Another Important New Book by Andrei Orlov, "The Atoning Dyad: The Two Goats of Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham"

Prolific author Andrei A. Orlov, Professor of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity at Marquette University, has completed another exciting new book that is to be published by the prestigious biblical studies publisher, Brill, in the near future. (See here for updates on publication status.)

I have to say that I am very excited about this book as it will cover, among other things, two very important topics.

First, it will analyze the development of the atonement rituals of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) that involved the two goats, the one “for YHWH” and the other, the scapegoat, “for Azazel.” Orlov will look at a number of Jewish and Christian texts, following the application of this ritual tradition of the two goats as it is interpreted over time in the form of written narratives, from the story of Cain and Abel to that of Barabbas and Jesus and beyond.

This material will certainly be of interest to those looking to better understand the concept of the Atonement in the Scriptures, including the rituals of the Jerusalem Temple and how these were understood to play out in history and in people’s lives.

The second point of interest, for me, is that of Orlov’s continued exploration of the early Jewish text known as The Apocalypse of Abraham (ApAb). Orlov has been able to glean so much intriguing material from this text in previous publications and this book promises new perspectives and insights. He looks, here, into the imagery presented in ApAb that seems to depict Azazel, the leading demonic being, as the scapegoat, the one that is taken off into the desert and thrown into the abyss, and Abraham as the goat “for YHWH,” the goat that is sacrificed on the Day of Atonement.

Again, this is powerful stuff for those wanting to understand how later Jews understood the mechanics of the atonement rituals of the temple. It is apparent (my thoughts without the benefit of being able to read Orlov’s full research here) that Abraham is being presented as both the sacrificial goat and also the high priest that takes the goat’s blood (which should likely be understood as the high priest’s own blood) into the temple (the text presents Abraham entering into heaven).

Ancient Jewish Traditions Concerning Angels (Draft for Ensign)

I recently posted on Facebook regarding a small contribution that I made to December’s Ensign magazine.  I had been invited a number of months ago to contribute to an article on angels that has now been published in this issue as “Angels We Have Heard.” The section based on information I provided is “Angels in the Bible and Jewish Tradition” towards the end.

As I explained on Facebook, the small section that appears in the Ensign is actually just a small part of what I originally wrote in my first draft.  There were sections of this first draft that probably would have been too foreign or confusing in such a summarized format to have been helpful for most readers.  I am glad that at least some of the info I provided was found to be useful.

For those who expressed interest in seeing the whole draft, I am posting it here.

"And There Are Many Kingdoms": D&C 88 and the Hierarchy of Kingdoms

I recently had the opportunity to lead a discussion on the topic of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 88 in which we delved into the subject of the multiple kingdoms of glory as they are described in that section. That discussion reminded me of some material I had posted on Heavenly Ascents a few years back.  I went back and reread that post and thought it would be nice to revisit it here.

D&C 88 discusses the idea that God has filled his Creation with various “kingdoms” that can be inhabited by his children. Verse 37 states:

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

This declaration suggests that the cosmos is somehow divided up into various kingdoms and that within these kingdoms are subdivisions that constitute smaller kingdoms within the larger ones.  The revelation describes how these are categorized by their degree of glory — celestial, terrestrial, telestial, or no glory — and how God’s children become assigned to a specific type of kingdom based on their adherence to the laws designated for each type. In verse 47, the revelation states that all of these kingdoms, although they be inhabited by mankind, are subject to God.

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

Although God himself reigns over all of the kingdoms as King of kings and Lord of lords, He has prepared these kingdoms for his children to inherit. The revelation presents the example of the Earth and declares that it will be sanctified and “celestialized.” Inhabitants that live the law of celestial glory will, when they have been resurrected and obtained that glory, inherit the celestial Earth.

26 Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.

27 For notwithstanding they die, they also shall rise again, a spiritual body.

28 They who are of a celestial spirit shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.

29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

The ideas presented in D&C 88 reminded me of a concept found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and elsewhere) which concerns the idea that there are several levels of heaven and that each level has an appointed chief or guardian who rules over it.  This is actually a fairly common theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic and mystical literature (See, for example, the Jewish Hekhalot literature or the Jewish/Christian Ascension of Isaiah).  As one ascends to the throne of God in the highest heaven, one must pass first through the several (usually seven) firmaments or “sub-heavens” before reaching the highest, where God is present. Each level is generally inhabited by a different class of angels, and in many texts, there is a principal angel or guardian who guards the door to the next level and who sometimes is depicted as having his own throne.

Insights from N.T. Wright's Inaugural Lecture: Imagining the Kingdom of God

Last night I had the opportunity to listen to Professor Tom Wright (a.k.a. N.T. Wright) give his Inaugural Lecture as Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity here at the University of St Andrews. Professor Wright has actually been at the university a year now and has previously given major public addresses here, but I guess this one is more official.

I share here my notes from the lecture. Please be aware that the following is based on rather skimpy hand-written notes, and so does not do justice to Wright’s elegant and precise handling of the English language, but I hope I have preserved the thrust of his arguments.  The speech was entitled:  ”Imagining the Kingdom: Mission and Theology in early Christianity.”

Wright begins by outlining how the four Gospels are remarkable documents that are still largely unknown to us. We are failing to understand the thrust of the Gospels. We need to apply our imagination and look beyond the boundaries of the various philosophies that guide our views.

–

(Wright will present a fresh thesis about the Gospels)

The Gospels all tell the story of Jesus as “how God became King.” They are talking about the setting up of a theocracy over the world. Westerners react strongly to the idea of a theocracy, but this is what is meant by the talk of the “Kingdom of God” in the Gospels. The idea was that the kings of the worldly nations would be replaced with God as king. The notion of the Kingdom of God does not relate to a heavenly kingdom alone, as some have thought — we remember Jesus’ desire for things to be “on Earth as it is in Heaven.”

–

Wright suggested that we should understand that the Gospels are biographies and that they do describe life in the early Church, despite the continued claims of some to the contrary. The story of Jesus doesn’t come out of thin air, but is the continuation and climax of the story of Israel. There is narrative continuity here — history may be cyclical, but it is also moving progressively toward an end — the Messianic age. Many Second Temple documents reflect this idea, including Ezra and Daniel. In Daniel, we have the expectation of the coming of the Messiah after 490 years. Different groups had different ways of calculating this. The Essenes expected it to coincide with the time of King Herod’s death. The Rabbis had a different, later calculation.

Heavenly Ascents News

Just wanted to give you a brief update of some things I’ve been doing lately.

I posted (a couple of weeks back now) some material over at The Millennial Star about the reforms of King Josiah and the Deuteronomists and how these reforms may have affected the theological themes found in the Old Testament we read today.  This post is based on material I posted here on Heavenly Ascents a couple of years ago, but I think it’s still worth sharing. You can see it here: http://www.millennialstar.org/the-deuteronomists-and-the-suppression-of-ancient-truths/

I was recently invited to be a contributor at Reviews of Biblical and Early Christian Studies (rbecs.wordpress.com). This website is run by Dan Batovici, PhD student here at the University of St Andrews, and a few other postgrad students at Cambridge and Durham universities. The main purpose of the site is to provide reviews of the latest publications in the fields of Biblical Studies and Early Christian Studies and also to give reports on important seminar presentations given at the respective universities.  I am honored to be able to contribute to this very helpful site.  You can see my first post here. I give a report of Dr Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer’s seminar paper on “The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55”.

Dan and I, along with Beth Tracy and other colleagues here at the University of St Andrews, are organizing a graduate conference that will be taking place in June, entitled “The 1st St Andrews Graduate Conference for Biblical and Early Christian Studies: Authoritative Texts and Reception History.” I will be presenting a paper on the early Christian interpretation of older Melchizedek traditions. You can read more about the conference here.

Did Jesus Deny the Possibility of Heavenly Ascents? (John 3:13)

If so, then maybe I should change the name of my blog!! :)

A few people have been asking me whether I plan to do regular posts on New Testament Sunday School topics, as I had been doing with the OT.  I would have to say that my tentative answer is either “maybe” or “probably not.” While I would love to do so, this semester at school is proving to be my busiest ever and I can’t imagine myself having enough time to dedicate to writing anything that would be worthwhile sharing. However, I do hope to find relevant materials that I can point you to as often as possible.

The content of this post was prepared and sent to me by my friend Dean Hunsaker. I appreciate him taking the time to research this important question.

The Problem of John 3:13

John 3:13

NIV No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

NASB No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

NLT No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.

NRSV No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

KJV And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Is Jesus saying that no one ever has ascended into heaven?

On the Twelfth Day of Christmas: Epiphany

I think some of us Western “low church” Christians (speaking for myself, at least) have always wondered what the “twelve days” of Christmas were all about. I admit that I used to think it must be referring to the twelve days leading up to Christmas. Well, lo, and behold, it is actually the twelve days starting with Christmas! Who wudda thunk that it was the twelve days after Christmas? Well, what are we counting up to if Christmas is only the first day?!  The twelfth day of Christmas is a very important day for many of the more traditional Orthodox Christian faiths — it is the day that marks the Feast of Epiphany, or “Appearance.”

Epiphany, which is traditionally celebrated on January 6 (or the Sunday closest to it), commemorates, with some variations, the visitation of the Magi to the baby Jesus and his recognition as King, which constitutes his appearance/manifestation to the Gentiles.  Furthermore, Eastern Christians celebrate on this day the baptism of Jesus, which was his manifestation (Theophany) as the Son of God.

Some early Christians celebrated three important events on January 6th — Christ’s birth, his baptism, and the marriage at Cana (four events, if you include the visit of the Wise Men).  I find it very interesting that these events were all celebrated conjointly on the one holy day — baptism, birth, acclamation as king, and marriage.  (On this topic, see also my notes from Dr Laurence Hemming’s presentation at SBL here (you have to scroll down), where he connects the 40 days between Christmas and Candlemas (Feb. 2) with the 40-day post-Resurrection ministry of Christ).

While Epiphany marks the end of the Christmas season for many people (many take down their Christmas decorations today), it should also mark a beginning. It celebrates the appearance, the Theophany, the “shining forth” of the Son of God in the world — the manifestation of God’s love for his children here on Earth. Although many of us, who are, alas, not so connected to ancient tradition, generally let this day go by without any special notice, the Epiphany of our Lord Jesus Christ is certainly a concept worth celebrating!

"With Letters of Light": Festschrift for Rachel Elior

In the first post that I put up with notes from SBL, I mentioned that a Festschrift in honor of Rachel Elior was presented to her at a gathering of the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism group. The volume was edited by Daphna Arbel and my former Marquette professor, Andrei Orlov.  You can check it out here:

With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic and Mysticism (Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 2 ; eds. Daphna Arbel and Andrei Orlov, De Gruyter, 2010), forthcoming, $201.00, ISBN 978-3-11-022201-2.

The topics covered in this book are extremely interesting. You can see the Table of Contents here:

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/EkstasisContents.pdf

Like most academic books these days, the price is quite prohibitive (especially if you’re a poor student), but if you are interested in these topics, this looks like one that you won’t want to pass up!

And if you can’t get your hands on a copy yet, you can enjoy Orlov’s contribution to the volume here:

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/kavodazazel.html

SBL Annual Meeting 2010: Biblical Studies Conference in the Buckle of the Bible Belt

I arrived home Wednesday night from the 2010 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia.  This year’s conference was an especially good one, in my experience, at least. I still look back with fondness on my first national SBL meeting in San Diego — the setting alone is hard to beat. However, as my own understanding of the field of biblical studies progresses, I think I gain increasingly more as I attend these conferences. Besides listening to some excellent papers at the various sessions I attended, I was able to meet a good number of scholars and students that share many similar interests with me, and had many great conversations.

I don’t think I’d be able to list all those who I met and talked with (I’m afraid I’d inadvertently leave someone out), but I’ll try to share here what sessions I attended and who I heard give presentations. I hope to follow this up in the near future with what notes I took from these sessions. Unfortunately my notes are not especially extensive this year as the capacity of my laptop’s battery is apparently decreasing (it lasts only 1.5 hours on low-power setting).

You should also check out Jim Davila’s PaleoJudaica.com, where he posts his “RANDOM SBL 2010 REFLECTIONS AND LINKS” — he has links to a number of other blogs by scholars who were at the conference.

Some of the best sessions that I attended were those of the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism group. I have attended the sessions of this group since my first SBL in San Diego (2007), following the lead of my MA advisor, Andre Orlov, and my current supervisor, Jim Davila.  The group’s first session, Saturday morning, focused on reviews of two books: Peter Schafer’s The Origins of Jewish Mysticism and Guy Williams’ The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle — I have read neither of these books, but after listening to the reviews at the session, I am very interested in both.  Although Peter Schafer himself was not there, we heard some well-written reviews from Jim Davila and Seth Sanders. Rebecca Lesses was there, but didn’t give a presentation — not sure what happened there. I posted a link to the text of Davila’s review here.  As I said there, the review was awesome and really took Schafer to task for taking lightly the possibility of real experience/praxis as a background to what was going on in these texts. Davila asked: “Why was Hekhalot literature written?” He explained that it consists of manuals that readers can use to obtain divine revelations, mystical experience, mastery over spirits–ritual practices that were intended to be used. He argued that we must grasp this notion in order to understand these texts–this was point of his book Descenders to the Chariot. Schafer minimizes these elements of the text.

Professor Jim Davila on Christology: Son of God and Son of Man

The title of this post may be somewhat misleading, as what I am posting here is actually Professor Davila’s brief response to Mark D. Roberts’ recent blog posts on Christology at Beliefnet.com.  However, although not extensive in length, his comments are insightful and I thought they’d be interesting to post here.  Following Davila’s comments, I provide some of my own brief thoughts on the matter.

The posts by Roberts that Davila is commenting on can be found here:

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus: Part 1

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus (Part 2)

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus: Part 3

Davila addresses Roberts’ thoughts on Jesus as the Son of God:

Jesus as the Son of God

This piece takes the evidence in directions that I don’t think are entirely warranted, notably here:

If Jesus had openly proclaimed himself as Son of God, his contemporaries would not have thought of this as a claim to divinity. They might have understood only that Jesus was touting his own righteousness. More likely, they would have heard a claim to be the promised Messiah, the human being who would lead Israel to throw the Romans out of God’s land once and for all.

There is plenty of evidence that the phrase “son of God” could mean an angel or a divine being (cf. Job 1, Deuteronomy 32:8). And the assertion earlier in the essay that the Israelite kings were not divinized is debatable. Note that Solomon was enthroned on the throne of YHWH as king according to 1 Chronicles 29:23 and that the king is arguably addressed as God or a god in royal rites in Isaiah 9:5 (Evv 9:6) and Psalm 45:7 (evv. 45:6).

Davila’s comments regarding the Son of Man discussion are also very interesting:

Jesus and the Perplexing Son of Man

The Son of Man in the Judaism of Jesus

The treatment of the Son of Man is good, apart from the discussion of “the one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13:

While still dreaming, Daniel approached one of the divine attendants, asking for the interpretation of the dream. He learned that the four beasts represent four kingdoms that shall dominate the earth. But when the Ancient One finally executes judgment upon the all four beasts, the saints will be exonerated. In fact,

The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them (Dan 7:27).

Therefore, the “one like a son of man” represents the faithful people of God who endure oppression and ultimately share in God’s rule over the earth.

The problem here is that the vision in chapter 7 comes in three parts: the allegorical vision of the four beasts in vv. 1-8 a second vision of the heavenly throne room consisting of God and his angels (who are evidently watching the first vision) in vv. 9-16; and the angel’s interpretation of the allegorical vision in vv. 17-17. The difficulty with Dr. Roberts’s interpretation is that the one like a son of man comes in the second part of the vision. He is a figure in the heavenly throne room, which is “real,” that is, not part of the allegory. The kingdom of God will be given to the Jewish people (“the people of the holy ones of the Most High” in v. 27), but the one like a son of man is not an allegorical representation of them. He is a heavenly figure in his own right, perhaps the angels Michael or Gabriel (who appear elsewhere in Daniel) or – my best guess – the glorified patriarch Enoch.

Daniel 7 is arguably based on Enoch’s ascent vision in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 14), along with Ezekiel chapter 1. In Enoch’s vision he ascends on the clouds and is brought before the throne of God, and it seems likely to me that Daniel had him in mind here. Confirming this, the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) explicitly says in chapter 71 that Enoch is the Danielic Son of Man.

(I am currently teaching a course on the book of Daniel and these matters are near and dear to my heart. For more details on the reading of Daniel 7 given in the previous paragraph, see the magisterial Hermeneia commentary on Daniel by John Collins.)

[…]

————————-

I would just add my own personal note here regarding Davila’s position on the Son of Man. I find his opinion refreshing and exciting — he asserts that the Son of Man figure should not be seen as representing the collective people of Israel (a common view), but as a specific character in the heavenly court. I totally agree with this. Davila chooses to identify this exalted human figure as the patriarch Enoch, which makes great sense in light of what is found in the Book of Enoch (at least parts of which are dated by scholars to have been written at roughly the same time as Daniel) — including, as Davila notes, the fact that Enoch may even be somehow identified with the Son of Man sitting on the throne.

I would, however, mention that, IMHO, it seems that Enoch only becomes identified with the enthroned figure at a certain point, and that the Son of Man figure is initially separate from Enoch until this “mystical union” is accomplished. But what is happening here is very debatable and seems to be interpreted in different ways in later texts. It seems to me that the “one like a son of man” that is enthroned in heaven is, in early Jewish literature, an ideal figure that was understood to be in heaven, having been seated on God’s throne. It appears that he was thought to be either an angel or an exalted human being (if there’s a difference!), but there wasn’t a consensus on who exactly he was. Throughout the literature (and over time), there are a number of different figures that are “plugged into” this Son of Man slot, including Enoch, Adam, Jacob, and others. Davila’s instincts are probably correct in thinking that Enoch would have been the most likely figure to fill this slot in the minds of many Jews at this time. However, I don’t believe that this imagery starts with the Book of Enoch. I think it goes further back to the time of the royal cult of the pre-exilic monarchy and before. Again, I can’t go into it here, but I think the idea that a human-like figure (Son of Man) could be enthroned on God’s throne as his vice-regent is a very ancient notion.