially potent angel by which to "thwart" demons (Testament of Solomon) In certain Jewish-Christian circles Christ was identified with the highest of the archangels (De Centesima,

Epiphanwus’

"Ebiomtes"). Some even went so far as to identify Chnst with the archangel Michael (Hermas) Other Christians, while suggesting that Chnist disguised himself as an angel during his descent or at the Annunciation, were careful to avond the impression that he actually became an angel (Ascension of Isaah, Epistula Apostolorum) — Finally, many of the

theologians of the early Church found the epiphames of the 717" 4X22, recorded in the OT, particularly useful in asserting both the deity of Christ and his distinction from the Father To some degree this diversity can be explained as ansing from the ambiguity of the New Testament documents and some of the Christologies

circulating in the first century

Jude described Christ as the Exodus angel,

thus preparing the way for Justin and those who followed him The Revelation of John and Hebrews ascnbe to Christ roles which traditionally belong to the archangel Michael, thus possibly explaining Hermas’ confu

sion

Above all, if I am correct in my exegesis of Hebrews 1-2, the author

Second and Third Century Christianity

213

of De Centesima and the "Ebionites" opposed by Epiphanius are probably

to be identified with the theological descendants of the group or groups opposed by the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Significantly, while sociological factors have contributed to this diversity, a neat cleavage between the theologians and the authors of "popular" literature does not appear to exist. For example, although the theologians, both orthodox (Justin) and gnostic (the Valentinian Theodotus), hold very

complex views,

it is not the case that all the theologians rejected angel

Christologies for more nuanced angelic or angelomorphic Chnistologies.

other

words,

"true"

angel

Christology

can

found

both

among

intellectuals (Theodotus) and writers of popular literature (Hermas). In addition, if my suggestion about the Ascension of Isaiah’s use and trans-

formation of an angel Christology 1s correct, then in a work of a popular nature we have a very carefully thought out and nuanced angelomorphic Christology.

Conclusions:

It remains

to summanze

Michael and Christ

the findings of the previous chapters and to

offer some synthesis of those findings

This study has identified three basic

forms in which widespread and diverse speculation about principal angels from vanous movements and social groups within ancent Judaism

influenced the development of early Chnstology

The theophanic angel

Christology of the early Fathers, “true” angel Christologies which identify Christ with an angel, and the angelic Christology of some New Testament

and later authors

In the second and third of these Michael speculations are

not msignificant and, in some cases, decisive

Summary

Three Forms of Angel Christologies

Early Fathers such as Justin, Theophilus, and Irenaeus interpreted the subject of OT theophanic passages as a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Chnst

While Theophilus and Irenaeus avoided the term G@yyedo¢g 1n this

connection Justin often applies the term to Chnst However, even for Justin the term 1s functional, indicatmg Christ’s role as God's messenger par excellence, and does not imply that Chnst had an angelic nature Jude (vss 56) may be an early example of this category, however, it 1s also possible that he held a “true” angel Christology In addition, in both the Great Church and among some heretical movements the MeyaAno Bovdnc ayyeros of Isa 95 LXX was invariably understood as a reference to

Chnst from, at least

the mid-second century

While some Gnostics may

very wel] have used the term as support for their belief in the angelic nature

of Christ, and

“orthodox”

theologians carefully interpret the ttle functionally

in the case of Omgen

dispensationally

Other early Christians understood the pre-incarnate Christ ontologically, as an angel [his “true” angel Chnstology took many forms and may have appeared as early as the late first century, if indeed this 1s the view opposed

in the early chapters of the Eprstle to the Hebrews

The Elchasaites, or at

Coneluvions

215

least Christians influenced by them, patred the male Christ with the female Holy Spirit, envisioning both as two gigantic angels Some Valentinian Gnostics supposed that Christ took on an angelic nature that he might be the

Saviour of angels

The author of the Testament of Solomon held Chnst to

be a particularly effective “thwarting”

angel

in the exorcism

of demons

The author of De Centesima and Epiphanius’ "Cbionites" held Chnst to have been the highest and most important of the first created archangels, a view similar in many respects to Hermas equation of Christ with Michael Finally a possible exegetical tradition behind the Ascenston of lsuiah and attested by Origen's Hebrew master, may witness to yet another angel Christology, as well as an angel Pneumatology Finally, angelic Christology seems to have been useful to some of the

NT authors, as well as to some Christians in the second century

Some

early Christians applied principal angel and Michael traditions to Chnst

but

in doing so transformed them

and

Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews

possibly the Gospel of Luke al] attribute to Christ roles or functions which traditionally belonged to principal angels Speculation concerning the OF

Angel of the Name appears to have informed the hymn found in Phil ti

as well as the Johannine tradition (Rey

19 11-16, John 17)

Finally,

some second century works teach that Christ disguised himself as an angel either

during

fis

descent

at the

annunctation

both

{Ascension

Isarah, Epistula Apostolerunt)

Michael and Christ

In these three rather dissimilar approaches, beliefs and traditions about angels are taken up and made to serve Christology They do so, however,

in very different ways Chnstology

Thus

[ have used three terms (theophanic angel

ange! Christology, and angelic Christology},

rather than one

In two ot these three categories beliets about Michael

had a significant

influence {n the first Michael] traditions may background

have been

al best

in the

216

Part iV

Michael and Christ

Theophanic Angel Chnstology

While there was a tendency in Rabbinic exegesis of OT 717 R22 texts to idenufy this angel with Michael, and the earhest evidence for this tendency 1s contemporary with the earliest Chnstian exponent (1 e , Justin Martyr) of a theophanic angel Chnstology, there does not appear to have been any contact between the two.

The Rabbinic exegesis of these passages

1s completely free of the polemic one would expect

stance was being taken

if an anti-Chnstian

Nonetheless, Rabbimic and Patnstic exegesis of

these passages suggests the interest and importance of pnncipal angel speculations to both groups, as well as the usefulness of such speculations tor early Chnstology

b Angel Chnstologies In those Christologies which actually identified Christ with an angel, Michael

traditions play a decisive role

for Hermas

who equated Christ with

This 1s, of course, especially true

Michael

However,

insofar as the

author of De Centesima and Epyphanus’ “Ebionites" identified Chnst as the Highest of the archangels, Michael s 1nfluence may be presumed here as well This holds true even if contrary to one of my more speculative suggestions, there 1s no connecuion between the sectarians of Qumran, on the

one hand, and Epiphamus’ “Ebionites" and the author of the PseudoClementine Grundschrift, on the other To be sure, some of those who understood Christ as possessing an angelic nature clearly distrnguished him trom Michael (Testament of Sviomon, the IXOTC amethyst amulet} However, even here the influence of Michael traditions cannot be completely ruled out for again Chnst 1s in these texts portrayed as the highest

archangel.

Angelic Chnstology

Transformation of Michael! Traditions

Michacl traditions were also helpful to those who transferred pnncipal ange] traditions to Chnst while carefully avoiding any implication thal Chnist shared an angelic nature The Apocalypse of John (19 11ff), as well as Justin Martyr (Dial 61 1, 62 4-5), pornray Chnist in Michael’s role of heavenly

apyx:otpatyyes =“ For the author of the

Epistle

to the Hebrews,

Conclunons

217

Christ not Michael serves as the heavenly High Priest The Apocalypse of John (1 18), the Quesnons of Bartholomew (1 29), and possibly Luke (23 43), all envision Christ as the gate keeper of paradise a role often

altnbuted to Michael in Jewish sources These all found Michae)] tradivons useful in elucidating the significance of Chnst, while carefully distinguish ing Christ from Michael Clearly conceptions other than that of “angel” also influenced the early developments in Chnstology

to name just a few

Logos, Sophia, the Son of Man, Son of God

Indeed

these and other motifs are often combined by

the same NT authors However, it seems likely that principal angel moufs were useful precisely because they implted a distinct personality in ways

that Logos or Sophia speculation would not The chnstological utilization of Logos or Sophia terminology, on the other hand, imply a umty with the Godhead

which does not necessanly follow from the use of principal angel

traditions In other words, early Christians availed themselves of varying conceptions to explain different aspects of their expenence of Christ Fur thermore, the fact that we find no anu Michael polemic in the NT or else where in Christian literature seems to suggest that early Christians, with the exception,

course,

individuals

and

Epiphanius’ “Ebionites" and the author of scrously transfer Michael or principal angel use of Michael traditions was, by and large, Logos, Sophia, Son of Man, and Son of God

groups

such

Hermas,

De Centesrma, dtd not con traditions to their Lord The an unconscious process, unlike "Christologies"

1) The Usefulness and Fluidity of Michael Traditions Although traditions about other principal angels (e g

Yahoel, Metatron)

may have been made to serve Chnistology, Michael traditions were unquestionably more impornant for Christology than those of any other single principal angel simply because they were the most pervasive and the most mulufarious in the Judaism of the Second Temple period! This use

fulness

of Michael

traditions

for early

Christians

in their

attempt

understand and express the significance of Chnst should not be considered very surprising in view of Philo's Logos doctrine Philo did not identify

' Cf

Davis

("Divine

mediators of the Second

Agents” Temple

$02 503) conclusion that of the many Period

Enoch operate in the tiple pattern of past

only

Michael

present

and the Prince of Light of the Qumran sect are

the Qumran

and future

most likely

Prince

Jewish divine of Light

As we have seen

one and the same

and

Michael

218

Part i¥

Mrchael and Christ

his Logos with Michael, his philosophical presuppositions would not have allowed him to arrive at such a conclusion

Nonetheless, he found Michael

traditions useful in describing various offices of the Logos [In the same way, early “orthodox” Christians utilized Michael traditions to illustrate the heavenly sigmficance of Chnst, particularly his protection of and interces sion

for Chnstans

archangel

would

However,

have

to have

undermined

identified

the very

Chnst

point

the

highest

these Christians

were

trying to make about Christ Similarly, if the “one like a son of Man" tn Dantel 7 9 13 was onginally intended

Michael,

but

was

later,

universally understood as the Messiah, Christians,

must

as far as

can

tell,

almost

first by Jews and then later by

conclude that Christians and

Philo were

not the only

Jews who transformed Michael] traditions for their own purposes The messiame interpretation of Dan 7 appears to have completely eclipsed the

angelic one That a passage which originally referred to Michael could be understood messianically, and that this messianic exegesis developed early on, 1s a fact of considerable significance {t demonstrates how spontaneous and subtle the whole process of utilizing and transforming principal angel traditions could be

Interestingly, the attribution to Chnst of roles traditionally associated with Michael does not result in a decline in the same roles being applied to Michael

in Christian literature

For example,

both Chnst (Justin,

Ongen)

and Michael {Epistula Apostolorum, Hippolytus, Ongen, Questions of Bartholomew) are termed the heavenly apx.otparyyog by Christians of the

second and third centuries

ons 122

Chnst {/ Clem Justin Draf

361

1161)

In addition, both continue to have priestly func-

61 3, 64 1, Ignatius Phil 9 1, Polycarp Phil Michael

(ApPaul 43-44

EpApost

13, 3Bar

)1-

16}? This can happen because in the vast majonty of Chnstian circles there 1s no question of a nvalry between Michael and Chnst Michael was only the chief of the angels, while Christ was the divine Logos, the Son of

God

2) Angelomorphic Chnistalogy as a Reacnon against Angel Christology

The angelomorphic Christology found in a work such as the Ascension of Isaiah appears to have been a reaction to and correction of an earlter angel Chnstology In this work Chnst ts portrayed as having merely disguised

2 This last text 1s of course

Jewtsh

but it was preserved by Christians

Conclusions

219

himself as an angel This 1s significant because Hebrew master, among others, suggest that behind which identified both Christ and the Holy Spirit Isaiah’s vision (Isa 6) If this 1s correct, then an

the evidence of Ongen's this work was a tradition as the two Seraphim of angelomorphic Chnistol-

ogy was used to correct a Chnstology which was thought to identify Chnst too closely with the angelic order

Two conclusions anse from this

First,

given the early dating accepted by most authors for the Ascension of Isaiah, "true" angel Chnstology must reach back to, at least, the end of the first century, a fact supported

by the exegesis of Hebrews

1-2 offered above

Second,

Chnstology

some

angelomorphic

was

seen

Christians as a safe alternative to a "true" angel Chnstology

“orthodox” It was not a

problem for members of the Great Church to portray Christ in the form of an angel so long as he was not held to have had an angelic nature This conclusion ts, in turn, supported by the theophanic angel Chnstology of Justin and other early Fathers

3 A Conjectural Synthesis Based on the conclusions offered in this study it 15 possible to construct a conjectural synthesis of the development of these vanous angelic Christologies and their relation to cach other The second and third calegones appear to have been already current in the first century The opening chapters of the Fpistle to the Hebrews testifies that some Chrisuans identified Christ with an angel Jude 5 epistle may support this conclusion, but it 15 impossible to be certain for it may be merely an early example of a theophanic ange] Chnstology However “true” angel Chnstology does

not appear to have been held by most first century Chnstians

Of the first

century documents which have come down to us the identification of Christ with an angel 1s, in One instance, explicitly reyected (Hebrews), while other NT authors appear to favour angelic Christology to the apparent but not explicit, exclusion of “true" angel Christologies In the second and third centunes this ambiguity, as well as the growth of Gnosticism and the grad

ual separation of Jewish Chnstianity from the Gentile Church, among other tactors, produced a plethora of angelic Chnstologies

Some, perhaps espe

cially in Jewish Chnistiamity and Gnosticism, followed the lead of the opponents of the author of Hebrews and concluded that Chnst was an angel pure and simple This was opposed by the “orthodox” However, even members of the Great Church, such as Justin could happily describe Christ

as an angel when this was understood to mean

“messenger”

and did not

220

Pan iV)

Michael and Christ

threaten his divinity Eventually, this theophanic angel Christology was seen to be suspect, a process already under way 1n Irenaeus, because of its

implicit subordinationism and sts tendency to neglect the uniqueness of the incarmation This synthesis attributes less significance to angelic Chnstologies in the earhest penod than is the case with many previous studies Explicit evidence for the influence of Michael or principal angel traditions in the NT ts too thin to demonstrate that they are the "key” to the origins of Christology Nonetheless, Michael traditions are present in the NT and other early Christian writings Their usefulness in the earliest attempts at Christology was real, even if they cannot be said to have been

the most important element in emerging Chnistranity’s efforts to understand and clucidate the significance of Jesus Christ

Bibliography Primary Literature Alexander, P S

(Tr}

“3 Enoch * The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Charlesworth (Ed }

Andersen, F

Yo!

| (Tr)

Garden City, NY

"2 Enoch”

Charlesworth (Ed}

Vol

Doubleday

(Ed)

Quemrdn Grotte ¢ HI (4Q482 4Q520)

Barton, ) M T (Tr) F D Sparks (Ed) Black,

and

Rey

(Tr} Ed

-M_

Dens

(Eds}

Apoculypsis

Schneemelcher

Westmunster/John Knox Bonwetsch, G

Box

and H

che Schnften

GCS1

G H, with J i SPCK, 1918

Braude, W

2 Vols

J H

91-221

The Apocryphal Old Festa 897 914

DID 7

199t

(Ed }

Oxford

Clarendon,

Landsman

Mech

Lerden

Graece

Brill

1970

Fragmenta

Mew Testament Apocrypha Wilsen

(Tr)

Volo

2 Vols Lousville

110-33

Achebs (Eds)

Leipug

Henocht

PVTG3

"The Coptic Gospel of Thomas ” W

3 H

“The Ascension of Isaiah * The Apocrypha! Old Testament Oxford Clarendon 1984 775 812

Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graece Blatz, B

1983

2 Vols

223 315

The Old Testament Pseudeptgrapha

Garden City

Argyle, A W (fr) “The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch " ment 4 F D Sparks (Ed) Oxford Clarendon, 1984

Ballet M 1982

1983

Hippolytus Werke

Hinnchs

Buchhandlung

Exegetssche und honuletis-

1897

The Apocalypse of Abraham

New

TFD IO

(Tr)

The Midrash on the Psalms

2 Vols

Haven

Pestkta Rabbatr

Discourses for Feasts, Fasts

and Spemal Sabbaths

London

Yale UP

1959

Haven

Yale UP

1968

2 Vals

New

222

Bibliography

Budge. E A W (Ed & Tr) “Discourse on Abbatén © Coptic Martyrdoms Dialect of Upper Egypt London Trustees of the Bntish Muscum, 1914

etc im the

“Discourse on Mary Theotokos " Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt London Oxford UP, (95 Burchard, C J H

(Tr)

Charlesworth (Ed)

Butterworth Chadwick

G H

Charles R Oxford

(Tr)

(Ed)

Garden City, NY

Origen on First Principles

Ongen

Contra Celsum

J H

(Ed)

Doubleday

1983

London

Cambridge

1985

2 Vols

177-247

SPCK, 1936

Cambridge UP

1953

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

(Tr} J

Garden City

Phrlonts Alexandrint Opera Quae Supersunt

Colson, F H, and G H Whitaker (Irs) tron} 10 Vols Loeb Classical Library

2 Vols

1985

Cohn, L and P Wendland (Eds) Berlin De Gruyter, 1896-1915

Duling

Doubleday,

H (Ed) The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Parrtarchs Clarendon, 1908

Charlesworth NY

Vol

Philo (Greek Texts with an English TranslaCambridge, MA Harvard UP, 1929-62

"The Testament of Solomon" Charlesworth

(Ed)

6 Vols

Vol

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Garden City

Doubleday

1983

944-87

Eisenman R and M Wise (Eds Dorset Element, 1992

& Trs }

Elhott, J K

Testament

The Apecryphal New

ature in an English Translation

Oxtord

Epstein 1 (Ed) The Hebrew-English London Soncino, 1962-88 Evans

(Ed

Tr)

Notes

and M

Edinon

of the Babyioman

Talmud

24 Vols

Midrash Rabbah

10 Vols

Tertul-

SPCK, 1956

London

Translated Into English with

Soncino, 196!

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated

E. Watson (Tr)

Garcia Martinez,

A Collection ef Apecryphal Chnstian LiterClarendon, 1993

London

Simon (Eds)

Glossary and Indices

Garcia Martinez, F

Shaftesbury,

@Q Seprimis Florensis Tertulltant De Carne Christ: Liber

lian s Treanse on the Incarnanon Freedman

The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered

The Qumran Texts in English

Lerden- Brill, 1994 J

Tigehelaar, and A

1] 12 ¢11Q2-18, 11020-31)

DID23

Oxford

van der Woude

(Eds.)

Clarendon, 1998

Qumran

Cave

Bibliography

223

Gaylord,H E (Tr) °3 Baruch” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Vols Chariesworth (Ed } Voi | Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1983 653-79

Goldin, J (Tr) 1955

The Fathers According to Rabb: Nathan

Grenfell, B. P and A S Hunt (Eds) Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898-1994 Gruenwald, 1 (Ed ) Hasidim (Hebr}

New Haven, CN

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri

“Re‘uyyot Yehezgel * Temurin Vol 1 1 Weinstock (Ed )}

J H

Yale UP,

60 Vols

London

Texts and Studies in Kabbala and Jerusalem Mossad Haray Kook,

1972 Harrington, D J (Tr) H

“Pseudo-Philo ” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Charlesworth (Ed)

Harvey, W bridge

Vol

Garden City, NY

W (Ed) Sanch frenae: Cambndge UP, 1857

Hall, S G (Ed & Tr} Clarendon Press, 1979

297-377

Libros quinque adversus Haerese

2 Vols

Meltto of Sardis

(Tr)

“The Book of Elchasa:r“

Ed W = Schneemelcher (Ed) R minster/John Knox 1992 685 90

McL

133

Wilson {Tr}

Vol

Jelinek, A Kee,

(Ed & Tr) (Ed)

The Apocrypha! New Testament

Bet Ha-Midrasch

(Tr)

“The Testaments

Pseudepigrapha 2 Vols bleday, 1983 775-828 Knibb,

(Ed

6 Vols

Tr)

Jerusalem

of the Twelve

Oxtord

Leip-

2 Vols Lounsville

Isaac, E. (Tr) “1 Enoch" The Old Testarnent Pseudepigrapha 2 Vols worth (Ed } Vol 1 Garden City NY Doubleday, 1983 5-89 James, M

Oxford

GCS25_

New Testament Apocrypha

Cam

On Pascha and Fragments

Holl, K (Ed) Eptphanmus Werke Ancortaus und Panarion Haer zig Hinnchs’ Buchhandlung, 1915 Irmscher, J

2 Vols

Doubleday, 1985

J H

Rev West-

Charles-

Clarendon, 1924

Wahrmann Books, 1967 Patnarchs “

Charlesworth (Ed)

The Ethiopic Book of Enoch

Vol

2 Vols

The Old

Testament

Garden City

Oxford

Dou

Clarendon,

1978 Kmbb,M Vols.

A J

(Tr) H

“The Ascension of Isasah “ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Charlesworth (Ed)

Vol

2 Garden City, NY

Doubleday,

1985

2 143-

224

Bibhography

Koetschau, P (Ed

}

Ongenes Werke

De Principiis (IEP1 APXOQN/

GCS5

Leipzig

Hinnchs’ Buchhandlung, 1913 Kraft,R A

andA

E Punntun (Eds &

Missoula, MT Lake,

Scholars

(Tr)

Trs) Paraleipomena Jeremion

1972

Apostolic Fathers

2 Vols

LCL

Cambndge,

Harvard

Univ ,

1913

Lauterbach, } 7 (Tr) Mek:lta De-Rabhr Ishmael heation Soctety of Amenca 1961 Lightfoa,J B (Ir) The Apostolic Fathers &Co 1891

3 R

Lohse E (kd & Tr) Dre Texte aus Qumran Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964

Marcus, R

Philo Supplement

2 Vols

3 Vols

Philadelphia

Harmer, (Fd)

London

Hebrdisch und Deutsch

Loeb Classical Library

Jewish Pub

Macmullan

Darmstadt

Cambndge, MA

Har-

vard UP, 1953

McCown

CC C

(Ed)

The Testament of Solomon

UNT9

Letpzig

Hinrichs’ Buch-

handlung, 1922 Metzger

“A Magical Amulet

Pagan Jewrsh

and Chnstian

for Cunng

Leiden

Brill

Fever *

1968

Arstorrcal and Literary Studies

[04-10

Muller C DG (Tr) “The Ascension of Isaiah " New Testament Apocrypha 2 Vols Rev Ed W Schneemelcher (Ed) R Mck Wilson (Tr } Vol 2 Louisville West minsterJohn Knox, 1992 603 20 Neusner

} (Tr)

Pesigta DeRab Kahana

Judaic Studies 122 «+

Sufre to Deuteronomy

101 ~--

123

Atlanta, GA

The Tosefta

Atlanta

An Analytical Translation

Hoboken, NJ

2 Vols

Norelh, E 1994

Ascensio Isarae

Odebere,

{Ed

bridge UP, 1928

Tr}

Brown Judaic Studies 98,

KTAV Publishing House

Songs of the Sabbath Sacnfice

& Tr)

Brown

1987

Newsom, C A (Ed & Tr) Atlanta: Scholars, 1985 et al (Ed

2 Vols

Scholars, 1987

An Analytical Transtation

Scholars

6 Vols

= Textus

CCSA

1977-8!

A Critical Edition

3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch

Brepols

HSS

Turnhout,

Cambndge

Cam-

Bibliography Penningtoo, A

(Tr)

“The Apocalypse of Abraham."

H. F. D Sparks (Ed.)

225

Oxford Clarendon, 1984

"2 Enoch* The Apocryphal Old Testament Clarendon, 1984 321-362

Preuschen, E

(Ed)

Origenes Werke

The Apocryphal Old Testament

363-391

H F D Sparks (Ed)

Der Johanneskommentar

GCS 10

Oxford

Leipog

Hin

nchs’ Bochandlung, 1903 Pnest, J (Tr) “The Testament of Moses” The Old Testament: Pseudepigrapha 2 Vols J H Charlesworth (Ed) Vol 1 Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1983 919-34 Rabin,C

(Tr)

Oxford

“Jubilees* The Apocryphal Old Testament

Clarendon, 1984

D Sparks

(Ed )

1-139

Reitzenstein, Ro “Eine Friihchnsthche Schnft von den Dreserle: Friichten des Chnstlichen Lebens " ZNVW 15 (1914) 60-90

Roberts, A

and)

Donaldson (Eds }

325

10 Vols

toAD

1994 (Ong pub 1885)

Robinson, J M

(Ed)

Rev

Anre-Nicene Fathers

Wrinngs of the Fathers Down

Coxe (Rev)

Peabody, MA

The Nag Hammad: Library in English

Hendnckson,

3rd Ed

Letden

Robinson, § E. (Tr) “4 Baruch * The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Charlesworth (Ed) Garden City, NY Doubleday 1985 413-25

2 Vols

Bull,

1988

Rousseau, A

SChr 406

(Ed & Tr)

Demonstration de la Prédication apostolique

Pans Les Editions de Cerf 1995

Rubinkiewicz, R 2 Vols

frenée de Lyon

J H

(Tr) H

“Apocalypse of Abraham ” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Charlesworth (Ed)

Vol

Garden City

Doubleday,

1983

681 705 Sanders, E P (Tr) “The Testament of Abraham ” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Vols J H Charlesworth (Ed) Vol 1 Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1983 871-902 Schifer, P (Ed)

Synopse zar Hekhalos-Literaur

TSAJ 2

Tébingen

Mohr (Siebeck),

198)

Schafer, P (Tr) Tébingen ~~

Oberserzung der Hekhalot-Literatur

Vol

2, §§ 81334

TSAJ 17

TSAJ

Tubingen

Mohr (Stebeck), 1987

Obersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur Mobr (Siebeck}, 1989

Vol

3, §§ 335-597

226 ---

Bibliography Uberserzung der Hekhalot-Literatur

Vol 4, §§598-985

TSAJ29

Tubingen

Mohr

(Stebeck), 1991 Scheidweiler,

and

Schneemelcher

Testament Apocrypha (Tr)

Vol

2 Vols

Lomsville

Rev

(Trs)

Westmnster‘John

Schneemelcher, W (Ed) Mew Testament minster/John Knox, 1991, 1992

Siegert, F

Philon von Alexandna

Feuer" (De Deo)

Tubingen

“The Gospel of Bartholomew

Schneemelcher (Ed) R Knox

[99}

Apocrypha

Mcl

New

Wilson

537-53

2 Vols

Lousville

West

Uber die Gottesbezerchnung “wohltdug verzehrendes Mohr (Siebeck), 1988

Smuth, J P (Tr) St frenaeus munster, ML, Newman 1952

Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

ACW

West-

Smith,J Z (Tr) “The Prayer of Joseph " The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Vols J H Charlesworth (Ed ) Vol 2 Garden City NY Doubleday, 1985 699 714 Stone M Vols

E (Tr) “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra" The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 J H Charlesworth (Ed } Vol I Garden City, NY Doubleday 1983 561-

Thackeray, H

St J, etal (Trs.)

Classical Library

Josephus with an English Translanon

Cambridge, MA

Harvard UP

Townsend, J T (Tr) Midrash Tanhuma KTAYV Publishing House, 1986 Tov

E,R A Kraft, and P Nahal Hever (8HevXllgr)

10 Vols

Loeb

Hoboken,

1926-65

Translated into English

Parsons {Eds.) The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from DJD8 Oxford Clarendon, 1990

Turner, N (Tr) "The Testament of Abraham " The Apocrypha! Old Testament D Sparks (Ed } Oxford Clarendon, 1984 393-421

Ulnch, E, F M Cross, S$ W Crawford ct al (Eds) Qumran Cave Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings DID 14 Oxford Clarendon, 1995

¢ IX

VanderKam J C Peeters, 1989

Vermes, G 1997

(Tr)

{Ed

Tr)

The Book

of Jubtlees

The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English

CSCO

5th Ed

510-511

London

Louvain

Penguin,

Vielhauer, P and G Strecker (Trs.) “Jewish-Christan Gospels” New Testament Apocrypha 2 Vols Rev Ed W Schnecemelcher (Ed )R MckL Wilson (Tr) Vol 1 Loursville Westminster/John Knox, 1991 134-78

Bibliography Wells, L.S

(Tr)

“The Books of Adam and Eve " The Apocrypha and Pseudeptgrapha

of the Old Testament

1913

227

2 Vols

Charles (Ed)

Vol

Oxford

Clarendon,

123-54

Wessely, K

“Les Plus Anciens Monuments du Chnstiamsme écrts sur Papyrus”

(1924)

PO 18

341-SI1L

Whittaker, M , (Ed) Akaderme-Verlag,

Die Aposiolischen Vater] 1956

Wintermute,O S (Tr) Charlesworth (Ed ) Zimmerman

F (Ed

Der Hirt Des Hermas

GCS

“Jubilees * The Old Testament Pseudeptgrapha Vol 2 Garden City Doubleday, 1985 35 142 Tr) The Book of Tobit

New York

Berlin

2 Vols

J H

Harper, 1958

Secondary Literature Abegg, M

“Who Ascended into Heaven?

4Q491

4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteous

ness" Eschatology Messiantsm and the Dead Sea Scrolls Flint (Eds ) Grand Rapids, MI Eerdmans, 1997 61-73 Acerbi, A

L'Ascensione di Isara,

{secolo

Milan

Alexander, P

Evans and P

Cristologia ¢ profetismo in Sina net prim decenm del

Vitae Pensero, 1989

277 82

“The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch

" //S 28 (1977)

162-67

Armold

The Colossian Syncretism.

Belief at Colossae —

WUNT77

The Interface Between Chnstianity and Folk

Tubingen

Mohr (Stebeck), 1995

“Mediator Figures in Asta Minor Epigraphic Evidence." Paper Presented at the Consultanon on Jewish and Chnstian Mediator Figures in Greco-Roman Antiquity, SBL Meeting 1992 29pp

Aschim, A "Melchizedek the Liberator An Early Interpretation of Genests 147° Soctery of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar Papers Atlanta Scholars 1996 243-258

Ashton, J} "Bndging Ambiguities * Studying John ~~

Understanding the Fourth Gospel

Attndge, H Hebrews Aus,

R D Thess

Oxford

Oxford Clarendon 1994

71-89

Clarendon, 199]

W The Epistle to the Hebrews A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hermencia. Philadelphia Fortress, 1989 "God's Plan and God's Power 267" JBL 96 (1977) 537-53

Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of 2

228

Bibliography

Bakker, A 255-65 Bammel,

"Christ an Angel?

"Christian

WUNT Barbel,

A Study of Early Christian Docetism "

Origins

Tubmgen

Jewish

Tradition"

Mohr (Siebeck), 1988

Christos Angelos

Die Anschauung

Judaica

ZNW 32 (1933)

Kleine

von

Christus als Bote

und Engel

gelehrten und volkstumlichen Literatur des christlichen Altertums Verlagsbuchhandlung, Barker, M

Justin Martyr

A Study of Israel’s Second God

His Life and Thought

Barr, J “The Question of Religious Influence Christianity " JAAR 53 (1985) 201-35 Barrett, C

The Acts of the Apostles

The Gospel According to John Bauckham,

in der

Hanstein

ICC

London

Edinburgh

T & T

Clark, 1994

SPCK, 1978

& T

The Climax of Prophecy

Clark, 1993

"The Conversion of the Nations "| The Climax of Prophecy Revelation Edinburgh T & T Clark, 1993 238 337

---

“Gospel Traditions in the ‘Ascension of Isaiah?"

---.

"Jesus, Worship of." Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 Vols Vol 3 Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1992 813-19

---

Jude, 2 Peter

Waco, TX

1992

The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and

2 Vols

2nd Ed

SPCK,

Cambridge. Cambridge UP, 1967

---

Bonn

London

"The Apocalypse as a Christian War Scroll"

Studies in the Book of Revelation

WBC50

1941

The Great Angel

Barnard, L W

Schriften

220-38

210-37

Studies in the Book of

Unpublished Paper

81pp

David Noel Freedman (Ed )

Word Books, 1983

Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early

Church

Edinburgh

& T

Clark,

1990 ---

"The Lion, the Lamb and the Dragon " The Climax of Prophecy of Revelation Edinburgh T & T Clark, 1993 174-98

---

"Structure and Composition" The Climax of Prophecy Revelation Edinburgh T & T Clark, 1993 1-37

---

The Theology of the Book of Revelation

Studtes in the Book

Studies in the Book of

New Testament Theology

Cambridge

Cambridge UP, 1993

---

“The Worship of Jesus " The Climax of Prophecy Edinburgh T & T Clark, 1993 118-49

Studies in the Book of Revelation

Bibliography Beasley-Murray, G

---

Revelation

"The Interpretation of Daniel 7 "

NCB

Grand Rapids, MI

CBQ 45 (1983) 44-58

Eerdmans, 1978

v “4

Beatrice, B F “De Centesima, Sexagesima, Church 2 Vols. A. dt Berardino (Ed) Clarke & Co , 1992 223

Tricesima"

HANNAH, Darrell D. (1999), Michael and Christ. Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Mohr Siebeck - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)

References