Andrei Orlov, «Moses’ Heavenly Counterpart in the Book of Jubilees and the
Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian», Vol. 88 (2007) 153-173
The paper provides conceptual background for the idea of the angel of the presence as the heavenly counterpart of Moses in the Book of Jubilees and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian. The identity of the celestial scribe in the form
of the angel of the presence found in the Book of Jubilees and some other Second Temple materials might further our understanding of the enigmatic process of
mystical and literary emulation of the exemplary figure, the cryptic mechanics of which often remains beyond the grasp of our post/modern sensibilities. It is possible that in the traditions of heavenly counterparts where the two characters
of the story, one of which is represented by a biblical exemplar, become eventually unified and acquire a single identity, we are able to draw nearer to the very heart of the pseudepigraphical enterprise. In this respect, it does not appear to be coincidental that these transformational accounts dealing with the heavenly doubles of their adepts are permeated with the aesthetics of penmanship and the
imagery of the literary enterprise. In the course of these mystical and literary metamorphoses, the heavenly figure surrenders his scribal seat, the library of the celestial books and even personal writing tools to the other, earthly identity who now becomes the new guardian of the literary tradition.
Moses’ Heavenly Counterpart 165
The Exagoge 67–90 depicts Moses’ dream in which he sees an
enthroned celestial figure who vacates his heavenly seat and handles to
the son of Amram his royal attributes. The placement of Moses on the
great throne in the Exagoge account and his donning of the royal
regalia have been often interpreted by scholars as the prophet’s
occupation of the seat of the Deity. Pieter van der Horst remarks that
in the Exagoge Moses become “an anthropomorphic hypostasis of
God himself†(44). The uniqueness of the motif of God’s vacating the
throne and transferring occupancy to someone else has long puzzled
scholarship (45). An attempt to deal with this enigma by bringing in the
imagery of the vice-regent does not, in my judgment, completely solve
the problem; the vice-regents in Jewish traditions (for example,
Metatron) do not normally occupy God’s throne but instead have their
own glorious chair that sometimes serves as a replica of the divine
Seat. It seems that the enigmatic identification of the prophet with the
divine Form can best be explained, not through the concept of a vice-
regent, but through the notion of the heavenly twin or counterpart.
In view of the aforementioned traditions about the heavenly twins
of Enoch and Jacob, it is possible that the Exagoge of Ezekiel the
Tragedian could also attest to the idea of the heavenly counterpart of
the seer when it identifies Moses with the glorious anthropomorphic
extent. As we recall, the text depicts Moses’ vision of “a noble manâ€
with a crown and a large scepter in the left hand installed on the great
throne. In the course of the seer’s initiation, the attributes of this “noble
manâ€, including the royal crown and the scepter, are transferred to
Moses who is instructed to sit on the throne formerly occupied by the
noble man. The narrative thus clearly identifies the visionary with his
heavenly counterpart, in the course of which the seer literally takes the
place and the attributes of his upper identity. Moses’ enthronement is
reminiscent of Jacob’s story whose heavenly identity is depicted as
being “engraved†or “enthroned†on the divine Seat. The account also
underlines that Moses acquired his vision in a dream, by reporting that
he awoke from his sleep in fear. Here, just as in the Jacob tradition,
while the seer is sleeping on earth his counterpart in the upper realm is
identified with the Kavod.
(44) VAN DER HORST, “Some Notes on the Exagogeâ€, 364.
(45) VAN DER HORST, “Throne Visionâ€, 25; HOLLADAY, Fragments, 444.
FOLLOW US