A Response to Rob Bowman: Early Jewish Mysticism Pt. 1

Rob Bowman wrote a blogpost critiquing an installment of Daniel Petersen's column in the Deseret News.[1]
My previous post details why one of Bowman's assumptions is untenable, mainly, the position that the word midrash generally means a specific Tannaitic body of literature. I've shown that there is no reason for that to be considered the default definition. He used that assumption in an attempt to show that Petersen misrepresented his source.
In this post I'll examine another statement of his on which much of Bowman's argument hangs.
Before doing so it is worth explaining my use of the word "mysticism." I use it here in a general sense, the imperfect equivalent of the Hebrew term "torat ha-sod," similar to how Gershom Scholem used it in his book "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism." I will be using it interchangeably with "esotericism."

We need look no further than Patai’s book, from which all of the Mormons derive the quotation, to discover that the text dates from at least six centuries later than Aqiva. In Patai’s “Chronological List of Sources” at the back of the book, the “Midrash Alpha Beta di R. Akiba” is listed as originating from the “8th-9th” centuries. In another book, Patai explains the religious context of the work:
“The foundations of medieval Kabbalism were laid in Babylonia and Byzantium in the 7th and 8th centuries, when a number of Midrashim with marked Kabbalistic tendencies made their appearance. Several of these (e.g,, the Alpha Beta of Rabbi Akiba and the Midrash Konen) deal with the mysteries of Creation and the structure of the universe.”
That’s right, the quotation comes from a foundational work in the development of the medieval mystical Jewish tradition known as Kabbalah. This isn’t just Patai’s opinion. It is the scholarly, academic consensus.

Rob Bowman goes on to say that,

The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while failing to describe its source accurately is especially troubling. This is the only quotation in Peterson’s article that he does not identify specifically. Clearly, had he done so, it would have weakened his argument. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to state accurately the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. I make no judgment as to why they all failed to do so.

Unfortunately, beyond stating a range of dates for the composition of the Ottiyot de-Rabbi Akiva (ORA), Rob Bowman has not accurately stated the religious perspective from which it originated. A glaring example is that none of the other references provided by Bowman state that the ORA is markedly Kabbalistic.
Aside from inaccurately describing the religious perspective and not discussing what kind of text the ORA is, Bowman has failed to address important issues affecting the dating of the concepts presented in the work. He has not discussed a single primary source beyond providing the full quote as it appears in "The Messiah Texts", nor said which part he considers late.
Looking at the quote from Patai's "The Hebrew Goddess," I am at a loss to find exactly which tendencies in the ORA Patai saw as markedly Kabbalistic.
Try as I might, I just can't find any. There is no mention of such key Kabbalistic concepts as Ein-Sof or Ayin, no emanations (Sefirot) of the Godhead and their role in the universe, no feminine aspect of God which must be reunited with God, nothing which is specific to the Kabbalah.
If Bowman would assert that there is something explicit or implicit in the text which could be considered specifically Kabbalistic then he must make a case for it.
Kabbalah is often used to refer to all forms of Jewish mysticism, but this usage is sloppy. Though the Kabbalah shares strong affinities with earlier mystical trends, such as the Merkabah mystics or the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz), as a distinctive movement it mainly stems from 12th century Provence.
Rob's "Proto-Kabbalistic" is not a very useful term generally. I don't know of a single Jewish esoteric text or tradition which couldn't with some justification be called proto-Kabbalistic. It is possible to write many entries on this alone, but a few examples should suffice.[2]
My highschool was not far from Or Haganuz, a Jewish community formed on Kabbalistic ethics and ideals as formulated by a disciple of R. Yehudah Leib Ashlag. Ashlag was a pivotal 20th century Kabbalist who translated the Zohar into Modern Hebrew and attempted to popularise its teachings. His goal was to create an altruistic community based on living the Torah (or rather, the true meaning as revealed by Kabbalah) for Torah's sake. By accepting the life of "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" they would be fulfilling the purpose of creation and would ascend as it were on a ladder to God and cleave to him completely.[3]
Or Haganuz takes its name from a Jewish tradition regarding the light of creation, and literally means the hidden, or concealed light.
Howard Schwartz provides a brief explanation.

Everyone is familiar with the words of Genesis 1:3, And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. But the ancient rabbis, who scrutinized the words of the Bible for every hidden mystery, wondered what light this was. After all, God did not create the sun, the moon, and the stars till the fourth day. So what was the light of the first day?...
The rabbis conclude that the two lights—that of the first day and that of the fourth—are different. The light of the first day is a primordial light, what is called the or ha-ganuz, or hidden light. This resolves the problem. But it also raises a whole series of new questions—What was the nature of that sacred light? Where did it come from, and where did it go? These questions have been debated among the rabbis for many centuries, and they arrive at a variety of explanations.[4]

The concept of this light is important to many, if not most, kabbalistic systems, and in its hasidic form exemplifies the philosophy of Or Haganuz's settlers.
This is seen in the teachings of the Rav Kook, who was a seminal figure in modern Judaism and Israeli history. He served as chief rabbi in British Mandate Palestine and did much to bring the gap between the secular Zionist movement and the reactionary orthodox community. For him they both had that part of the truth which the other lacked. The middle path, combining the zealous activism of the former with the deep religiosity of the latter, would help bring salvation to the world.

When I lived in London I used to visit the National Gallery, and my favourite pictures were those of Rembrandt. I really think that Rembrandt was a Tzadik. Do you know that when I first saw Rembrandt's works, they reminded me of the legend about the creation of light? We are told that when God created light, it was so strong and pellucid, that one could see from one and of the world to the other, but God was afraid that the wicked might abuse it. What did He do? He reserved that light for the righteous when the Messiah should come. But now and then there are great men who are blessed and privilaged to see it. I think that Rembrandt was one of them, and the light in his pictures is the very light that was originally created by God Almighty[5]

This light is what sustains and rejuvenates the world, and is expressly manifest through ethical behaviour.

The enlightenment of holy men is the basis for the spiritual illumination that arises in the world, in all human hearts. The holy men, those of pure thought and contemplation, join themselves, in their inner sensibilities, with the spiritual that pervades all. Everything that is revealed to them is an emergence of light, a disclosure of the divine, which adds life and firmness, abiding life and spiritual firmness, which gives stability to the whole world with the diffusion of its beneficience.
A life-giving illumination flows always from the source of the Torah, which brings to the world light from the highest realm of the divine. It embraces the values of the spiritual and the material, the temporal and the eternal, the moral and the practical, the individual and the social. These spell life to all who come in contact with them, and guard them in their purity.
Meditation on the inner life and moral conformity must always go together with those qualified for this. They absorb the light pervading the world, which abides in all souls, and they present it as one whole. Through the influences radiating from their life and their fellowship with others, through the impact of their will and the greatness of their spirirtual being, through their humility and love for all creatures, they then disseminate the treasure of life and of good to all.
These men of upright heart are channels through which light and life reach to all creatures. They are vessels for radiating the light of eternal life. They are the servants of God, who heed His word, the messengers who do His will to revive those near death, to strengthen the weak, to awaken those who slumber.[6]

The Rav Kook's view here is drawn from a core Hasidic concept- the Tzadik.
This is not the place to discuss Tzadikism in depth, but a few words by way of explanation are necessary.
Tzadik is Hebrew for righteous. In Hasidism though it came to represent a special class of leader, a holy man who is the intermediary between the world of God and the world of man. He is the pipeline which draws the holy downwards and the profane upwards. Since he cleaves whole-heartedly to God, his disciples cleave to him. He can intercede for them and raise them up, transforming everything into holiness.[7]
There is a famous Hasidic tradition from the circle of R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, adapted by Martin Buber for the opening portion of "Or Haganuz," his collection of Hasidic stories.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come."[8]
Hasidim asked: "Where did he conceal it?"
They were answered: "In the Torah."
They asked: "If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?"
They answered: "They certainly will find some."
They asked: "If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?"
They answered: "They will reveal it in the way they live."[9]

Apart from the ethical interpretation, there is another aspect of the hidden light which played an even greater role in Kabbalah.
In that classic of Hasidic hagiography, "In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov," a story is told of how R. Baruch was having his oxen sold in a distant town, but worried that they might have been stolen. He sent R. Yosef Kaminker to the Baal Shem Tob (Besht) who then opened the Zohar and read from it.

"I see that R. Baruch's oxen have not been stolen."
R. Yosef asked the Besht, "Is that really written in the Zohar?"
The Besht replied. "This is what our sages said about the verse 'And God saw that the light was good.' They said that it is good to hide it, since with the light of the six days of Creation, one could see from one end of the world to the other. Where did the Holy One, Blessed be He, hide it? He hid it in the Torah. And when they said 'for the righteous in the future to come,' this means for the righteous who will come into the world. Whoever attains the light hidden in the Torah can see with it from one end of the world to the other. Do you suppose that I only saw the oxen? I also saw something which happened in the Jewish community of Amsterdam."[10]

We aren't told what the Besht saw in Amsterdam, but this use of the hidden light is also characteristic of R. Isaac Luria (the Ari) in the hagiography which grew around him.

The hidden light was in him, reaching from one end of this world to the next. He was able to illumine and explain the words of R. Shimon bar Yohai. As it is written in Shivhei Ha-Ari, everything the Ari achieved came from the Zohar.[11]

R. Azriel of Gerona, a leading Kabbalist of the generation before the Zohar had the following to say about the hidden light.

This first light is like the light of thought in which a man sees all that he wishes to look at... and this is the light of wisdom which would rest upon the prophets and crown them with its light, and they would see visions by power, visions of whatever could be, from one end of the world to the next. As long as the soul is pure it shows in her its power and increases, shining brighter and brighter. This light is set apart for the righteous, as they posess a clean and pure spirit, and this light is called the light of life.[12]

Other Kabbalists focused on the implications of the hidden light for creation. R. Shimon ibn Lavi was born in Spain but during his childhood his family was forced to move to Morocco due to the Spanish Expulsion. He was active during the early 16th c. and composed "Ketem Paz," a very important commentary on the Zohar. In it he expresses an idea very similar to the slightly later one found in Lurianic Kabbalah- Tzimtzum, or contraction. The "mystery of expansion" where light is emanated and fills the universe, thus bringing everything into existence, is considered exile, since the light leaves God. The light is then retracted and concealed, since it is too powerful for anything to continue existing in its glare.[13]
This concept of a primeval, hidden light appears both in the talmuds and in various midrashim. One of these quotes has already been mentioned in connection with Buber's anthology.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next.

Fourth Ezra, a work from around the late 1st c. CE, also knows of such a light.

Then You commanded that a ray of light be brought forth from your treasuries, so that your works might then appear.

This goes back as far as the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobolus.

The first [day], the one in which the light was born by which all things are seen together.[14]

Should we consider these as proto-Kabbalistic? That designation quickly becomes meaningless. These texts are not proto-Kabbalistic, even though many of the Kabbalists are often closer to those texts in their thoughts on the nature of this light than the Amoraic statements are.
I doubt that Rob Bowman would consider 1 Corinthians 15:29 proto-Mormon just because LDS use it as a prooftext for the doctrine of proxy baptism.[15]
It is also highly doubtful that he would consider Ezekiel 1 proto-Kabbalistic, even though terminology drawn from it forms an important part of Kabbalistic teachings and modes of expression. Shaul Magid explains how Ezekiel's vision played a role in the way certain Hasidic movements perceived God's interaction with the universe.

R. Gershon Henokh suggests that the telos of Ezekiel’s vision was to reveal the place where divine concealment (koah ha-hester) begins to reveal itself, resulting in the realization that divine absence is itself divine.
"At that time it was God’s will to show Ezekiel how God fills the entire creation. Therefore, he showed Ezekiel the first [highest] place where He could be apprehended until the place that was necessary, i.e., the place of His concealment.
That is, until the world of formation [‘olam ha-yezerah].
As it is explained . . . in the world of emanation, holiness and goodness are
dominant.
This is also true in the world of creation. In the world of formation, however, good and evil are balanced. Therefore, it is only in the world of formation that the power of divine concealment begins. God wanted to show Ezekiel that the power of concealment is itself from God."
R. Gershon Henokh utilizes the Lurianic notion that the chariot is housed in the world of formation (yezerah)—the first world where good and evil appear as distinct—as a support for the Maimonidean claim that the chariot represents metaphysics.
That is, metaphysics is the highest realm of speculation of the divine because it is the first place where God is hidden. Divine absence becomes the first stage of our apprehension of God. The first human apprehension of God is His absence.
For R. Gershon Henokh, the purpose of the vision is for Ezekiel to see and communicate that God’s absence (evil) is the result of divine will.
The Lurianic interpretation of the chariot of Ezekiel lowers the status of the prophetic vision to a place that is accessible to the human intellect and experience, that is, the angelic world where good and evil are already distinct.[16]

There is a Zohar section discussing the elements of Ezekiel's vision.

From these two sparkling spirits the wheels (Ofannim) are created, and they are holy, their nature being like that of the creatures... "It flashed up and down among the creatures" (Ezekiel 1:13). What does "it" refer to? This is the holy spirit... When spirit was composed within spirit, there emerged from them the illumination of one creature, which lies above the four wheels.[17]

Another example that has a little more bearing on the ORA is gematria. Like everyone else in Israel of the days of a single TV station, I grew up watching the comedy program "Zehu Zeh." Every Friday during the Gulf War, it hardly seems an exaggeration to say that it kept the country sane. One of the best-loved characters was the Baba Bubah, a parody of a senile old Moroccan Kabbalist who interpreted contemporary events by exaggerated and implausible use of gematria.
There are and were several radio shows featuring experts in gematria who use it to resolve issues in the callers' lives, and even many internet sites with gematria calculators. In the popular imagination, Kabbalah and gematria are practically synonymous.
The Sabbateans used gematria heavily in their attempts to prove that Sabbetai Tzvi was the Messiah. A generation earlier in what was then part of the Polish Commonwealth, R. Shimshon of Ostropol devoted his life to nullifying the power of the demonic agents of evil- kelipot, that is, shells. For him these kelipot were manifested in Christianity. There are numerous instances of fierce anti-Christian mystical polemic in his writings. He used gematria to show that King David provided a key to nullifying the power of Christ. If the numerical values for two of the names of Christ in R. Shimshon's teachings are combined- beam (korah) and hunger (raav, consisting of the same letters as raven, which is the antithesis of the dove)- they result in sar pah (Prince Snare). Psalm 124:7 reads,

Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped.[18]

Gematria has very ancient roots, and was used in the talmuds as well.

Satan has no permission to act as accuser on the Day of Atonement. Whence [is that derived]? — Rama b. Hama said: "The numerical value of Ha-Satan in gematria is three hundred and sixty-four, that means: on three hundred and sixty-four days he has permission to act as accuser, but on the Day of Atonement he has no permission to act as accuser.[19]

The ORA was important to the developement of the Kabbalah because instead of statements scattered here and there, it presented an extensive treatise on the inner meaning of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and, by extension, the possibilities inherent in those letters. There are few concepts in the ORA which can't be found in earlier writings, and this is partiularly true of the quote in question.
Joseph Dan has this to say on what sort of text the ORA is.

This midrash, usually regarded as one collected in the seventh century, is actually an anthology that is distinguished from other similar ones by its keen interest in both cosmogony and mystical literature, but first and foremost by its structure as a commentary on the shape and meaning of the letters of the alphabet. It includes among other things, a brief description of the ascent of Enoch and his transformation to Metatron.[20]

Gershom Scholem, father of the modern study of Jewish mysticism and Joseph Dan's teacher, briefly discussed the ORA as it relates to the textual history of the "Shiur Komah."

Two manuscripts of Shiur Komah versions partially survived on parchment pages in the Cairo Genizah... Further fragments are extant in Hekhaloth Rabbati and Hekhaloth Zutarti... Another fragment is preserved in the so-called Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, which, to be sure, was edited later than the above-mentioned pieces but nevertheless preserved a great deal of the old Merkavah material.[21]

In other words, according to Scholem and Dan both, the ORA was an anthology of older material. Bowman's emphasis on the late date of the ORA implies that anything in it must be regarded as having a 7th-9th c. provenance. This does not take into account the nature of the ORA. Bowman would need to show that the quote in question is late, since there is sufficient evidence for the continuity from earlier times of the concepts in said quote. Bowman's argument can be illustrated by an admittedly imperfect analogy. If I had written a newspaper editorial on Elizabethan and Jacobean dramaturgy and quoted the following from Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespear" without mentioning the source, would it mean that this scene was from 1806?

Iago knitted his brow, as if he had got fresh light on some terrible matter, and cried: 'Indeed!' This brought into Othello's mind the words which Iago had let fall upon entering the room, and seeing Cassio with Desdemona; and he began to think there was some meaning in all this: for he deemed Iago to be a just man, and full of love and honesty, and 'what in a false knave would be tricks, in him seemed to be the natural workings of an honest mind, big with something too great for utterance: and Othello prayed Iago to speak what he knew, and to give his worst thoughts words. 'And what,' said Iago, 'if some thoughts very vile should have intruded into my breast, as where is the palace into which foul things do not enter?' Then Iago went on to say, what a pity it were, if any trouble should arise to Othello out of his imperfect observations; that it would not be for Othello's peace to know his thoughts; that people's good names were not to be taken away for slight suspicions; and when Othello's curiosity was raised almost to distraction with these hints and scattered words, Iago, as if in earnest care for Othello's peace of mind, besought him to beware of jealousy: with such art did this villain raise suspicions in the unguarded Othello, by the very caution which he pretended to give him against suspicion. 'I know,' said Othello, 'that my wife is fair, loves company and feasting, is free of speech, sings, plays, and dances well: but where virtue is, these qualities are virtuous. I must have proof before I think her dishonest.'

In Hardin Craig's edition of Shakespeare's plays this takes up 91 lines!
Joseph Dan brings up another issue which has bearing on this discussion.

It is sometimes difficult to decide when a text serves as an influential source for further creativity, and when its message is simply reproduced, so that the individuality of both the source and the medieval follower is completely negated.[22]

Rob Bowman hasn't even attempted to show that the ORA quote falls into the former category, he merely asserts that it is.
Lawrence Schiffman discusses Enochian and Hekhalot material in particular, but his observations hold true for Jewish mystical works in general.

The notion of a developing literature of “booklets” that he has explored so carefully regarding 1 Enoch (VanderKam 1984, 17-101) is clearly the correct method with which to understand the eventual emergence of 2 and 3 Enoch as well. These works are composites of documents that were themselves put together from other minor protodocuments, a phenomenon clearly emerging from the results of VanderKam’s detailed research… The close relationship of our official Enoch literature- or better, the various booklets- with other texts (not just traditions) highlights the value of this literary-historical model. Had I sought to work on 2 Enoch and its relation to 1 Enoch, this approach would have been enough to provide a model to understand the development of 2 Enoch… It turns out that “booklets,” or better, short treatises, are the building blocks of all the hekhalot-type texts, as shown by Peter Schafer (1983).
In fact, texts as we know them, independent compositions, are a misnomer for these “texts,” since different manuscripts have different mixes of common, but not always present, building blocks. With this model in mind we can grasp that, like 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch is such a composite.
However, 3 Enoch is not just a composite of text traditions such as those found in 1 and 2 Enoch. The circle that produced, exported, composed, redacted, copied, and studied traditions like those in 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch produced various booklets which still circulated in different forms and in different languages after the so-called 1 and 2 Enoch came into being as redacted texts. Some of the original documents circulated in translation. These traditions somehow mixed with those of the hekhalot trend and were redomesticated as part of the emerging textual tradition of late rabbinic/early medieval Jewish esotericism.[23]

Aside from these matters of text, Joseph Dan explains another aspect of Jewish mysticism which Bowman has ignored.

These three subjects- homiletical interpretations of Ezekiel 1, of the first chapters of Genesis, and magic- constitute by far the majority of the parallels found between talmudic and midrashic literature and the esoteric literature. It is true that it is nearly impossible to describe the beginnings of these phenomena, which are so closely integrated with all other aspects of Jewish religious expression from biblical times to the period of the Talmud and Midrash, including the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea scrolls, and early Christian works. One may try to show the beginning of a specific idea or concept in this vast panorama, but the subjects as a whole seem to have been of continuous interest to all trends and tendencies within Jewish culture.[24]

Bowman has asked, or, rather, presented his readers the wrong question.
The kind of questions that should be asked relate to how was the text composed; is it a single composition or is it an anthology; how were traditions transmitted; what in the text is genuinely new or otherwise marks a departure from older texts and traditions; does the designation "medieval" imply a new historical era at this point in Jewish history or is there a continuum in ideas. Bowman declares that the quotation has a medieval theology yet he doesn't show that it is so. His analysis of the quote is just as inadequate.

Continued in the next post...

[1]Rob Bowman's post can be found at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology-and-joseph-smith%E2%80%99s-doctrine-of-exaltation/ and Daniel Petersen's article at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

[2]Other examples include the heavenly Jerusalem, Enoch-Metatron, Shiur Komah, the golem, heavenly ascents, and the Sepher Yetsirah. On the origins of the Kabbalah as a distinct movement see Gershom Scholem, "The Origins of the Kabbalah", Isaiah Tishby "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 1, Joseph Dan "Early Kabbalah", and Moshe Idel "Kabbalah: New Perspectives". For an example of a genuinely proto-Kabbalistic text, see Ronit Meroz "The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah."

[3]Boaz Huss, "Altruistic Communism," pp. 125-126.

[4]Howard Schwartz "Tree of Souls," p. Lxxii.

[5]From the "London Jewish Chronicle," September 13, 1935, p. 21. http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2007/10/rembrandt-rav-kook.html

[6]Abraham Isaac Kook, Ben Zion Bokser (ed.) "Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems," p. 208-209. Bokser's introduction provides an excellent sketch of the Rav Kook and his outlook.

[7]Chapter 3 of Gershom Scholem's "On The Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah" discusses the developement of Tsadikism, as does Arthur Green's "Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq" in "Jewish Spirituality: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present."

[8]Babylonian Talmud, t. Haggigah 12a.

[9]http://www.schocken.co.il/?CategoryID=165&ArticleID=447 see also Oded Israeli's 2010 lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwGOSWLREJM&feature=youtu.be

[10]"Shivhei Ha-Besht" 5:13.

[11]Shaul Magid "Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism" p. 69.

[12]Isaiah Tishby, "Commentarius in Aggadot, auctores R. Azriel Geronensi" p. 111.

[13]Haviva Pedaya "Or Ke-Tavech Ve-Or Ke-Maatefet" http://havivapedaya.com/drupal/node/22 . The existence in North Africa of Kabbalah independent of and predating the Safed center should suffice to illustrate the inaccuracies in the "Hebrew Goddess"'s overview of the Kabbalah. "An important new development took place following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which brought about a powerful upsurge of Messianic longings for redemption, and resulted in the migration of several leading Spanish Kabbalists to the town of Safed in the Galilee. Within a few years thereafter, Safed became the new center of the Kabbala, and held this position for a short but remarkable period in the 16th century. From Safed, the Kabbala spread rapidly to all the Asian, African and European centers of the Jewish diaspora."

[14]4 Ezra 6:40 and Aristobulus, fragment 3. Translation is from James L. Kugel "The Bible as it Was" p. 57.

[15]See J. Trumbower, "Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity," pp. 55-57.
"I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person." Trumbower's endorsement, however, is far from unqualified. For him, the main difference is one of scale, the ancient texts painting a more limited picture of those eligible for such baptism.

[16]Magid, "Hasidism on the Margin" p. 57.

[17]Isaiah Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 2, p. 598.

[18]Yehuda Liebes, ""Jonah as the Messiah ben Joseph." For a general overview of gematria, as well as examples of Sabbatean gematria, see Gershom Scholem "Kabbalah" pp. 337-343.

[19]Babylonian Talmud, t. Yoma 20a. The same Parchment and Pen blog has a post discussing Christian gematria. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/walid-shoebat-youtube-video-on-the-mark-of-the-beast/

[20]Joseph Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 156. In a different book, Dan points out the difficulty of deciding what came first in what work. "The schools of the gaonim, the leaders of the great academies in Babylonia, preserved the tradition of Hekhalot mysticism. Rav Hai Gaon, in the beginning of the eleventh century, mentioned in his writings many of the Hekhalot texts. It is difficult to know, whether this intrrest was only literary, or whether there was creative, mystical activity in these schools. The work of editing and preserving many of the Hekhalot texts was undertaken in Babylonia in this period, but how much of the material which has reached us was traditional, and how much was the result of the creativity of these editors we cannot ascertain. Thus, for example, the great anthology of esoteric speculation concerning the alphabet, cosmology, the heavenly realm,the angels and the divine name, known as the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba or The Letters of Rabbi Akiba, was most probably edited in Gaonic Babylonia. But what parts of this vast collection were ancient, and what were added by the editors, cannot be stated with any certainty. For, the work contains a brief description of the story of Enoch and his rhetamorphosis intoo the Prince of the Countenance, Metatron, along with a list of the secret names of Metaron. The problem is: Did the brief version, included in the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, precede the long, detailed version in 3rd Enoch, or vice versa? That is, did some late editor compare the abridged version and add it to an alrteady extant anthology attributed to the ancient sage? There are several philological elements which support each of these possibilites, and a decision either way is impossible at this time."
"Gershom Scholem and the mystical dimension of Jewish history," ch. 3.

[21]Scholem, "Mystical Shape of the Godhead" p. 276-277.

[22]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 248.

[23]Lawrence H. Schiffman, "3 Enoch and the Enoch Tradition," in Boccaccini (ed.) "Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection" p. 160.

[24]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, pp. 85-86.

A Response to Rob Bowman: Midrash

Evangelical writer Rob Bowman recently wrote a post on the Parchment and Pen blog which I feel is worth responding to.
The piece is entitled "Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Four: Esoteric Jewish Theology and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation."[1] It is itself a response to a short article by Daniel Peterson in the Desert News[2].
I do find the accusations in the article of misrepresentation unfortunate, but I am not going to deal directly with them here. Rob is intelligent and usually very reasonable, not to mention civil. I want to deal with the substance of his arguments rather than fling mud back and forth.
Before commencing my response I would state that, whatever my personal convictions, I am not making a case for theosis in the modern LDS understanding of it. Such really is beyond the scope of this post. In other words, it isn't necessary to believe in the LDS concept of deification in order to appreciate the criticisms I raise.
A bit of background on who I am. My name is Allen Hansen, and despite the American-sounding name (my Hebrew one is different), I was born and raised in Israel, and have Jewish heritage. I am also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don't have a formal degree, but I do spend quite a bit of time with Jewish history, both primary and secondary sources, but enough about me.
One of the Rob Bowman's main arguments is outlined as follows.

So, just what text is this? The title is worded somewhat differently from one reference to another, but the Hebrew title is ’Otiyot De’Rabbi ‘Akiva’. In English it would be something like The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba. (The Hebrew Aleph Bet and the Greek Alpha Beta are equivalent references to the first two letters of the alphabet, and similar in meaning to our idiom “the ABCs.”) This sounds like an impressive text; after all, Akiba, or more properly ‘Aqiva’, was one of the “founding fathers” of rabbinical Judaism, a noted and highly respected rabbi who lived through both of the Jewish-Roman wars of AD 66-73 and 132-35. If the quotation came from Aqiva, as Bickmore implies (without directly making that claim), that would be impressive indeed! Peterson’s description of this source as “an early Jewish midrash” implies that it originates from the same era of history as Aqiva. But does it?

We'll start this off by looking at how Rob Bowman identifies midrash (pl. midrashim).

The term midrash generally refers to a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that began to be compiled in the second century AD, much of which eventually led to the publication of the Talmud (in two major compilations, ca. 400 and ca. 500). The term also refers to a sizable body of post-Talmudic literature. However, when Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” the use of the term “early,” especially in the context of his argument for the doctrine in question as “ancient,” clearly implies that the text is pre-Talmudic.[3]

For Rob Bowman the main definition of midrash is a specific body of Jewish expository literature spanning the second to fifth centuries CE, with a secondary meaning of a body of post-talmudic literature.
Not only is his definition idiosyncratic it is also misleading.
Reuven Hammer explains a little better what a midrash is.

What exactly is "midrash?" Midrash is both a process and a product.
It is a method of study and interpretation of the Bible and it is the name given to the literary works that emerge from that study. A midrash is both the individual interpretive comment to a work or a verse and also the book into which these individual pericopes have been incorporated.[4]

Midrash primarily refers to a method of scriptural exposition and interpretation rather than collections of it. The latter is clearly a secondary, albeit important usage.
Would midrash generally reffer to a collection of midrash rather than the process of midrash itself? The container rather than the content?
That hardly seems a reasonable position, especially when a good number of midrashim are found in non-midrashic works, such as the Palestinian (or Yerushalmi) and Babylonian Talmuds.
This is somewhat akin to stating that fable generally reffers to literary collections such as Aesop's, La Fontaine's and Krylov's rather than to a literary genre.
It can refer to such, to be sure, but again, it is a secondary meaning not a primary one.
Bowman's definition would be more relevant if we were speaking of the body of works known as halakhic midrashim. What Hammer terms classic midrash. The extant halakhic midrashim consist of the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimeon bar-Yohai (or a good deal of it), Sifra, Sifrei Numbers, and Sifrei Deuteronomy. In addition, there are fragments and portions of lost halakhic midrashim. These are Mekhilta Deuteronomy, Sifrei Zuta Numbers and Sifrei Zuta Deuteronomy.
Eight works in all.[5]
It is a different matter when we come to the body of works known as aggadic midrashim.
The terms halakhah and aggadah require some explanation before proceeding further.
Halakhah is how Jews are meant to live the 613 positive and negative commandments which make up the Law of Moses, or Torah. Halakhah is the practical application of the Torah. For example, the Torah states that every seventh year is to be a sabbatical for the land, and no agricultural work should be done. Halakhah details just how this is to be done- what constitues agricultural work, how are you affected if you work but don't have a field, and so on. Another example would be the biblical prohibition on boiling a kid in its mother's milk. This was expanded to prohibit consumption of all dairy and meat products together, and how long of a wait there should be between eating them.
Halakhah is considered binding, even though many groups differ in the details of a specific halakhah.
Aggadah, on the other hand, is everything not covered by halakhah.
In Midrash Numbers Rabbah 13:15 it is stated that the Torah has seventy faces, or as we might put it, seventy aspects. The number seventy in rabbinic though expressed a totality rather than merely a specific ammount. Thus, Torah covered all aspects of life, past, present and future. Midrash keeps the Torah a living law, relevant for each age. Judah Goldin, one of the great midrashic scholars of our age, had the following to say.

Authority [of the sages] protected exegesis from many possibilities of arbitrariness; but by the same token, so long as it remained sensitive to the requirements of the age, authority had the sanctions to extract from the Written and Oral Law such conclusions as would re-enforce the permanent relevance of Scripture and the legitimacy of the moment's needs for adequate and immediate attention...To paraphrase a remark of the Gaon Saadia: No generation was left without the necessary resources for deriving from the Torah the guidance and the practices which were appropriate to the age.[6]

Some midrashim deal with halakhah, some with aggadah, some discuss specific verses, others biblical narratives and themes. Still others are grouped around the Jewish liturgical calendar.
Halakhic midrash is a group of midrashim focusing mainly on halakhah, but aggadah is also discussed. In agaddic midrash this ratio is reversed. Neither deal solely with one or the other.[7]
The aggadic midrashim we posses (which are numerous) date to no earlier than the fifth century CE, the majority being later than that. For example, in the group of midrashim known by the attachment of "rabbah" to their title[8], the earliest, Genesis Rabbah, dates to sometime after 400 CE. Numbers Rabbah, the latest, reached its final form in 11th c. Narbonne.[9]
When it comes to midrash, "early" and "late" are very relative and subjective, complicated further by the process of textual transmission and repeated redaction.
This problem plagues a good deal of Jewish texts written before the early modern era.[10]
Bowman hasn't discussed this important aspect of Jewish literature in his blogpost. It significantly weakens his case, as will be shown later on.
Apart form older ideas, late midrashim are known to contain entire pericopes much older than the work itself.
A work entitled "Midrash haGadol" illustrates the phenomenon, as well as the dangers of making assumptions based on the date of a work's appearance.
Composed by the Yemenite rabbi David b. Amram Adani in the 14th century, according to Bowman's thinking the "Midrash haGadol" would simply be a late medieval work. This it certainly was, but we would fall into the trap of oversimplifying the issue.
It was written by a medieval rabbi, quoting from indisputably medieval sources such as Maimonides, but it also includes a great deal of extremely old material. The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimeon bar-Yohai was reconstructed from quotations found in the "Midrash haGadol" and corroborated by findings in the Cairo Genizah which predate Adani's work.
Saul Lieberman provides a specific example of ancient material found in it, from Midrash haGadol Wa-Yegash, p. 688.

And Joseph made ready his chariot (Gen. 46:29). This was not because he lacked slave or servant who could make it ready for him, but to inform you that Joseph rejoiced much and did not take greatness unto himself in that hour for the heart is carried away by joy, etc., and he did not appear to him [Jacob] that selfsame day, but sent five other horses by his first son. Jacob said "Is this him." [Joseph] sent five other horses by his second son. Jacob said "Is this him," and only after that did he appear, so his [Jacob's] soul would not fly away causing him to die.

The Genizah yielded the following, which, if anything, is fuller than Adani's midrash.[11]

It is written And Joseph made ready his chariot and also for the heart is carried away by joy and by hatred a convention is broken, for you find it in Pharaoh as it is written and he made ready his chariot (Ex 14:6), for by hatred convention is broken.
The king does not go out to meet a man, but Joseph honours him, for he went up to meet his father, as it is written and presented himself unto him. Joseph appeared on the third day, he did not appear that selfsame day but sent on the first day five horses. Jacob said "This is Joseph," and on the second day [Joseph] sent ten horses and Jacob said "this is Joseph," but after that he appeared unto him, so his soul should not fly away causing him to die, and thus the Holy One, blessed be He, will do in the future to come, first sending the messenger, as it is written (Isa. 52:7) How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings and afterwards that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Adani's work is medieval, but many of his sources and quotes are far older. He compiled and redacted them, resulting in a new work, but it would be folly to judge all the parts based on the date of the work's composition.[12]
Deuteronomy Rabbah is another case in point.
It was thought to have been a medieval work from the 10th century. On the basis of many Greek loanwords and the lack of any references to the Babylonian Talmud this has been shown to be an early work, but as Strack and Stemberger have noted, "due to its turbulent textual history... a more precise dating between c. 450 and 800 is extremely difficult."[13] There is also material in it which is demonstrably old.
One of the midrashim in that work relates to a cunning plan by Hiel, an Israelite collaborating with the prophets of Baal.

And the prophets of Baal knew that Baal as unable to cause fire to come forth of its own accord. What did Hiel do? He stood before the Prophets of Baal and said to them, "Take courage and oppose Elijah and I will make it seem to them that Baal sent fire for you." What did he do? He took two stones in his hands and hatcheled flax and entered inside of Baal, because he was hollow. And he struck the stones one against the other so that the flax was ignited.[14]

This fresco is from the synagogue wall at Dura Europos, a town on the right bank of the Euphrates, and dates from the middle of the 3rd century CE.
It depicts the prophets of Baal around a hollow altar with a man inside it. A snake is about to bite the man in the altar. This detail is found in the continuation of the same midrash.

Elijah, enlightened by the Divine Spirit, said to God, "Lord of the Universe, I asked a great thing of you and you did it—to restore the spirit of the woman of Zarfat`s son. But now I ask that you `raise up` this villain within the Baal." God immediately ordered a snake to bite Hiel in his heel, and he died. Thus it is written: If they should hide at the summit of Mt. Carmel (Hosea 9:3).

As I said above, "late" and "early" are relative terms when it comes to midrash. When compared to halakhic midrash, the "Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva" would be a late midrash. If compared to an aggadic midrash it is neither particularly late nore particularly early, but it is early for a mystical midrash. A late date for a midrash does not necessarily mean that the individual concepts and components contained in it are as late.
There is an important aspect of the Oral Torah which we haven't discussed yet- the strong aversion to writing it down.
The Oral Torah was the counterpart of the Wriiten Torah, or the Pentateuch. It consisted of the teachings of the sages, passed down by the authority of tradition.
One of the aversions to writing it down had to do with the function of memory and oral recitation in ancient society, which might seem counterintuitive to us.
There is a famous story in Plato's "Phaedrus" illustrating the difference between true memory and mere reminders.[15]

The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.” But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess.
For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.
You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.

Written reminders are useful but there is the distinct risk that they will become crutches to students who rely on them too much. Oral teaching required a teacher and this would ensure the proper transmission of tradition and wisdom.
This attitude was shared by at least some Jews, as seen in a group of texts known as the Sar Torah texts. They relate how a student is unable to retain anything in his memory may summon an angel known as the Sar Torah, or prince of the Torah.
Here is one example.

He adjured me by the great seal, by the great oath, in the name of Yad Naqof Yad Nakuy Yad Heras Yad Suqas; by his great seal, by Zebudiel Yah, by Akhtariel Yah, by heaven and by earth. As soon as I heard this great secret, my eyes became enlightened. Whatever I heard- Scripture, Mishnah, anything else- I forgot no more. The world was made new for me in purity, and it was as if I had come from a new world. Now: any student (talmid) who knows what he learns does not stay with him should stand and say a blessing, rise and speak an adjuration, in the name of Margobiel Giwat’el Ziwat’el Tanariel Hozhayah Sin Sagan Sobir’hu, all of whom are Metatron.[16]

According to Michael Swartz, "these texts are an indication of the centrality of memorized knowledge in the scholastic society formed by rabbinic Judaism."[17]
This being said, there was another reason why it was better that the Oral Torah an oral, rather than a written teaching.
In the Pesiqta Rabbati 14b we encounter the following.

The Holy One, blessed be He, knew that the Nations would translate the Written Torah and read it in Greek. And they would say: 'The Jews are not Israel!' Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: "O, Moses! The Nations will say, 'We are Israel! We are the children of the Omnipresent!' And Israel, too, will say, 'We are the children of the Omnipresent!' And the scales are in balance!"
Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to the Nations: "You claim to be my children, but I recognize only the one who holds my mystery in his hands! He alone is my son!" They said to Him: "What is this mystery?" He said to them: "It is the Mishnah!"[18]

You weren't Israel if you did not participate in God's mystery- the Oral Torah.
Jaffee looks a little closer at written vs. oral authority.

The rabbinic insistence upon oral, memorized mastery of learned tradition is part of a larger cultural discourse about the nature of books and learning that occupied both pagan and Christian intellectuals of the late Roman and early Byzantine East. All granted that books contained important knowledge. At issue was whether the book was the essential vessel of knowledge or, to the contrary, the
book's knowledge was most authoritatively represented in the person of the teacher of the book... In some settings, the book was clearly the key and the teacher merely the occasion for opening the mind of the student to the venerable words of the author.
In others, the book was but a stepping stone to the living teacher, who authoritatively embodied the teaching of the book. In the former setting, the student was the disciple of the book's (often long-dead) author, and only through convenience associated with the living teacher who taught the book.
In the latter, the student was the disciple of the living teacher; the author of the book effectively effaced by the authoritative embodiment of the book in the Master.
Rabbinic discipleship in Roman and Byzantine Palestine, as it is reflected repeatedly in texts generated from Galilean discipleship circles, is clearly at home in the latter camp. Torah was certainly found in the Book authored by Moses. And all rabbinic Sages and their disciples were, in this sense, disciples of Moses who knew him through his book. But mastery of Moses' written Torah was preliminary to the mastery of an unwritten Torah, knowledge of which was possible only by immersing oneself in a web of human relationships constituted by the discipleship circle of a particular living Torah Master.
The traditional embodiment of Torah was not found in a written collection of wise teachings offered by Sages, although there is growing reason to suspect that such written collections existed at an early stage.
Rather, real Torah was found in the mouth of the Teacher, the Sage whose own discipleship to a previous master now entitled him to represent himself as an authoritative teacher.[19]

If an oral tradition took precedence over a written one, then not just anyone could lay claim to it like they could with a written text. Of course the traditions were written down in private notes, but these had no authoritative status.
Lest Rob Bowman accuse me of using a late source, here is a quote from the Babylonian Talmud, t. Sanhedrin 59a, which indicates that the Torah was a mystery in the techinal sense.

How do we know that even an idolator who studies Torah is like the high priest? The verse says, "Which if a man do them, he shall live by them." It is not said priests, levites, Israelites—but man. Hence you learn that even a gentile who studies Torah is like a high priest.

If the reluctance to commit the Oral Torah to writing was strong, all the more so its avowedly esoteric teachings. Even their oral teaching followed certain restrictions among sages.
This is stated in the Mishnah, t. Hagigah 2:1.

The laws of incest may not be expounded before three persons,
nor the Account of the Creation before two, nor the Chariot before one unless he is wise and able to understand on his own.

There is one more point that Rob made regarding midrash which needs correction. The talmuds didn't grow out of midrash per se. They revolve around the Mishnah, the ancient codification of halakhah, and discuss it and its applications and implications in more detail.
My next post will examine the Ottiyot de-Rabbi Akiva and its central concepts, as well as deification in ancient Judaism.
To sum up this post, Rob Bowman is incorrect in stating that midrash generally reffers to a body of Jewish literature rather than the process of relating the biblical text to the needs and mood of the age (and vice-versa). Midrash has never really died out.[20]


[1]http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology-and-joseph-smith%E2%80%99s-doctrine-of-exaltation/

[2]http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

[3]Rob Bowman corrected his statement after some criticism from Bill Hamblin and myself. The original read as follows.
"The term midrash is usually (though not always) used in religious scholarship to denote a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that dated before and around the time of the Mishnah (compiled ca. AD 200) and thus well before the Talmud (compiled in two editions centuries later). When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."
That statement was then corrected to this. "The term midrash generally refers to a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that began to be compiled in the second century AD, much of which eventually led to the publication of the Talmud (in two major compilations, ca. 400 and ca. 500). When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."

[4]Reuven Hammer, "The Classic Midrash: Tannaitic commentaries on the Bible,
Classics of Western spirituality (vol. 83)," (Paulist Press, 1995), p. 14.

[5]Hammer, "Classic Midrash", pp. 20-21.

[6]Judah Goldin, "Studies in Midrash and Related Literature," eds., Barry L. Eichler and Jeffrey H. Tigay; (Philadelphia: JPS, 1988), p. 237.

[7]Hananel Mack "The Aggadic Midrash Literature," (Heb.) (M.O.D Publishing House: Tel-Aviv, 1989), pp. 10-15. There is also an English translation available, but I haven't read it.

[8]An Aramaic word meaning "great" or "large" or "major."

[9]See H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, "Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash," trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), p. 279.

[10]There are many examples. To name but one, the Sefer Yetsirah had five major recensions, the last as late as the 18th century,, and a bewildering array of variant readings.

[11]Saul Lieberman, "The Yemenite Midrashim: Their Character and Value," (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1940), p. 4.

[12]For more examples, see Lieberman's monograph "Yemenite Midrashim," pp. 5-7 in particular.

[13]Strack & Stemberger, "Introduction," p. 308.

[14]Midrash Numbers Rabbah, 11:20, Lieberman's edition. http://www.tali-virtualmidrash.org.il/ArticleEng.aspx?art=14 .
See also H. Kraeling, "The Synagogue: The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report VIII, Part 1" (Ktav, 1979), p. 140.

[15]Plato, "Phaedrus," 274e-275a. The translation is from "Plato in Twelve Volumes," Vol. 9, trans. H. N. Fowler. (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925).

[16]David J. Halperin, "The Faces of the Chariot," (Mohr Siebeck, 1988), pp. 378-379. Swartz says of the Sar Torah traditions that “the earliest explicit indications of the Sar-Torah phenomenon, then, date from the tenth century. However, there are other elements of the phenomenon that have earlier origins. The archangel figure of Metatron appears in the Talmud and in the seventh–century Babylonian incantation bowls, although not as the Sar-Torah.” Swartz, "Scholastic Magic: ritual and revelation in early Jewish mysticism," (Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 213.

[17]"The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature,"
Ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, p. 212.

[18]Martin S. Jaffee "Oral Transmission of Knowledge as Rabbinic Sacrament: An Overlooked Aspect of Discipleship in Oral Torah" in "Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought," Vol. 1, ed. Howard Kreisel (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 2006), p. 71. Jaffee goes on to say this.
"While in its other rabbinic contexts it seems to bear the meaning of a hidden or secret message, its usage in the present polemical context suggests another dimension of its meaning. Here Mishnah, rabbinic oral tradition, is raised to the
theological level of a ritual mysterion, a sacramental medium the incorporation of which secures a participation of the believer in the life of the Church, the Mishnah has the power to convey transformative blessing to the individual."

[19]Jaffee, "Oral Transmission," pp. 72-73.

[20]See "Modern midrash: the retelling of traditional Jewish narratives by twentieth-century Hebrew writers" by David C. Jacobson, 1987. Israeli writer Meir Shalev had a column in which he examined contemporary events through biblical narrative and vice-versa. In 1985 they were published in book form as "Tanakh Achshav!" (Bible Now!). As an example, Shalev relates Isaiah's naming of his son Mahershalalhashbaz to a Bedouin in 1979 who named his newborn twin sons Begin and Sadat. Midrash also has a strong presence in the pop culture of my generation of Israelies. To name but a few, the songs of Meir Ariel, Ehud Banai and Idan Riachel are often very midrashic. I intend on posting in the future about severalof them, a glimpseinto traditional modes of expression in modern garb.

Seder Eliyahu Rabbah on Eternal Marriage

I promised to post an ancient Jewish source supporting the notion of eternal marriage. This is in the interest of fairness.

In the future, God will be seated in His great academy, and seated before him will be the righteous of the world, they and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, and their manservants, and their maidservants, their household needs will be taken care of for them. As it says: "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My spirit, etc.," and "And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids, etc. (Joel 3:1-2)"
"Rise up, ye women that are at ease. (Isa. 32:9)"
-Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 4:19.

Seder Eliyahu Rabbah purports to be a series of instructions on the history and destiny of the world, given by Elijah the prophet to R. Anan, a Babylonian amora.
God presides over his heavenly academy (beit-midrash). The righteous participate in its study sessions. They are organised according to the same social units they had on earth. The family (or rather household to a modern audience) still exists as an individual unit. Father, mother, children, and household servants. The organisation of the heavenly family may be identical to the earthly one but there are some important differences in other aspects.
All equally participate in God's academy. The prooftexts from Joel and Isaiah show that even female servant, a low rung on the social ladder, will receive an outpouring of God's spirit. To eliminate distractions from Torah study with God, all needs are provided for, presumably by the angels, since the Seder Eliyahu depicts them as less privileged than the righteous.
All in all, a remarkable picture.

Did Saadia Gaon & Maimonides Believe in Eternal Marriage?

I'm very much in favour of using sources from the ancient world to explore our scriptures and doctrines.
They deepen and enrichen our understanding because, lets face it, we live in a time far-removed from that of the scriptures. Our understanding is not necessarily their understanding.
If you were to give a Russian a dozen roses they would ask who died. An even number of flowers in Russian culture is used for mourning, not for romantic or thoughtful gifts. Hilary Clinton commited a major faux pas when she sent birthday congratulations to the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych before his birthday. For Russians and Ukrainians, this is considered very bad luck, nd a possible jinx. It simply isn't done. Many years ago, when I was a little kid, some BYU Jerusalem professors had been with the students to a cemetary in Israel. My Dad asked them how it had been. It was alright, the professor said, but the cemetary was in a terrible condition, little rocks all over the graves! We spent most of the time clearing them off.
Dad had to explain that leaving small rocks on a grave is a Jewish custom and not a lack of proper maintenance.
These are all examples of how easy it is to misunderstand a living culture, let alone a dead one several millenia removed from us.
What I find problematic is trying to force our own understandings unto the past. Particularly doctrinal understandings. Mormonising the sources, so to speak.
To avoid any misunderstanding, let me state that I believe in the doctrines of the Restoration. What I don't believe in is making texts say something that they don't.
This gives us a distorted view of both past and texts.

This colloquy between Jesus and his Sadducean detractors does not question or throw doubt, in proper cases, on the eternal verity that the family unit continues in the resurrection. Jesus had previously taught the eternal nature of the marriage union. "What therefore God [not man!] hath joined together, let not man put asunder." That is, when a marriage is performed by God's authority—not man's!—it is eternal. See Matt. 19:1-12. "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever." (Eccles. 3:14.)

Indeed, almost the whole Jewish nation believed that marriage was eternal, and that parents would beget children in the resurrection. Those few who did not believe that marriage continued after death and among such were the Sadducees, who could not so believe because they denied the resurrection itself—were nonetheless fully aware that such was the prevailing religious view of the people generally. Without doubt Jesus, the apostles, the seventies, and the disciples generally had discussed this doctrine.

The Sadducean effort here is based on the assumption that Jesus and the Jews generally believe in marriage in heaven. They are using this commonly accepted concept to ridicule and belittle the fact of the resurrection itself. They are saying: 'How absurd to believe in a resurrection (and therefore in the fact that there is marriage in heaven) when everybody knows that a woman who has had seven husbands could not have them all at once in the life to come.'

A most instructive passage showing that the Jews believed there should be marriage in heaven is found in Dummelow. "There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life," he says. "A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said, 'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade. There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendor of the Divine Majesty.' But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection. The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands. The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says, 'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says, 'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink, and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfill their functions.' The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'" (Dummelow, p. 698.)

How much nearer the truth were these Jews, on this point, than are the modern professors of religion who suppose that family love, felicity, and unity cease simply because the spirit steps out of the body in what men call death!
Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary

The very first problem to present itself is one of chronology. Saadia Gaon was born in 882 AD and died in 942. If we assume that Jesus died somewhere between AD 28-33, then Saadia is separated from him by almost eight hundred and fifty years! Maimonides was a couple of centuries later even than that, from 1138-1204.
Such late sources by themselves are very poor indicators of what beliefs 1st-century Jews would have held.
If this was the extent of the problems posed by this source, then things might not be so bad. My blog post would certainly be shorter.
No such luck.
I might be a little hard on McConkie. Most of this is not so much his fault as the fault of his source- Dummelow's commentary.
The whole thing is available for free through google books.
The Reverend John Roberts Dummelow in 1908 had edited a work entitled "The One Volume Bible Commentary." This was a fairly critical work for 1908, but in terms of Jewish and New Testament scholarship anything that old tends to be positively primeval. So many new directions and, indeed, new sources had opened up since then that our understanding of those topics is vastly improved.
Dummelow's provides no citations for the quotes listed above. By modern standards that is entirely unforgiveable in a scholarly source. I did however manage to track down the sources used.
The first source is the only one to predate Jesus' mortal ministry.

I shall destroy all iniquity from upon the face of the earth, and every evil work shall come to an end; and there shall appear the plant of righteousness; and it shall be a blessing, and deeds of righteousness shall be planted with joy for ever.
And now all the righteous shall escape, and shall live till they beget thousands; and all the days of your youth and of your old age you shall fulfil in peace. Then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and it shall all be planted with trees, and filled with blessing. And all luxuriant trees will be planted in it; and they will plant vines in it, and the vine which they plant will produce a thousand measures of wine, and of all seed which is sown upon it.
Each seah will produce a thousand seah; and every seah of olives will produce up to ten baths of oil. And as for you. cleanse the earth from all uncleanness, and from all injustice and from all sinfulness and godlessness; and all the unclean things that have been wrought 'on the earth' remove from the earth. And all the children of men are to become righteous and all nations shall serve and bless me, and all shall worship me.
And the whole earth shall be freed from all defilement and from all uncleanness, and wrath and castigation: and I shall not again send a Deluge upon it unto generations of generations and for ever.
-1 Enoch 10:16-22, trans. Matthew Black.

This passage does not imply eternal marriage in the LDS understanding of the term.
As William R. G. Loader wrote, "the images of the future do not include sexuality as a theme, although some statements imply it. The abundant fruitfulness to which 10:17-19 looks forward, when Michael rejuvenates the earth, will include that people “will live and beget thousands and all the days of their youth and their old age will be completed in peace” (10:17). This means that the author does not envisage that human beings will live like undying angels, without further need for procreation, nor that they will be in the kind of holy context where sexual activity would be out of place."[1]
Likewise, Nicklesburg, in page 49 of his commentary on 1 Enoch, explained the biblical imagery underlying 1 Enoch's concept of the future, "most of the major sections of 1 Enoch– drawing on Isaiah 65-66 for their inspiration– envision a renewed earth and a restored Jerusalem as the setting for the long life that the righteous will enjoy after the judgment."
What presents us here, then, is an ideal, rejuvenated earth in which the righteous will live as long as the antediluvian patriarchs, if not longer, and will beget thounds of children. The trees will be just as productive, yielding colossal quantities of fruit and oil. After living a long life, the righteous will die.
Nothing so far about eternal marriage.
As for the so-called Rabbi Raf, he seems to be Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, known by the honorific Rav. Rav was the chief (though not the only) compiler and redactor of the Mishnah and one of the most significant authorities among the ancient sages. Rabbi Raf is pointless tautology, much like saying Rabbi Rabbi.

In the world to come there is no eating nor drinking nor begeting nor give and take nor jealousy nor hatred nor competition, but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads feasting on the brightness of the divine presence (Shekhinah), as it says, "And they beheld God, and did eat and drink (Ex. 24:11)."
-Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 17a.

This talmudic passage is a little ambiguous. Rav might have been referring to a corporeal state or he might have meant a bodiless one. Be that as it may, Rav is saying that the existence of the righteous in the world to come will be extremely different than what we know from earthly experience. The prooftext is meant to show that basking in God's splendour is what replaces physical meat and drink.

Or shall he ponder and say, 'Those in this world, shall they eat, drink and be married, or no?'
We should know that they will eat and drink like us, and be married, as is elucidated by the Sareptan widow's son and the Shunamite's son, who lived in this world, ate, drank and were worthy of marriage. One of the sages said that he was of the seed of one of them.
-Saadia Gaon, the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, the seventh article, chapter five.

I've rendered a fairly literal translation, following R. Yosef Qafih's first-rate Hebrew translation. Saadia Gaon, one of the most influential figures in Judaism, was embroiled in a polemic against those who denied the resurrection and particularly against those who spiritualised it. Any brief sketch According to Saadia, the resurrection takes place in this world. Here on earth, not in heaven. Not a general principle, the resurrection is restricted to the righteous and penitent among the children of Israel. It is a reward for the righteous. For him the resurrection is also an indication of God's power and preeminence, because if he once created us ex nihilo, then he can certainly recreate us from the same even after our bodies have entirely decayed away. This world, the world of the resurrection, is a transient and corporeal one and we will be transfered from it into the world to come, which is in heaven. There we neither eat, drink, nor live a married life. Saadia uses Moses as an example. Moses ate and drank before ascending Mt. Sinai, but while there he went without those things. Moses' experience symbolises what is to come. When he ascended Mt. Sinai and was directly, but temporarily, in the presence of God then eating, drinking and sex were a non-issue for him. They played no part at all in that experience. If that held true for the mortal Moses the more so when we will live permanently in God's presence.
Yosef Qafih says that he couldn't find a source for Saadia's statement regarding the two sons, but thinks that it might be emmendated to read "as is elucidated by the Sareptan widow's son and the Shunamite's son, and the dead which Ezekiel brought to life." The sage mentioned by Saadia is R. Judah b. Bathira, who declared that he was descended from the dead in Ezekiel's vision.[2]
At any rate, Saadia's concept of marriage was not eternal marriage. Marriage was a condition of this world. It lasted as long as people were in this world.
Saadia was very insistent that resurrection was part of this world, not the one to come.
Marriage was what legitimised sexual activity. Sexual activity was a bodily function (or appetite), like eating and drinking. Resurrection, after all, related first and foremost to the body. Eating, drinking and sex were (indeed, are) the epitome of earthly life.[3]
The last quote is the most problematic of all. It is distorted almost beyond recognition.

We can see from those treatises that the people whose souls shall return to their bodies will eat, drink, copulate, beget children and die after a very long life, a life as long as life is in the days of the Messiah. Indeed, the life after which there is no death is the life in the world to come, since there is no body in it. We believe, as any man of understanding verily does, that in the world to come souls are bodiless as the angels are. This explanation, that the body is the sum of instruments required for the soul's actions, has already been explained in an examplary fashion... Here it has been explained that the entire purpose of the body is the recption of food for sustaining the body, and begeting similar ones for the continuance of that body's kind. When that purpose is removed then it [the body] becomes unnecessary. That is, in the world to come, which is what our sages of blessed memory have elucidated, that in it is neither eating, nor drinking, nor usage[4], which is explained by the absence of a body. The Blessed One would not invent things in order for them to remain unused, and would not do anything without a reason, and heaven forbid that his acts would be like those who worship idols, "Eyes have they, but they see not, they have ears, but they hear not; noses have they, but they smell not (Ps 115:5-6)."
-Maimonides, the Treatise on Resurrection.

Maimonides had written a book entitled The Guide of the Perplexed. This book reconciled traditional Jewish beliefs with the mysteries of Aristotelian philosophy.
His book inspired many who were far more radical than he himself. They were embroiled in a sharp disoute with the traitionalists, who assumed that Maimonides was just as radical and that he denied the reality of the resurrection. He wrote the Treatise on Resurrection in order to defend himself from those charges.
Maimonides was not only a reknowned philosopher but also a gifted physician. I ommited the passage describes the three groups of functions the body is divided into.
For Maimonides, like Saadia, marriage wasn't eternal. It lasted only until man went to the heavenly realm, which is entirely bodiless. The resurrection isn't permanent. It is followed by another death, and then entry into perfect world which is that of the disembodied spirit.
None of what McConkie used support his claim.
This is not to say that there aren't Jewish sources indicating a belief in an eternal marriage.
There are some, but Dummelow's didn't include them. For the sake of fairness, I'll dedicate a future blog post to at least one of them.
My post though is more about the use of sources than eternal marriage in ancient Judaism.
To sum up my post, never use Dummelow's, there are far too many better ones out there, and McConkie's commentary should be used only with great caution. Elder McConkie being an apostle of the Lord had many good spiritual insights and he could bear powerful witness of the atonement, but he was not a great New Testament scholar.



[1]Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on sexuality: attitudes towards sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees, pg. 80.

[2]Babylonian Talmud, t. Sanhedrin 92b.

[3]I'm indebted to my friend Walker for that phrase.

[4]Usage was a rabbinic euphemism for sex.

Nine Thousand Myriads of Angels

Every Jewish community's Passover Haggadah contains the following statement.

"And the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt," not by means of an angel, and not by means of a seraph, and not by means of a messenger. On the contrary, the Holy One, blessed be He, by His own glorious self [did it]...
"For I will go through the land of Egypt," I, and not an angel.
"And will smite all the firstborn," I, and not a seraph.
"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgements," I, and not a messenger.
"I the Lord," it is I and none other.

The Yemenite Jews follow a slightly different Haggadah, one based on R. Saadiah Gaon's rescension in the 9th century CE. Theirs contains an additional midrash on the same topic. Despite a reference in Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, it isn't that well known, undeservedly so.
I transcribed this from a 1953 Folkways recording of a Yemenite Passover in Jerusalem.

Our rabbis of blessed memory say: When the Holy One, blessed be He, went down against the Egyptians in Egypt, nine thousand myriads of angels went down with Him; some of them angels of fire, some of them angels of hail; some of them angels of shaking; some of them angels of quaking; some of them angels of trembling. Trembling seized all who beheld them.
They said unto Him: 'Master of the World, when a king of flesh and blood goes down to battle, his ministers and servants surround him lest harm befall him.
Now, Thou art the King of Kings and Thou knowest full well that we are Thy servants and they [the Israelites] are the children of thy covenant. Let us go down and make war with them [the Egyptians].'
But He replied: 'I will have no peace of mind until I Myself go down.
I myself in My glory, I Myself in My grandeur, I Myself in My holiness. I am the Lord, I am he, and none other [will go down].

Who is Like Unto Thee Among the Gods

Popular wisdom has it that when gods (elohim or elim) appear in the Bible, and does not refer to God, that it was a term designating judges or magistrates.
I have several other blog posts showing why this was not so, but one can never have enough primary sources. Here is another, rather an important one, which explains what the word gods could mean in early Judaism.
The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael is a midrashic collection of treatises and homilies grouped around the book of Exodus. The traditions in it are mainly Tannaitic, that is, dating from before the early 3rd century AD.
A sizeable treatise inside the Mekhilta is the Shirta, which expounds the Song at the Sea (Exodus 15). The topic of course is celebrating God's might and his deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh's army. When the midrash reaches Exodus 15:11, it naturally discusses what the word elim meant.
The translation is Judah Goldin's.

Another interpretation of WHO IS LIKE UNTO THEE, O LORD, AMONG THE ELYM: Who is like unto Thee among those who minister before Thee on high, as it is said, "For who in the skies can be compared... A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones... O Lord God of hosts, who is a mighty one, like unto Thee, O Lord" (Ps. 89:7-9).

This reference to the celestial retinue and the courts on high are a clear indication that elim did refer to divine beings, though usually understood as angels. This is borne out by Hebrews 2:5-9 where the Hebrew elohim is rendered as angels.
Shirta contains four other explicit interpretations of the word elim. Out of these, two are word plays (mighty men and mutes, respectively) and are irrelevant to this discussion. The other two read "Who is like unto Thee among those who call themselves divine?" and "Who is like unto Thee among those whom others call divine and there is absolutely nothing to them?"
The first is a polemic against the cult of emperor worship so prevalent in late antiquity. The additional proof texts list Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Prince of Tyre.
Those whom others called divine yet are worthless are idols. People see them as something divine when they really are not.
All three of these interpretations sees elim as divine beings, whether they truly are divine such as angels, or rulers who call themselves divine, or idols which men call divine.

The Heavenly Coronation of King David

One of the songs I learned as a child was this one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PPkOEIKYZ0 , though the melody we sang it to is more like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKgHLBAtCdA&feature=related
The words are David melech Israel khai ve-kayyam (David, king of Israel, is alive and well). They are taken from an incident related in the Babylonian Talmud (t. Rosh ha-Shanah 25a) regarding the blessing of the new moon. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi sends R. Hiyya to bless the new moon and report back if all goes well by sending a signal containing the phrase "David, king of Israel, is alive and well."
The link between King David and the moon did not originate with R. Judah. It is found in Ps. 89:37-38. "His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon; and be steadfast as the witness in sky."
In early Judaism David was considered by many to still be alive, and that he would be the messiah. Others considered him more than a messiah, but a divine figure, if not a secondary god.
"One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9) and another
passage says: Until thrones were placed; and One that was ancient of days did sit - there is no contradiction; One (throne) for Him, and one for David:
this is the view of R. Akiba.
Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: 'Akiba, how long will you profane the Divine Presence [Shekhinah]!
Say rather, one for justice and one for mercy.'
Did he accept this from him, or did he not accept it? - come and hear: 'One for justice and one for mercy'; this is the view of R. Akiba."
-Babylonian Talmud, t. Hagigah 14a.
More on this controversy can be found in pg. 47-48 of Alan Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven" and in Daniel Boyarin's "Border Lines" pg. 140-145.
The following source should illustrate my point on David's role as a divine co-ruler with God.
Eleh Ezkerah, or the Midrash on the Ten Martyrs, was one of the most popular and influential texts in Judaism. it was composed in Geonic times, but based on several earlier traditions. The "Ten Martyrs" relates how the Roman emperor decreed that ten leading Jewish sages were to be seized and put to death. They were to be punished vicariously for the sin of their ten ancestors. They sold their brother Joseph into slavery, an act which Torah states is punishable by death.
Rabbi Nehunia ha-Qanah sends his disciple R. Ishmael on a heavenly ascent to
discover if the decree was decreed in heaven as well. If it were an earthly decree, then they could overturn it by their piety and mystical powers.
R. Ishmael discovers that God has allowed the decree to stand in order to fulfil the demands of justice, and in return for the deaths of the ten sages, Rome will be obliterated.
When R. Ishmael returns, the ten sages submit to the yoke of heaven and are cruelly executed by Rome.
Eleh Ezkerah is, historically-speaking, a jumbled mess. The ten martyrs did not all live and die at the same time, and the political and religious reality of life under the Byzantine Empire rubs shoulders with those of the Bar-Kochba Revolt and the Hadrianic persecutions.
What follows is part of the earlier Eleh Ezkerah material included in the mystical text Heichalot Rabbati.
Heichalot Rabbati, Apocalypse One, translated by Morton Smith. I ammended the translation slightly to better fit the biblical references in the original.

[Segansegael, the Prince of the Presence, said to R. Ishmael] “My friend, sit in my bosom and I shall tell thee what is to come upon Israel.”
I sat in his bosom and he gazed upon me and did weep, and his tears ran down continually from his eyes and fell upon my face.
I said to him, “Why does your Excellency weep?”
He said to me, “My friend, come, and I shall take thee in and teach thee what is laid up for Israel, the holy people.”
He grasped me by my hand and took me in to the inmost chambers and to the most secret rooms and to the treasuries. He took tablets and opened them and showed me letters written with griefs each different from the other.
I said to him, “For whom are these?” He said to me, “For Israel.”
I said to him, “And can Israel bear them?”
He said to me, “Come tomorrow and I shall teach thee of griefs yet different from these.” On the morrow he took me in to the inmost chambers and showed me griefs more bitter than the first: "Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity (Jer. 15:2)." I said to him, “And did then, your Excellency, Israel alone sin?”
He said to me, “Griefs more bitter than these are laid on them anew each day. And when, assembling in synagogues and schools, they say, ‘Amen. Let the great name be blessed,’ we do not permit these [griefs] to go forth from the inmost chambers.”
When I went down from before him I heard a voice speaking in the Aramaic language, and thus it said:
“The holy shrine shall be a ruin;
and the temple, a fire burning;
“And the dwelling of the king, desolation;
and she in whom the king rejoiced shall mourn as a widow;
“And the virgins and the youths shall be spoiled;
and the servants of the king, be killed;
“And the pure altar, polluted;
and the table which was set before the Lord, taken as spoil by the enemy;
“And Jerusalem shall be desolation;
and the land of Israel trembling.”
When I heard the voice of this vision I was terrified and struck silent and fell backwards. But then came the angel Hadariel and gave me breath and spirit and stood me upon my feet. He said to me, ”My friend, what came over thee?” I said to him, “Your Excellency, is there no restoration for Israel?”
He said to me, “Come, and I shall bring thee in to treasuries of consolations and to treasuries of salvations and shall show thee.” He brought me in to treasuries of salvations and to treasuries of consolations and I beheld the companies of ministering angels, that they were sitting and weaving garments of salvations and making crowns of life and fixing in them precious stones and pearls and compounding all manner of spices and perfumed wines for the righteous. And I beheld one crown which differed from all the [other] crowns, and the sun and the moon and the twelve signs of the zodiac were fixed in it. I said to him, “Your Excellency, for whom are these crowns?”
He said to me, “For Israel.”
“And that different crown, for whom is that destined?”
He said to me, “For David, the king of Israel.”
I said to him, “Your Excellency, show me the glory of David.”
He said to me, “My friend, wait for three hours until David cometh hither and thou shalt behold his greatness.”
He took me and seated me in his bosom.
He said to me, “What dost thou see?”
I said to him, “I see seven lightnings which strike as one.”
He said to me, “My son, close thine eyes that thou not be shaken by those that shall go forth to meet David.” At once, all ophanim and seraphim and the holy beasts and treasuries of snow and treasuries of hail and clouds of glory and planets and stars and ministering angels and fiery spirits of the fourth heaven cried out in tumult, saying: “For the chief musician, a psalm of David. The heavens are telling the glory of God (Ps. 19:1-2).”
And I heard a sound of a great uproar which came from Eden, saying: “The Lord shall reign forever and ever (Ex. 15:18).”
And behold David, the King of Israel, came first, and I beheld all the kings of the house of David following after him, and each had his crown on his head and the crown of David was more brilliant and differed from all the other crowns and its splendor went forth from one end of the world to the other.
When David went up to the great temple which is in the firmament, there was set for him a throne of fire which was forty parasangs in height and double in length and double in breadth.
And when David came and sat down upon his throne which was prepared for him opposite the throne of his Creator (and all the kings of the house of David sit before him, and all the kings of the house of Israel stand behind him) at once David arose and uttered songs and praises [such as] ear hath not heard from [the creation of] the world.
And when David began and said, “The Lord shall reign forever and ever!" Metatron and all his servants began and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, all the earth is full of His glory (Isa. 6:3),” and the beasts praise God saying, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His [dwelling] place (Eze. 3:12),” and the firmaments say, “The Lord shall reign forever and ever,” and all the earth saith, “The Lord has been King (Ps. 93:1), the Lord is King (Ps. 10:16), the Lord shall be King, forever and ever (Ex. 15:18),” and all the kings of the house of David say, “The Lord shall be King over all the earth, in that day shall the Lord be one and His name One (Zech. 14:9).”

The angel Sagansegael (one of the titles of Metatron) weeps over the woes awaiting Israel. R. Ishmael leaves the treasury and hears a bath kol (a voice serving as heavenly oracle) reciting an Aramaic lament over Jerusalem and its temple. Aramaic, as shown by the Babylonian Talmud, t. Sotah 33a, served as a direct conduit of revelation between God (or his Shekhinah) and man. Aramaic bypassed the ministering angels, who only know Hebrew. R. Ishmael is overwhelmed by the horrific news until he is revived by an angel, who shows him a scene of consolation and salvation. The Revelation of St. John and the later, Gnostic "Dialogue of the Saviour" both have new garments given to God's people when salvation occurs, but the imagery can be found as early as Zechariah 3. Revelation 2:10 describes a crown (as do several other New Testament books) given to those that overcome.
While it can't be emphasised enough that crowns weren't pretty little trinkets, but had definite associations of dominion and victory, I don't see the need to labour the point.
The similarity between Revelation and this passage of Heichalot Rabbati doesn't point to any direct dependance, but to shared aspects of culture and historical circumstance.
David's crown differs from all the other crowns, and it contains emblems of the agents through which God ruled the universe.
"And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good (Gen 1:16-18)." At the end of Genesis Rabbah 6:9 we read about Joshua's greatness in commanding the sun and moon to be still "which are they who rule the world from one end to another."
Just like the sun, the glory of David's crown shines from one end of the world to another.
David is accompanied by the same heavenly beings that accompanied God's merkabah in Ezekiel 1. He is then seated upon an enormous throne of fire. Psalms and other scriptures applied to YHWH are recited, but YHWH is nowhere to be seen in all this.
That thrones belong to both earthly and heavenly kings is self-evident. As can be seen from the talmudic passage quoted above, both R. Akiba and R. Jose saw in the interpretation of Daniel 7:9 as a throne for David the implication that David was a divine figure, participating in God's rule and kingship. A secondary god, as I stated earlier. In Heichalot Rabbati, so do all the kings of Judah and Israel to a lesser degree, as well as the children of Israel.
One final aspect of David's coronation that I would like to consider is the material which the throne is made of- fire.
Daniel 7:9 says that throne which the divine figure is seated on is fire. Shiur Qomah, a mystical text closer in time to Heichalot Rabbati draws on the same imagery in Daniel, describing a fiery throne used by Metatron, God's viceroy. This is in addition to a description of God as a fiery being.
In parting, I would like to share a statement in Shiur Qomah regarding Metatron that sums up the attitude of the mystics towards man sharing in God's power.
"The name of the lad is the name of his master."

An Early Redaction of Isaiah

This quote by Michael Fishbane is absolutely essential in gaining an understanding of the biblical tradition and its interpretation.

Even in the language of the prophets, speaking under divine revelation, we can detect inner biblical exegesis. In Isaiah 29, the prophet is denouncing the people of Judah; they have been the object of his scorn throughout the preceding oracles and no new subject has been introduced. In Isaiah 29:9–11 we would expect to find that it is the people of Judah who are referred to as drunk and who totter and who cannot fathom the prophetic visions given to them. But by the addition of a few words the oracle becomes—by inner biblical exegesis—a rebuke of false prophets. The passage is not easy and requires a close reading; the inner biblical exegesis—the words added by an interpreter—are italicized in the following quotation from Isaiah 29:9–11:
“9. Be astonished and dazed, revel and be, blinded: you have drunk, but not from wine; totter, but not from drink;
10. For YHWHa has poured over you a spirit of stupefaction: He has closed your eyes—namely, the prophets—and your heads he has cloaked—the seers;
11. All prophetic visions shall be sealed from you ….”
Without inclusion of the italicized words it is YHWH who has closed your eyes and cloaked your heads. The object of the denunciation is unspecified. Because of what preceded, however, it would seem that the object was the people of Judah. By the addition of the italicized words—“namely, the prophets” and “the seers”—the object of Isaiah’s scorn has shifted from the people to (false) prophets and seers who do not speak with the true word of God.
Moreover, by the addition of the italicized words, a common biblical literary construction called chiasmus has been disrupted. Here is another clue that we are in the presence of inner biblical exegesis. Chiasmus derives etymologically from the Greek letter chi, which looks like an x; chiasmus refers to a rhetorical construction of an a, b; b’, a’ type. In such a construction, the linguistic features of a second line invert (usually by means of synonyms) those of the preceding one.
In Isaiah 29, without the words added by inner biblical exegesis, we have a perfect chiasmus in which a second line is inversely parallel to a first line, literally:
“He has closed your eyes;
Your heads he has cloaked.”
Here—in the original—it is the people who do not see. In this quotation of Isaiah 29:10, without the inner biblical exegesis, we can identify the preserved original oracle. By the explicatory addition “the (false) prophets” and “the seers,” they—the false prophets and the seers—become the cause of the people’s blindness. The result is that an oracle condemning the people is transformed into a rebuke of false prophets.
Without going into further detail (but relating to this same example), we simply observe that in the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Bible, parts of which may date from the third century B.C., this process of exegesis within the text of Isaiah was taken further, for there the abruptness of the intrusion was smoothed over. And a later Greek version, known as the Lucianic recension, went still further in an effort to improve on the Septuagint version without (apparently) ever consulting the Masoretic Hebrew version.
From the viewpoint of the exegetical process, the textual strata represented by the Masoretic text and by the Septuagint and its Lucianic recension reflect continuous rereadings of the original oracle. Moreover, this example represents the most invasive exegetical procedure, which, in the final Hebrew text, transforms the meaning of the passage and disturbs its syntactic balance—a matter later translators into Greek tried to rectify.
Moreover, this striking transformation of an oracle against the people into one against false prophets shows the extent to which the interpretive tradition might introduce a new authority into a received tradition, so that these human comments compete with and ultimately transform the focus of the ancient, divine words. The privileged voice of divine revelation and the human voice of instruction have become one. That this paradox not always perceived is a measure of the scribes’ success in subordinating their voice to that of the tradition. Even more paradoxically, in the end it is their interpretations that have become the received tradition; their oral traditions are the written text given to the community.

Fishbane, Micheal. “The Earliest Biblical Exegesis is in the Bible Itself.” Bible Review, Fall 1986, 42-45.