Dead Sea Scrolls Online

I just saw that you can now see and search five major Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts: Isaiah Scroll, Temple Scroll, War Scroll, Community Rule (Serek ha-Yahad), and Pesher Habakkuk. Check them out here. Hopefully more manuscripts will be available in the near future.

Senior Position in Judaism at Barnard

It is with mixed feelings I post this. The position of my advisor, Alan Segal, who passed earlier this year, is now open for applicants. I saw this earlier, but thought I would go ahead and pass it along.

Barnard College Ingeborg Rennert Chair of Jewish Studies Barnard College announces a search for a senior scholar to hold the Ingeborg Rennert Chair of Jewish Studies in the Religion Department at the level of advanced Associate Professor or Full Professor. We are seeking a colleague whose teaching and research complement our department’s commitment to the academic study of religion and the College’s commitment to interdisciplinarity. The field of specialization is open, but we are interested in appointing a colleague who can teach broadly about Jewish religion, culture, literature and history as well as offering more specialized courses in her or his area of expertise. The successful candidate must be conversant with the current theoretical discussions and debates in the study of religion. The successful candidate will contribute as appropriate to some other interdisciplinary program, department, and initiative at the College—for example, Comparative Literature, Human Rights, Women’s Studies, among others. All members of the Barnard Religion department hold appointments in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Columbia University. We invite confidential nominations and applications. The initial review of candidates begins October 1, 2011. Applications should include a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and a list of three references, and should be sent to Elizabeth Castelli, Chair, Religion Department, Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027 (or electronically to ecastell@barnard.edu). Barnard College is an Equal Opportunity Employer and encourages applications from women and individuals from underrepresented groups.

(Post-)Modernist Hermeneutics as a Petihta? Or Sort of...

A Petihta is a particular form of an ancient Jewish homily. It consists of a launching verse, usually from the Prophets or Writings, and a target verse from the Torah. According to many commentators, the more distinct and apparently unrelated the two verses are the better. Already knowing the end of the homily (the target verse), the pleasure for the audience/reader is to see how the interpreter, through exegetical virtuosity, will get from one to the other--the more disparate the verses then demonstrates a much higher level of interpretive ability and may make a further point: all scripture contains an underlying unity. Consider then this description of modern practices of interpretation:

What are commonly seen as "schools" of literary criticism or theoretical "approaches" to literature are, from the point of view of hermeneutics, dispositions to give particular kinds of answers to the question of what a work is ultimately "about": "the class struggle" (Marxism), "the possibility of unifying experience" (New Criticism), "Oedipal conflict" (psychoanalysis), "the containments of subversive energies" (new historicism), "the asymmetry of gender relations" (feminism), "the deconstructive nature of the text" (deconstruction), "the occlusion of imperialism" (post-colonial theory), "the heterosexual matrix" (gay and lesbian studies).

The theoretical discourses named in parentheses are not primarily modes of interpretation: they are accounts of what they take to be particularly important to culture and society. Many of these theories include accounts of the functioning of literature or discourse more generally, and so partake of the project of poetics; but as versions of hermeneutics they give rise to particular types of interpretation in which texts are mapped into a target language. What is important in the game of interpretation is not the answer you come up with--as my parodies show, some versions of the answer become, by definition, predictable. What's important is how you get there, what you do with the details of the text in relating them to your answer. (Culler, Literary Theory, 88-89)

Just exchange text/literature for launching verse and exchange "target language"/theoretical discourse for target verse; in both it is how you get there, but the end is known or "predictable." Even for those who do not ascribe to a particular theoretical discourse, if you read some of their work their conclusions become similarly predictable.

True Simplicities

A friend of mine from Columbia University, James Hare, has started a new blog, "True Simplicities." He is a specialist in South Asian religions, but this blog seeks a wider audience, as he writes in his inaugural post:

Welcome to True Simplicities. I intend this site to be a space in which to explore the relationship between religious traditions and voluntary simplicity. I'll say more in upcoming posts about what I mean by religion and by voluntary simplicity since both these terms are difficult to define, but I am not especially concerned with definitions. I intend to be inclusive. I am open to discussing anyone who has made a deliberate effort to live their life more simply, from early Christian monastics to today's "technomads," and I plan to consider how a wide range of religious--and not-so-religious--traditions have encouraged or discouraged the simple life.

"Cultural Studies" as the Reinforcer of the Traditional Canon

I have been perusing Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory, and he makes an observation that I have also suspected for a while:

...theory has reinvigorated the traditional literary canon, opening the door to more ways of reading the "great works" of English and American literature. Never has so much been written about Shakespeare; he is studied from every angle conceivable, interpreted in feminist, Marxist, psychoanalytic, historicist, and deconstructive vocabularies. Wordsworth has been transformed by literary theory from a poet of nature to a key figure of modernity. What have suffered neglect are "minor" works that were regularly studied when literary study was organized to "cover" historical periods and genres. Shakespeare is more widely read and vigorously interpreted than ever, but Marlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, Dekker, Heywood, and Ben Jonson--Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists who used to surround him--are little read today. (p. 64; emphasis original)

While on the one hand, "cultural studies" and newer forms of literary theory set texts next to other cultural objects--films, architecture, other art forms, etc.--it often re-privileges the canon even as it "deconstructs" it. Perhaps an exception to some of this is the work of M. M. Bakhtin, who is claimed by people of multiple theoretical bents and is one of my favorite literary critics (or cultural critics if you prefer, or even linguist since his work is in direct opposition to Saussure), who often worked through his theory in reference to more obscure works as well as better known ones, especially for his longer essays.

I often find that biblical and Shakespearean scholarship has a lot of overlaps, not least of which is the intensive attention both receive. Would you agree that this also is occurring in biblical studies, where cultural studies and the blanket-term "theory" have reinforced the canon it deconstructs?

Network Criticism

I have signed onto join April DeConick's "network criticism" project. It sounds like an interesting methodological study. You can read about it here. It slightly reminds me of Mark Taylor's concept of "emergent complex systems" that he articulates in his book After God. I think I was attracted to the project because I am fascinated by the physical contacts that pass along and transform thoughts, stories, etc.--that's why I am reading a book on ancient trade routes at the moment, for example.

I have thought of a few uses for her concept, but will be presenting and writing an essay, "Reproducing the Deformed Former: The Mythic and Medical Networks of the Birth of the Demiurge," for it and see how this will all work out in practice and in dialogue with other methodological and theoretical frameworks with which I am more familiar.

Ehrman and Plese: Apocryphal Gospels

I just received a copy of Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese's collection of apocryphal gospels that you can purchase here. I am looking forward to flipping through the book. April DeConick has written a short review here.

Cake Update: Chez Buttercream

Earlier, I had directed people to Stacy's website, Savories and Sweets. Considering that she basically does sweets, she has changed her website to Chez Buttercream to reflect more precisely what she is doing. Check out her awesome cakes!

Goliath's Table: Archaeology of Gath

AP reports about archaeological finds at Gath, Goliath's hometown:

In a square hole, several Philistine jugs nearly 3,000 years old were emerging from the soil. One painted shard just unearthed had a rust-red frame and a black spiral: a decoration common in ancient Greek art and a hint to the Philistines' origins in the Aegean.
The Philistines arrived by sea from the area of modern-day Greece around 1200 B.C. They went on to rule major ports at Ashkelon and Ashdod, now cities in Israel, and at Gaza, now part of the Palestinian territory known as the Gaza Strip.
At Gath, they settled on a site that had been inhabited since prehistoric times. Digs like this one have shown that though they adopted aspects of local culture, they did not forget their roots. Even five centuries after their arrival, for example, they were still worshipping gods with Greek names.
Archaeologists have found that the Philistine diet leaned heavily on grass pea lentils, an Aegean staple. Ancient bones discarded at the site show that they also ate pigs and dogs, unlike the neighboring Israelites, who deemed those animals unclean — restrictions that still exist in Jewish dietary law.
....
One intriguing find at Gath is the remains of a large structure, possibly a temple, with two pillars. Maeir has suggested that this might have been a known design element in Philistine temple architecture when it was written into the Samson story.
Diggers at Gath have also found shards preserving names similar to Goliath — an Indo-European name, not a Semitic one of the kind that would have been used by the local Canaanites or Israelites. These finds show the Philistines indeed used such names and suggest that this detail, too, might be drawn from an accurate picture of their society.
The findings at the site support the idea that the Goliath story faithfully reflects something of the geopolitical reality of the period, Maeir said — the often violent interaction of the powerful Philistines of Gath with the kings of Jerusalem in the frontier zone between them.

Mmm....Lentils.....

One thing omitted in the article is that Goliath of Gath in biblical narrative was not just killed by David (1 Samuel 17), but also in 2 Samuel 21:19, where Goliath is slain by the much lesser known Elhanan.

For the rest of the article, see here.

For a critique of this and other articles concerning this recent archaeological expedition, see here.

Daily Hekhalot: Hekhalot Zutarti §421b (Defending the Mystic Against Slander)

Last time in our daily Hekhalot we learned a little about adjuring an angel named Anafiel to do one's bidding--and a very interesting part of the adjuration is that the instructions for it are given by Anafiel himself. This leads to a question: why would an angel willingly bind himself to a human's will? Really that is two questions: why would an ANGEL bind himself willingly to a HUMAN's will? Usually angels and humans are rivals in the Hekhalot literature--at least to some extent--although sometimes they are cooperative. And why would an angel WILLINGLY bind himself to a human's will? Why would an angel--or any being--willingly instruct another how to bind them to the other's will?

Today's text, which will be unusually short, continues the trend of cooperation, of the angelic assistance when called.

Text:

וכל מי שהוא מספר עליו לשון הרע מיד אני מכה אותו ומשחיתו חוץ ממלאך שהוא שליח מלך הכבוד

Translation:

And everyone who speaks slander upon him immediately I (will) strike him and destroy him except for the angel who is the messenger of the king of glory.

Variants:

N8128 omits מי.

M22 adds שיאמר after מי.

M22 has אינו rather than אני.

M40 and D346 omit לשון הרע.

N8128 uses מכהו and has ואפי instead of אותו.

N8128 and M22 have חוץ מן מלאך.

M22 is corrupt between שליח and הכבוד.

Notes:

I think this part is fairly straightforward. Once adjured, the angel defends the mystic against slander ("an evil tongue"). (It is odd that two mss. omit "evil tongue," since this loses the entire point of the passage.) This likely indicates that reputation is important for the mystic. Jeff Rubenstein has argued in a couple books (Talmudic Stories, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud) that in the latest levels of redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, the issues of slander and reputation receive heightened attention to the point that slandering someone and being slandered both could lead to death. It was definitely an issue of concern in late antique and early medieval Babylon. This mystic receives angelic assistance against such slander, heightening the stakes. While it seems the angel will defend the mystic--and strike and destroy anyone who slanders him--there is one limitation: the "messenger of the king of glory." Evidently if this figure slanders, Anafiel will not or cannot defend the mystic. I am guessing this angelic messenger is either too powerful or, if one treats a messenger the way one treats the sender of the message, it might be tantamount to an attack on the "king of glory."

I have yet to decide whether I want to work through the rest of §421; much of what is to come appears at first glance to be magical formulae that are likely untranslatable. But we'll see.

Daily Hekhalot: Hekhalot Zutarti §421a (Anafiel Speaks)

Having finished a preliminary textual apparatus, translation, and notes for Hekhalot Zutarti §420, we now turn to an equally preliminary glimpse at the subsequent pericope.

Text:

אמר ענפיאל כל מי שהוא מבקש להתפלל התפילה הזאת ולהתבונן במעשה יוצרו זכור לו אות אחת מן האותיות האילו שוב אינו נפנה לא לימינו ולא לשמאלו עד שאפנה ואעשה לו את חפצו

Translation:

Anafiel said: Everyone who seeks to pray this prayer and to contemplate the works of his Creator should remember one sign/letter among these signs/letters: again we will not turn either to the right or to the left until I turn and I do for him his concern.

Variants:

N8128 includes השר after ענפיאל, and omits מי after כל.

M22 adds את before התפילה.

N8128 uses זו instead of זאת.

N8128 and M22 use יזכור rather than זכור.

M22 has לנו rather than לו.

O1531 has אחד rather than אחת.

O1531 has האותות rather than האותיות.

N8128 has הללו instead of האילו.

M40 and N8128 have איני.

O1531 has לו instead of לא after נפנה.

M40 and D436 both have לא לימין ולא לשמאל; N8128 has לא לימיני ולא לשמאלי.

N8128 has לא אשה לי and omits את; M40 has כל instead of את.

Notes:

As we ease into §421, we quickly switch gears. Here is another angel--or yet another name for the angelic keeper of the divine crown? Yet Anafiel is known from other sources in the Hekhalot texts. He shows up on Hekhalot Rabbati §§241-248 as well as Sefer Hekhalot / 3 Enoch §26. On Anafiel in general, see Rebecca Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power, 359-362.

There is another major shift. Instead of a mystic, such as R. Ishmael or R. Akiva speaking and giving advice to the would-be descender to the chariot or adjurer of the Prince, here it is the angel himself who speaks and gives directions--something more reminiscent of 3 Enoch / Sefer Hekhalot, where Metatron speaks at great length to R. Ishmael.

Anafiel's directions regard some proper behavior for the mystic. In general, he is quite vague so far: it regards a prayer and reflecting upon creation. The prayer is probably particular and powerful--since there are further instructions on how to carry it out--but it is not (yet) stated or indicated in the passage. Reflecting upon the works of creation is a little clearer. It may reflect the issues of forbidden topics of explication. The "work of Creation" (note the slight difference with singular vs. plural)--along with the work of the Chariot (Ezekiel 1)--is one of the forbidden topics of interpretation, and, indeed, considered quite a dangerous business (see b.Hag. 11b-16b for copious examples). The difficulty of this prayer and this reflection on creation is noted in what one needs to do in order to carry out these prayers and inquiries. I read turning neither to one's right nor left as a moral exhortation: one does not stray. One keeps this moral purity until Anafiel does the mystic's concern. Or, if not a moral exhortation, it may relate more to a single-mindedness: not resting or doing anything else until accomplishing this goal. In this reading, to meditate on creation requires angelic assistance.

Reflection upon divine things requires the permission or acquiescence of the divine (or at least angelic)--or even forcing the hand of the angel. If my reading of "we" is correct, this is acquired through the joint effort of both Anafiel and the mystic. Both must stay on a straight path--one that is direct, or morally straight, or both.

By way of contrast, one might compare Rebecca Lesses's reading: "again, I will not turn to the right or the left, until I turn and I do his will" (Ritual Practices 361). Her reading makes a good deal of sense in the overall context of adjuration: the angel is stating how to adjure him so that the mystic can make Anafiel do his--the mystic's--will. In her reading, however, Anafiel is basically using the "royal we"; therefore, the point is that Anafiel comes directly to the mystic's aid when adjured.

N.B.: if you read this post earlier, you may notice I have changed my mind on a few of the readings and interpretations. Since no one commented on the earlier version I did not feel compelled to retain it.

Daily Hekhalot: §420 Synthesized and Revised

Before proceeding to Hekhalot Zutarti §421, I want to take stock of pericope 420. Having discussed it in three parts--part a, part b, and part c--I want to synthesize it into one continuous post. And, due to secondary considerations prompted by the conversations in the comments, I also want to alter the translations and consider the implications of the alterations. As usual, I will place the Hebrew script first and then proceed to the new translation. For the variants and additional interpretations, see the previous posts.

Text:

אמר רבי ישמאל על מי שתק השר

שהוא קורא אותו מגיהשה

שאין בריה בכל משרתים שיקרא אותו בשם הזה

ואת קורא אותו מגיהשה

מפני שהוא שני להדרירון הדר תוב הדר טהור הדר זיו

אוריה יה יה אלהי ישראל

והוא עומד בפתח ראשון

ומשמש בשער הגדול

וכשראיתיו נשרפו ידי

והייתי עומד בלא ידים ובלא רגלים

עד שנראה לי פני יון השר ממשרתי עליונים

והוא עומד לפני כסא הכבוד נוכח דיבר שרפים

ששמו כשמו ושם אחד הוא‪.

והוא עומד מכסא הכבוד

ומתקן את הכסא

ומלביש את החלוק

ומהדר את החשמל

ופותח שערי ישועה להראן חן וחסד ורחמים בעיני כל רואיו וכל הרואים אותו

בין בחור בין בתולה בין נער בין זקן בין איש בין אשה בין גוי בין אמה בין אשראל

ירוצו לקראתו ויאהבוהו לשלמו וירוצו בטובתו וישמחו בפרנסתו בין בטובתו בין שלא בטובתו‪.

Translation:

Rabbi Ishmael said: Concerning whom is the prince silent?
The one who calls him MGYHShH--there is no creature among all the ministers who will call him by this name and you call him MGYHShH--because he is distinguished to crown (or adorn) a good crown, a pure crown, a splendorous crown of the light of Yah Yah Yah God of Israel.

And he stands at the first entrance and ministers at the great gate;
and when I saw him my hands were burned
and I was standing without hands and without feet until he appeared to me--
PNI YVN, the prince among the ministers of the uppermost (or uppermost ministers).

And he stands before the throne of glory, facing (or in the presence of) the speech of the seraphim, for his name is as His name; it is the same name.

And he stands from the throne of glory
and he prepares the throne
and dresses the garment
and crowns the hashmal
and opens the gates of redemption to show favor and grace and compassion in the eyes of each who sees him.
And all who see him--both young man and virgin girl, young and old, man and woman, foreigner and handmaid and Israel--will desire to call to him and will love him to pacify/appease him and they will desire his goodness and will rejoice in his provision whether willingly or unwillingly.

Notes:
Thanks to the comments, this, I think, is a clearer translation. You can also see that I am playing around with the formatting a bit to see if that helps visually to clarify what might be happening--for example, using the repetition of "he stands" as a guide.

The first line has been changed. As I noted before, it was possible to place the "concerning" as part of the direct or the indirect speech. Before I had it as indirect, but thought that was wrong almost immediately after I posted it. Here it is part of the direct. I am still not sure about the verb "to crown." There is clearly more going on with that word that has not been worked out. That's why I offer as a possible alternative--"adorn." I am sticking with "PNI YVN" as a name for now. It seems to be an alternate name for MGYHShH. PNI YVN may be a more exoteric name, and MGYHShH esoteric--since very few call him by it. With this alternative translation, however, it changes the "silent" from the mystic to the angel. Why is the angel, therefore, silent concerning this figure who can speak his name--this figure who turns out to be the mystic? The mystic calls, but the angel is silent.

In the comments, Nir pointed out what turned out to be some obvious mistakes with my first line of part c. So I have mostly followed the suggestions there and shifted to a much more interesting line: "facing the speech of the seraphim, for his name is as His name; it is the same name." I had misread the simple preposition נוכח as the niphal of יכח, which accounts for most of the mistakes of the line. And the emphasis on the "name" is more appropriate than "there." But let's take a look at the implications of the change. While the angel still seems to be in control of some sense of judgment (due to the later part of controlling the gates of redemption and people coming under his provision), it is not as evident in the first line as my original translation made it. On the other hand, it indicates that when before the throne he is also before the seraphic speech. I have deliberately not translated נוכח simply as "before"--there is a variation in terminology (using both לפני and נוכח) and so I thought I should preserve that in translation. Given the context, "facing" also denotes a spatial relationship to the "speech."

This makes this a fascinating line indeed. We normally do not associate speech with space, but it does make some sense--sounds come from places--"where is that noise coming from?" It indicates that, as in Isaiah 6, the seraphim are highly related to the throne itself. I have also suggested as an alternative "in the presence of." This might be relevant because sound is more ambient; it can surround you without clear directionality. Next, why not just say "before (or facing) the Seraphim" rather than the "speech of the Seraphim." Does that mean that the seraphim themselves are not seen or sensed--only their speech? I am not sure (and I kind of doubt it), but I think it does something else. This entire pericope has been very interested in different sensory experiences--and their absences. We begin with silence, and then calling. Then we turn to burning (touch) and perhaps numbness. Again with seraphic speech we have auditory emphasis. Oddly, although we presume an overall visual space--especially with the description of the crown, the garment, the hashmal, etc.--the pericope is conspicuously lacking in seeing terms.

Naming is clearly important. It was important in the first part of the pericope to know and call the angel's name; it only makes sense that this emphasis would continue. We, therefore, learn that the angel is able to stand before the throne because he shares his name with the one upon it--he is, perhaps, to be identified with the "angel of the LORD" and all the other angelic figures in apocalyptic literature that have the same name (e.g., Iaoel in Apocalypse of Abraham). Overall, as we knew before, this is a very highly placed angel--he is in charge of the crown, the divine garment, the hashmal; he controls the gates of redemption and so on--but now we know more: he has the divine name.

One question that remains: what are the implications of people rejoicing unwillingly? Is it that my reading of "universalism" is to be qualified now? That is, there is a more eschatological vision for all people, but people will not have a choice? If they look upon the angel (or perhaps seen by him), they have no choice but to desire the angel's provision? It is an automatic response.

Savories and Sweets

For cool cakes, check out this site from my wife. Her cakes are yummy! and cool!

Daily Hekhalot: Hekhalot Zutarti §420c (A Universal Vision of the Angelic Throne Keeper)

Having discussed the first two parts of Hekhalot Zutarti §420 here and here, today we complete this particular pericope. I want to thank those who have commented on these previous posts to suggest emendations and alternative interpretations--they have been quite helpful.

This portion of the pericope designated in Schäfer's Synopse zur Hekhalot as §420 reaches a climactic moment of disclosure of this particular angel's heavenly position and heavenly duties. In the post on §420a, we already learned that he is in charge of crowning(?) or perhaps adorning(?) the divine crown. The in the second post on §420b, we discovered that he dwells at the entrance to the heavenly courtroom and even burns the hands (and feet) of the mystic seeking entrance, although we do not know why. Now we finally see this angel in his fully heavenly duties before the throne itself, and a much more general human response to the sight of him:

Text:
והוא עומד לפני כסא הכבוד נוכח דיבר שרפים ששמו כשמו ושם אחד הוא
 והוא עומד מכסא הכבוד ומתקן את הכסא ומלביש את החלוק ומהדר את החשמל ופותח שערי ישועה להראן חן וחסד ורחמים בעיני כל רואיו וכל הרואים אותו בין בחור בין בתולה בין נער בין זקן בין איש בין אשה בין גוי בין אמה בין אשראל ירוצו לקראתו ויאהבוהו לשלמו וירוצו בטובתו וישמחו בפרנסתו בין בטובתו בין שלא בטובתו‪.‬

Translation
And he stands before the throne of glory arguing, speaking; seraphim set him in his place and there he is alone. And he stands from the throne of glory and he prepares the throne and dresses the garment and crowns the hashmal and opens the gates of redemption to show favor and grace and compassion in the eyes of each who sees him. And all who see him--both young man and virgin girl, young and old, man and woman, foreigner and handmaid and Israel--will desire to call to him and will love him to complete/stop/appease(?) him and they will desire his goodness and will rejoice in his provision both with his goodness and without his goodness.

Variants:
N8128 omits והוא עומד.
N8128, M40, and D436 read הכבוד; M22 and O1531 read כבוד.
O1531 and N8128 read דיבר and דבר respectively; M40 and D436 read דבר דיבר; and M22 reads טומח דירדטופוס.
N8128 adds שריפיתיש before שרפים.
O1531 has בשמו rather than כשמו.
M22 has בכסא rather than מכסא.
M22 omits the consecutive ו before מתקן. N8128 omits את after מתקן.
Schäfer emends O1531, adding the י to מלביש.
M40, M22, and D436 omit the את before החשמל.
N8128, O1531, M22 read פתח rather than פותח
N8128 and D436 read להראן; O1531, להראןתן; M40, להדראן חן; M22, להראו חן. M40 seems the least likely; all others could work.
N8128 omits ורחמים; M22 has ולרחמים.
Instead of בעיני כל רואיו וכל הרואים אותו N8128 reads לכל העולין למרכבה; O1531 reads הרואין אתו.
In general, D436 uses כן instead of בין; N8128 omits בין זקן.
Only N8128 and M22 have בין אשה; O1531 has איש ישראל and moves straight to בין דוי.
N8128 has בין עבד after בין ישראל.
M40 and D436 have ויאהבוהו; M22, ויאהב; O1531, ויהבו; and N8128, ויהיו לי שלום.
M40 has ולרוצו; M22, וירצו.
N8128 has לפרנסתו.
M22 has בטובתם.

Notes:
While this is a longer post than usual, this completes §420. Here we finally see this highly placed angelic figure in all of his activities. He not only is in charge of the divine crown, but, as we suspected, ministers directly before the divine throne of glory. He has some interesting activities there. As one might expect in the heavenly throne room, there are seraphim there. They seem to set this princely angel in his place--a singular place of distinction before the throne. He speaks and/or argues before the throne--on behalf of someone, such as Israel?

In addition to the crown, he prepares the throne itself. It turns out he is also the divine seamster; that is, he takes care of the divine haluq--something like an undershirt usually, but here seeming to be the divine cloak or garment (cf. Hekhalot Rabbati §102). He adorns the hashmal--that usually untranslatable word from Ezek. 1 (although today is used for "electricity"). Perhaps the role of arguing relates to this final part, since he also opens the gates of redemption.

This part, however, is curious: it is for all who see him. This seeing is mentioned twice, so is probably an important element. So he grants favor and compassion and redemption to those who see him. And then we get the whole list of potential seers, and, surprisingly, they include nearly anyone: young or old, male or female, foreigner or Israelite, and between "handmaid" and some of the variants, potentially slave or free (see N8128). (n.b., there are quite a few variants in this list.) This is quite startling, in fact, since typically those doing the seeing in the Hekhalot texts are Jewish males, usually rabbis of the tannaitic period. Does this open up visions to others--notably to women, foreigners, and those who lack elite status? I wonder. If so, we should ask how they see and, perhaps more importantly, when they see. Indeed, the verb tense shifts to the future. They WILL see him. Is this, therefore, an eschatological vision? An eschatological redemption? The sight of him will be a future disclosure. And it is a redeeming sight that leads to a desire for him. If that is the case, the mystical proleptic journey and vision may remain an elite Jewish male privilege in the hekhalot texts, while vouchsafing a more general vision in the future for people of all walks of life. If that is the case, this passage envisions a greater universality in the eschatological scene, which is not exclusive in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, or status. This gracious vision that crisscrosses social distinctions almost sounds like the early Christian baptismal formula cited by Paul in Gal. 3:28: "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female." Although the difference is that Galatians appears to negate social distinctions, whereas in Hekhalot Zutarti the divine vision is available to all regardless of social distinctions--although this may be a distinction without a difference. I wonder...is seeing this angel--recall the vision is what is important--and desiring of this angel that includes potentially anyone the mystical answer to the Christian formula? There is still a hint of division in such a scene, however: while all may rejoice, they do not all rejoice with his goodness; it seems some rejoice without his goodness…. Nonetheless, the implications are very unique in Hekhalot literature--to my knowledge--and therefore require some pause.

As usual, all comments, emendations, alternative views of this passage are welcome. Next we will continue with Hekhalot Zutarti §421, which is a slightly shorter pericope.

More on Circumcision in San Francisco

Several individuals and the anti-defamation league have filed lawsuits against the current ballot initiative that would criminalize circumcision for boys under 18 years old. From CNN.com:

"Existing California law is clear," said Nancy Appel, Anti-Defamation League associate director in San Francisco, in a statement. "Only the state can make rules about medical procedures and this initiative violates that law. Not only does this initiative waste time, energy and expense, but it also offends the notions of parental rights and freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional and, as we allege in this lawsuit, contrary to California law."

See the rest here.

Daily Hekhalot: Hekhalot Zutarti §420b (Burning the Hands)

For our daily Hekhalot, we are continuing to work through §§420-421 in Hekhalot Zutarti. Today we are on §420b. For §420a see here. Last time we discovered that the descender to the chariot encounters an important angelic figure, whose name is a privileged disclosure. This angel's importance--so far--relates to being in charge of the divine crown. There was much difficulty in the previous passage in terms of pronoun usage--who's doing what to whom?--the translation of a couple key words, and so forth. Today is a little more straightforward in some respects. We are still in the middle of the speech by R. Ishmael about the same angel. The pronouns are a little clearer--instead of a proliferation of he's and him's, we now get a nice differentiation between I and he. We also get a reaction from the descender to the chariot--his hands (and likely feet) are curiously burned!

Text:
והוא עומד בפתח ראשון ומשמש בשער הגדול וכשראיתיו נשרפו ידי והייתי עומד בלא ידים ובלא רגלים עד שנראה לי פני יון השר ממשרתי עליונים

Translation:
And he stands at the first entrance and ministers at the great gate; and when I saw him my hands were burned and I was standing without hands and without feet until he appeared to me, PNI YVN, the prince among the ministers of the uppermost (or uppermost ministers).

Variants:
M22 transposes הוא and עומד
M40 and D436 has על פתח rather than בפתח.
M40 and D436 read ראשים rather than ראשון.
M22 has משתמש rather than משמש.
M22 has בשפר rather than בשער.
N8128 omits the ו before כשראיתיו.
D436 reads כשרפו rather than נשרפו
D436, M40, and N8128 all read ידי, but O1531 and M22 read ידיי, which makes more sense. Of all the mss., O1531 has given the least trouble, which makes me tend to trust its reading. For now, I will place the majority reading in the text, but I will translate as the form "my hands."
M22 adds ורגליי after ידיי, which makes sense of the next clause.
M22 and N8128 use עומר rather than עומד, which appears to be an orthographic mistake; M22 also spells הייתי as היתי.
M40 and D436 omit the second בלא; M22 spells רגלים as רגליים, which would aid in the pronunciation as a dual form.
M40 and D436 read פני יון, M22 reads פניון, O1531 reads פנייון, and N8128 reads פני יוון.
M22 adds a clarifying שהוא after השר; N8128 adds אחד in the same place.

Notes:
There is still more to come in §420, but this is a good place to stop so that we do not get overwhelmed by the variants and so the post does not get too long (n.b., an important aspect will be coming in the next post--the very throne of glory).

Concerning the textual variants, which I haven't discussed much in my notes, there are a few patterns that emerge in this brief section. M40 and D436 often agree against the rest of the mss. M22 shows a great deal of visual errors, due to letters that look similar. M22, however, also has a tendency to clarify the text. For example, if the mystic "stands" without hands and feet, it makes sense that not just the hands but the feet were also burned.

The text, except for a couple points, is more straightforward than before. We learn more about the angel. He is at the entrance of the great gate. The great gate indicates that we are probably close to the goal of the divine throne room. We also get the mystic's response to the angel. The mystic sees the angel and, presumably the angel burns the mystic's hands (and feet?). The burning of the hands (and feet?) is curious. Although different passages in the Hekhalot often indicate the dangers of traveling through the heavenly realms, usually the mystic overcomes them and comes off unharmed. Perhaps this reaches back to an old tradition--such as found in an off-hand comment in 1 Enoch 14--that the mystic feels heat (and/or cold) when approaching the heavenly throne room. Instead of a generic feeling, however, the heat--the burning--is located specifically in the extremities of the hands and feet. I do not know offhand, but perhaps someone knows a tradition where the mystic is (ritually?) burned before entering the most holy, most heavenly court? Then there is the paradoxical remark about "standing" without (feeling one's?) hands or feet. Some of the texts change this to "speaking," but I think standing makes more sense given the setting that focuses on the hands and feet. The statement of standing without hands and feet might indicate that after the burning, these extremities go numb--they aren't felt. Overall, it seems to disable and disarm the mystic at the threshold of the divine throne room. I have chosen to read פני יון as the prince's name, but I have strong doubts about this. It is translatable, but it didn't make sense to me. It could be the "face of Greece," the "Face of Yavan (the progenitor of the Greeks)," the "face of thickness." But I have read "prince" in apposition to this, making פני יון either a name or title. This figure, however, is in quite a high position, being among--and prince among--the angelic ministers in the most high (the highest of the high--which corresponds to the holiest of the holy or holy of holies).

Next we will see even further up and further into the most holy and heavenly place to the throne of glory itself.

Writing in the City of the Dead

I just saw this in NPR: archaeologists are studying the graffiti in the ancient Beit Shearim necropolis:

Aramaic is the lingua franca of the ancient Middle East, the linguistic root of modern day Hebrew and Arabic.

"Once you understand Aramaic," says Karen Stern, "you can read anything. You can read Hebrew, you can read Phoenician. I always call it the little black dress of Semitic languages."

Stern, 35, is an archaeologist and an assistant professor in the history department at Brooklyn College. Her passion is the tomb graffiti of the ancient Jews in what was then Roman Palestine. Graffiti has been "published, but sort of disregarded," she says. "Whereas I think it is intimate, vocal and spontaneous, and adds to the historical record."

....

"They were grapho-maniacal," Jonathan Price, head of the classics department at Tel Aviv University, says of the ancient Jews who were entombed here in the first and second centuries.

Over the next decade, Price and a group of scholars plan to publish many volumes of inscriptions from walls, pots, glass — everything but books — dating from the time of Alexander the Great to that of the Prophet Muhammad.

They will include many languages, such as Hebrew and Aramaic dialects like Syriac, Nabatean and Samaritan.

Price describes the graffiti as "a spontaneous verbal outburst" that adds intimacy to the historical record of the ancient Levant and Mesopotamia.

"These cultures wrote everything," he says. "They recorded their personal lives, their public lives; empires recorded themselves. They were hyperlinguistic."

There is also an interesting theory of the pictures of "nets" at each of the entrances--that they are not just to keep evil spirits out, but also to keep the dead in...perhaps in fear of zombies????

And as I just saw that Jim Davila pointed out, Aramaic is a branch on the same tree as Hebrew, Arabic, etc., not the root.

Read all of it here.

Daily Hekhalot: Hekhalot Zutarti §420a

For today's--and for days' to come--reading Rebecca Lesses of Mystical Politics has suggested a difficult passage in Hekhalot Zutarti (the "lesser palaces") §§420-421 because it is baffling. And so, while I started off with a passage that was relatively straightforward, we are delving into one that has left many baffled. It has a great deal of textual difficulties, so we will spread this over several posts.

Hekhalot Zutarti is perhaps even more literarily disorganized than Hekhalot Rabbati. Its disparate materials, however, are indispensable because much of it is highly unique in the Hekhalot texts. For example, it has the lone reference in the Hekhalot literature to the so-called "posture of Elijah," which after Gershom Scholem's reading of Hai Gaon that placed it at the center of merkavah mystical practice received a great deal of attention. I think most now find Scholem's emphasis rather extreme since it does only occur in this one passage with many other practices discussed throughout the different "macroforms."

Lesses's selection, as we will see, also is fairly interesting. Peter Schäfer has, in fact, called it unique not only for Hekhalot Zutarti, but for all of the Hekhalot (Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 301). It appears in all the major mss. and in the Geniza fragments (the text of which I do not have in front of me).

Text and (Preliminary) Translation:

אמר רבי ישמאל על מי שתק השר שהוא קורא אותו מגיהשה שאין בריה בכל משרתים שיקרא אותו בשם הזה ואת קורא אותו מגיהשה מפני שהוא שני להדרירון הדר תוב הדר טהור הדר זיו אוריה יה יה אלהי ישראל

Rabbi Ishmael said concerning one who is silent: The prince who is called MGYHShH--there is no creature among all the ministers who will call him by this name and you call him MGYHShH--because he is distinguished (?) to crown (?) a good crown, a pure crown, a splendorous crown of the light of Yah Yah Yah God of Israel.

Textual variants:
M22 adds אמרו עליו after ישמאל. N8128 uses קוראו instead of קורא אותו. M40 has כשר rather than השר.
A couple mss. have מניהשה (D436) or מניחשה (N8128). M22 has בדוק rather than בריה; O1531 has ביריא; and N8128 has בירייה editorially inserted.
Both O1531 and N8128 add כל after שאין.
M22 and O1531 have משרתיו; N8128 has המשרתים
D436 has שיקראנו rather than שיקרש אותו; M40 has שיקראנו בזה השם; M22 omits הזה.
N8128 uses ואת קוראו rather than ואת קורא אותו.
Same variations as before with angel's name.
O1531 and D436 has שיני; N8128 omits שני.
N8128 has להדריון, which looks smoother, but all of the other readings agree on להדרירון.
M40 and D436 read טוהר; O1531 doubles הדר תוב and omits טהור.
There is a great deal of variation on the divine name. Some add another "Yah," some include YY, an abbreviation of the tetragrammaton. M40 misspells the word "God" as אלדי. N8128 adds גיהוי פנהודי.

Notes:
This is quite a difficult passage, indeed. The rest of §420 improves, but I thought I should stop before I was overwhelmed by textual variations. For translation and interpretation, the abundance of pronouns can be quite dizzying and I make no claim to have sorted it out quite yet. The use of punctuation is solely my own--and provisional--to help clarify the passage. It may obscure the meaning as well. I welcome any and all amendments to translation and punctuation. For example, is "concerning one who is silent" to be part of what R. Ishmael says or not? I have started to opt for not, but I probably can be easily convinced otherwise. Should it be better rendered as "still"? I have chosen to render "the prince who is called" rather than the more literal "the prince who he calls him." There are other problems as well--am I right with "distinguished" and I find what I have rendered as "to crown" quite baffling. I am pretty sure I have not captured all that is going on in that word. And if I am missing something--whether it should be obvious or obscure--please let me know.

Moving along, as Schäfer notes, this is a fairly unique passage. I am not quite sure what is going on with the silence/stillness part--perhaps Rebecca Lesses has some insight here?--but so far we are meeting an angelic figure, whose name varies by mss. and who appears to be quite important in the divine throne room. This importance is easy to see already--one of the few easier things to see--because this angel appears to be in charge of taking care of the divine crown, which is good, pure, and splendorous (words that are often bandied about in Hekhalot texts). Indeed, the divine realm is one of intense goodness, purity, and splendor to much a higher degree than any place on earth.

It seems, though, that not everyone does--or can?--call the angel by name or by "this" name, which might suggest that the angel has several names. The angel's name is a privileged disclosure.