Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T17:21:18.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reimagining Enoch in Sasanian Babylonia in Light of Zoroastrian and Manichaean Traditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2015

Yishai Kiel
Yishai Kiel*
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
*
yishai.kiel@gmail.com

Abstract

The article examines the reception and transmission of traditions about the figure of Enoch/Metatron in Sasanian Babylonia, and particularly the emergence of Metatron speculation in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch, by reading these traditions in light of Zoroastrian and Manichaean reports of the Iranian hero, Yima. The figure of Enoch/Metatron was reimagined and reconfigured by the Babylonian authors so as to resemble local Yima traditions, though the process of translating and repackaging the figure of Enoch in the image of his Iranian counterpart was not merely a conscious act of comparison, in which an analogy is drawn in an attempt to highlight particular aspects common to both figures; it was an expression of a more comprehensive discourse of identification.

Beyond close parallels in the depictions of these figures, the connections between Metatron speculation and the Zoroastrian and Manichaean Yima traditions are supported by an identification of Yima with the son of man implied in two Sogdian fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants. The syncretic atmosphere that pervaded Sasanian culture in general and the Manichaean identification of Yima with the son of man in particular facilitated, and perhaps reinforced, the refiguring of Enoch/Metatron in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch in the image of local Yima traditions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , November 2015 , pp. 407 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 2015 

Introduction

The inquiry into the reception and transmission of Enochic traditionsFootnote 1 in Sasanian Babylonia has raised a number of important questions regarding the endurance and continuity of Enochic discourse from the Second Temple period to late antique Babylonia. The study of the Babylonian manifestations of this discourse has largely centered on the identification of the transformed figure of Enoch with Metatron in 3 Enoch (or the Hebrew Book of Enoch) and the portrayal of Metatron in this work and in several passages in the Babylonian Talmud as a semidivine figure, who sits on a celestial throne, shares the Lord's glory, and bears his name.Footnote 2

According to several scholars, the metamorphosis of Enoch and his God-like characteristics should be viewed as a link in an unbroken chain of Enochic discourse, which bridges the gap between Second Temple literature and later talmudic and mystical expressions.Footnote 3 As Phillip Alexander put it, “We must postulate in consequence an historical link between the hekhalot mystics and the circles which generated the pseudepigraphic Enoch traditions.”Footnote 4 Conversely, Peter Schäfer has recently concluded that the identification of Enoch with Metatron and his semidivine personage should be regarded as the unmistakable product of Babylonian conjectures from the late Sasanian and early Islamic periods, which must be distinguished from earlier Enochic speculation.Footnote 5

According to both sides of this argument, it is fairly clear that the Enoch-Metatron traditions—whether reflecting innovative Babylonian insights or a gradual development from earlier Palestinian attitudes—must be studied in their broader cultural context and not in isolation. Several scholars have attempted, accordingly, to contextualize the figure of Enoch-Metatron within the broader complex of traditions pertaining to the son of man in Daniel and the gospels, the messianic David, and the heavenly Jesus, as well as in relation to the long-debated talmudic discussion regarding “two powers in heaven.” Applying insights from recent developments in the field of Christian heresiology, Daniel Boyarin and Peter Schäfer have independently concluded that the polemic waged in talmudic literature against the belief in Metatron and other manifestations of the “two powers in heaven” doctrine was directed, not against a “wholly other” heretical theology, but rather against a widespread doctrine, one that was part and parcel of “mainstream” rabbinic thought and even upheld by distinguished members of the rabbinic community.Footnote 6

The existence of cultural intersections between the Jewish Babylonian tradition and Christian theology need not surprise us, of course, given the numerous encounters of Jewish Babylonian culture with scriptural, patristic, monastic, and scholastic manifestations of Christianity.Footnote 7 Thus, alongside the debate over the internal continuity of Enochic discourse, scholars have mostly sought to situate the complex of the Metatron traditions in the context of Christian theology pertaining to the son of man and the heavenly Jesus. While the importance of this trajectory for understanding the evolution of the Enoch-Metatron traditions and their reception in Babylonia cannot be gainsaid, the Zoroastrian and Manichaean backdrop of Metatron speculation is conspicuously absent from the scholarly discussion.Footnote 8

Completely aware of this gap, Peter Schäfer explains, “I do not enter here the debate about the possible impact of Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism on rabbinic sources and the Bavli in particular, not because I think there was no such impact (of course, there was), but because I am not interested in antagonistic and dualistic systems as such. I am dealing with sources that raise the possibility of a second divine power next to God in a positive sense, not as a negative and antagonistic force fighting the supreme God. This is why I plump for Christianity.”Footnote 9

The Zoroastrian and Manichaean traditions are, in fact, indispensable for understanding the emergence of Metatron speculation in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch. While Schäfer is correct in his conjecture, according to which the rabbinic discussion of “two powers in heaven” and the perception of Metatron as a semidivine figure have practically nothing to do with “antagonistic” dualism of the type commonly assumed to be inherent in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, the Zoroastrian and Manichaean backdrop of the Jewish Babylonian discussion was simply sought in the wrong place. As will be demonstrated below, the distinct features of the Enoch-Metatron traditions in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch can be significantly illuminated when compared with Manichaean and Zoroastrian traditions from the Sasanian and early Islamic periods concerning the figure of Yima,Footnote 10 the hero of numerous Iranian and Indic myths reported in Sanskrit, Avestan, Pahlavi, New Persian, Sogdian, and Arabic sources.

While the figure of Yima assumed various incarnations, which dynamically evolved over time and across regions and literary corpora,Footnote 11 this article will focus on particular aspects of his character that emerge specifically during the Sasanian period and shed significant light on the evolution of Metatron speculation in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch. We will see that, very much like the figure of Enoch-Metatron in the Jewish Babylonian tradition, Yima is initially perceived as a mortal who was elevated to the divine realm and made king and ruler of the entire earthly and celestial creation. He receives from God the symbols of majesty, is seated on a throne in the seventh heaven, and is ministered to by myriads of kings. Yima is addressed by the epithet Lord of the World, and shares the glory and “fortune” of God. Similarly to Metatron's fate in the Jewish Babylonian tradition, moreover, Yima is ultimately misled by his glorious and divine appearance and misrepresents himself as God and Creator, a sin for which he is severely punished by God.

Between Comparison and Identification

An important feature of the pseudepigraphic genre in general and the Enochic tradition in particular is its tendency to highlight connections between distinct “historical” figures, whether by way of attribution, imitation, or emulation.Footnote 12 The connections addressed here between Enoch-Metatron and Yima are thus, in some respect, an expression of this basic feature. But, how are we to understand the existence of cultural parallels between Yima and Enoch, figures that ostensibly stem from distinct mythical heritages? To this end, two types of discourse may be distinguished: the comparison of distinct figures, in which a limited analogy between them is stressed, whether by the ancient authors themselves or by a critical interpreter, and the identification of such figures. In the first scheme, a figure may be portrayed in the likeness of another figure, so as to underscore certain affinities between them. In the second scheme the figures are not merely compared but also converged, in the sense that they are said to be, or become, identical.Footnote 13

As we shall see, in the course of the reception and transmission of Enochic traditions in Babylonia, Enoch was gradually reimagined and reconfigured by the Jewish Babylonian authors in the image of local traditions pertaining to the Iranian hero, Yima. This reconstruction may reflect a discourse of comparison, that is to say, a conscious activity aimed at highlighting certain affinities between the two figures. However, the process of translating and repackaging the figure of Enoch in the likeness of his Iranian counterpart was not merely an act of comparison on the part of the Babylonian authors, but also an expression of a more comprehensive discourse of identification, informed by contemporaneous syncretic tendencies that pervaded Sasanian culture.

Explicit identifications of Iranian and Semitic mythical figures are known primarily from Islamic authors,Footnote 14 who attempted to interweave the biblical and Iranian accounts of the sacred history they inherited from late antiquity.Footnote 15 To be sure, Shaul Shaked has argued that these tendencies did not originate with the advent of Islam, as the origins of these syncretic attempts can often be traced back to the Sasanian period.Footnote 16 In this context, he outlines two types of syncretistic or harmonizing tendencies found in Arabic historiography: the fusion or weaving of two mythical traditions together and the translation or equation of Iranian and Semitic mythic figures.Footnote 17 The figure of Yima was generally equated by the Muslim authors with that of King Solomon/Solaymān,Footnote 18 although certain authors insinuate that Yima should be identified with the biblical Noah,Footnote 19 thus bringing Yima closer to the period under discussion, that is, the period of the biblical Enoch.

While the extant Arabic literature does not identify Yima with Enoch, the convergence of the two figures emerges from earlier Manichaean works written in Iranian languages. The invocation of Zoroastrian mythological figures in these works generally reflects the attempt on the part of Mani and his followers from the third century onwards to package the Manichaean message in a manner that would be agreeable and familiar to local adherents to Zoroastrianism.Footnote 20 As was pointed out by Prods Oktor Skjærvø, two Sogdian fragments of the Manichaean Book of GiantsFootnote 21 identify Yima with the Manichaean Rex Honoris,Footnote 22 the second of the five sons of the Living Spirit, an association that clearly and unequivocally situates the figure of Yima in the realm of Enochic discourse and its Manichaean reception.Footnote 23 I shall further demonstrate in this regard that the portrayal of Yima in these fragments corresponds to, and perhaps derives from, the description of the son of man in the Similitudes, a figure who is identified later in the same work with Enoch himself.

The Manichaean fragments demonstrate, therefore, that as early as the third century and in geographic proximity to Babylonia—the homeland of Mani and Manichaeism—authors associated with the Enochic tradition engaged in a discourse of identification, as they attempted to syncretize the figures of Enoch and Yima. The identification displayed in these fragments constitutes the cultural backdrop against which I propose examining the parallels between Metatron and Yima. The syncretic atmosphere that pervaded Sasanian culture in general, and the Manichaean identification of Yima with the son of man in particular, facilitated, and perhaps reinforced, the refiguring of Enoch-Metatron in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch in the image of local traditions about Yima.

The attempt to locate—both textually and historically—the intersection of the mythical cycles of Enoch and Yima in the cultural realm of Sasanian Babylonia need not imply the denial of earlier points of connection between the two traditions. In fact, below we will see that there are several points of resemblance between the earlier portrayals of Enoch in Second Temple literature and the character of Yima.Footnote 24 That said, the existence of a basic resemblance between the earlier traditions of Enoch and the figure Yima played a significant role in triggering subsequent attempts by Jewish Babylonian authors to syncretize the mythic biographies of the two figures.

The Rise and Fall of Yima

The basic account of Yima's kingship is given already in the Avesta.Footnote 25 According to Videvdad 2.4–6,Footnote 26 Yima was appointed by the supreme Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazdā, as “protector, guardian, and overseer” of living creatures, a role which he initially carried out successfully.Footnote 27 As king of the golden age,Footnote 28 there is said to have been no death during Yima's reign.Footnote 29 This “immortal” state does not imply, however, that Yima was originally among gods or divine entities, as he is, in every respect, depicted as a human.Footnote 30

The motif of Yima's reception of the symbols of majesty directly from God appears in the New Persian tradition. According to the Persian Rivāyats,Footnote 31 Jamšid was summoned before God and granted kingship over the world, represented by the three symbols of majesty: the ring, the throne, and the diadem.Footnote 32 Other Persian texts explicitly refer to Yima's ascent to heaven and portray his enthronement in the divine, or semidivine, realm. According to a medieval “secular” version of his enthronement attested in the Persian “Book of Kings,”Footnote 33 Yima had a throne made for himself, encrusted with jewels (gowhar), which the demons then lifted up to the sky at his command. Yima sat in the middle of the air, shining like the sun, with the whole world gathered to look at him while scattering jewels on him.Footnote 34

Another important aspect of Yima's character is his luminosity and radiant appearance. The Indic Yama and Iranian Yima are both said to be the sons of a solar figure (Old Indic Vivasvant, Avestan Vīuuaŋᵛhant, “the one who shines far and wide”).Footnote 35 The standing epithet of Yima, xšaēta, which is also the epithet of the sun (huuar-xšaēta) and other luminous celestial beings, has received, however, no obviously correct interpretation.Footnote 36 Prods Oktor Skjærvø has suggested in this regard that since Yima is said to be like the sun to look at among men (huuarə.darəsō ma ṧ iiānąm)Footnote 37 and his life is immortal and “sun-filled” (xᵛanuua ṇ t),Footnote 38xšaēta would seem to refer to the color of the sun (golden or reddish).

Yima is also said to have possessed the divine “fortune” (Avestan xᵛarənah; Pahlavi xwarrah).Footnote 39 Although the exact meaning of this term and its precise mythical significance are somewhat unclear,Footnote 40xᵛarənah appears to denote a luminous quality.Footnote 41 Certain Muslim authors have suggested, along the same lines, that the ending of Yima's name (New Persian Jamšid) -šid means “shine, radiance.”Footnote 42

Yima's radiance was, in fact, so glorious and magnificent that he was eventually deceived by his own appearance to believe that he was God and Creator. Yima's “lie” is first mentioned in the Avesta (Yašt 19.33–34),Footnote 43 although it is not entirely clear from the text what the lie was and whether Yima uttered this lie more than once. Yima's sin and subsequent punishment are elaborated, though, in the Pahlavi and New Persian tradition, in which the lie is explicitly interpreted in terms of hubris and self-proclamation as God and Creator. As a result of this dangerous misrepresentation—both to himself and to others—Yima was deprived of his divine fortune.

This, that Jam, the shining one, son of Wiwangh, who was the most fortunate in this-worldly existence in that work of this-world, and was the preventer of danger and death in all the regions, and was the establisher of agelessness and immortality—[nonetheless] when he was deceived by the lie-demon, then from his [state of] servitude of Ohrmazd he desired the highest lordship. And he attributed to himself the creation of the creatures, and on account of that falsehood he became barred from that brilliance and glory, and he was torn apart by the demons and during that tearing apart he was destroyed by Bēwarasp.Footnote 44

And he [Yima] said: “I created the water, I created the earth, I created the plants, I created the sun, I created the moon, I created the stars, I created the heavens, I created the cattle, I created humanity, I created all the creations of the material world.” And he uttered lies such as must be rejected, such as that he created [the world]. But how he created, this he did not know. And through that false speech, his glory and lordship were then taken away from him, and his body fell into destruction at the hands of the demons.Footnote 45

Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari (838–923), in his History of Prophets and Kings, similarly recalls that Yima was tricked by the devil to believe he is God and to call on people to worship him.Footnote 46 In his Persian translation of this work, Abu ʿAli Moḥammad Amirak Balʿami (tenth century) further elaborates on the devil's deceit: “You [Yima] are the god of the heavens and earth, but you are not aware of it; you were in heavens, you created this earth, you put the heavens in order and came to the earth to straighten the business of the earth, dispense justice, and return to the heavens.”Footnote 47 While Yima is said to have ascended from earth to heaven, where he was appointed lord of all creatures and gained possession of the divine fortune, the devil leads Yima to believe that he is, in fact, the Creator himself who descended from heaven to earth in order to rule the world and dispense justice.

Syncretizing Enoch and Yima in the Manichaean Tradition

Although the Manichaean tradition complements the Zoroastrian and Islamic reports, by providing additional biographical information about Yima comparable with Babylonian Enochic traditions, the significance of the Manichaean evidence lies, first and foremost, in its syncretic discourse. In this context, Enoch (as the son of man) is not merely said to share certain characteristics with Yima; rather, the two figures (along with their mythical heritage) are identified and converged.

Two Sogdian fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants contain stories about the enthronement of Yima (Sogdian Yami): one in which he is given diadems and the other in which he is described as Lord of the World, before whom all the other kings assemble on New Year's Day.

… they brought five diadems in homage,
and Yima accepted their diadems.
And those … who … and great kingship …
was …
And on … them … and good name
[=cheers] …
And from those good … he placed the
diadem on his headFootnote 48 … [people] of the
world …Footnote 49
… because of […] and the house of the
Gods and eternal joy and good *fame
(?).
For so it is [being] said: At that time
Yima was [king?] in the world.
And on New *DayFootnote 50 the *lords of the
world all assembled … every …Footnote 51

The mention of Yima in Manichaean fragments of the Book of Giants raises the obvious question of which figure in the Manichaean mythology is represented or signified by this Iranian hero. Prods Oktor Skjærvø demonstrated that several features of the mythical Yima agree with those of the Manichaean Rex Honoris (Sogdian smān-xšēδ), the second of the five sons of the Living Spirit, who sits on a throne in the seventh heaven, rules the entire creation, and watches over the heaven and the earth.Footnote 52 He further suggests that Sogdian xšēδ in the name of the Rex Honoris stems from the standing epithet of Yima, xšēd (Avestan xšaēta; Middle Persian Jam(x)šēd; New Persian Jamšid).

Beyond the identification of Yima with the Manichaean Rex Honoris, it must be borne in mind that Mani's Book of Giants was essentially modeled on the early Enochic tradition.Footnote 53 This raises the question as to which figure in the early Enochic tradition may be invoked by Mani's references to Yima and the Rex Honoris. To solve this part of the puzzle, Skjærvø suggested that Yima and the Rex Honoris correspond to the figure of God in 1 Enoch. He therefore surmises that the Sogdian fragments describing the majesty of Yima ought to be placed in correlation to 1 Enoch 9:4, in which the majesty of God and his glory are similarly described.Footnote 54

While the Manichaean convergence of Yima and the Rex Honoris is indeed compelling, the identification of this integrated Irano-Manichaean figure with the God of 1 Enoch remains unconvincing, mainly since it is assumed that the person of Rex Honoris/Yima derives his majestic authority from, and is enthroned by, the Living Spirit.Footnote 55 It would seem, therefore, that the figure of Rex Honoris/Yima must correspond to a glorious, majestic, and God-like person in the Enochic tradition, who is, nonetheless, second to God. It is rather likely that this figure is, in fact, the son of man (later revealed to be Enoch himself),Footnote 56 whose portrayal in the Similitudes is reminiscent of the Manichaean description of Rex Honoris / Yima.

There I saw one who had a head of days, and his head was like white wool. And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man; and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angels of peace, who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, about that son of man—who he was and whence he was [and] why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered me and said to me, “This is the son of man who has righteousness, and righteousness dwells with him. And all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal; for the Lord of Spirits has chosen him, and his lot has prevailed through truth in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever. And this son of man whom you have seen—he will raise the kings and the mighty from their couches, and the strong from their thrones. He will loosen the reins of the strong, and he will crush the teeth of sinners. He will overturn the kings from their thrones and their kingdoms, because they do not exalt him and praise him, or humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was given to them”.Footnote 57

And in that hour that son of man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name, before the Head of Days … All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship before him …Footnote 58

Although textual remnants of the Similitudes were not found at Qumran, this is little reason to conclude that this text was not part of the early Enochic tradition, upon which Mani had modeled his work, but simply a late Christian replacement, as suggested by several scholars.Footnote 59 The correspondence, artfully demonstrated by Reeves, between Aramaic fragments from Qumran and Iranian fragments of Mani's Book of Giants, hardly excludes the possibility that Mani relied on other sectarian or nonsectarian manifestations of the early Enochic traditionFootnote 60 and that his literary repertoire included traditions concerning the majestic traits of the son of man that were incorporated into the Similitudes. This does not necessarily mean that Mani borrowed directly from the Similitudes, but simply that he was, in all likelihood, familiar with parts of its literary tradition.

The connections between the biographies of Yima and Enoch must be sought not merely in the realm of analogous discourse, but also, and perhaps more significantly, in the discursive realm of syncretic identification. Indeed, the syncretic language entrenched in Manichaean mythology impels us to adopt a discourse of identification when we attempt to reconstruct the complex relationship between the Iranian Yima, the Manichaean Rex Honoris, and the Enochic son of man. Significantly, the syncretic attempts to identify the figures of Yima and Enoch (via the son of man)Footnote 61 can be located, both chronologically and temporally, in the realm of Sasanian Babylonia (and its adjacent regions), the homeland of Mani and Manichaeism.

While the Jewish Babylonian refiguring of Metatron in the likeness of Yima does not explicitly engage Iranian terminology (as opposed to the Manichaean texts, which clearly situate Yima in the context of the Enochic tradition), Metatron speculation cannot be detached from the broader syncretic tendencies exhibited in contemporaneous and adjacent cultures. Thus, the Iranian Manichaean discourse and its syncretic identification of Yima with the son of man must be addressed as part and parcel of our examination of the Metatron traditions in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch.

From Enoch to Metatron

Based on the ambiguous biblical references to Enoch's disappearance and his “walking with God,”Footnote 62 several ancient exegetes presumed that Enoch was either “transferred,” “lifted up,” or somehow “taken” by God, but that he did not die. The figure of Enoch was thus associated with immortality from early on in the Jewish tradition.Footnote 63 It is not until the Similitudes (1 Enoch 37–71), however, that Enoch was transfigured into an angelic being and ostensibly identified with the son of man,Footnote 64 a figure which he had seen earlier in his vision.Footnote 65 The so-called Slavonic Book of Enoch is more explicit in asserting that Enoch “had become like one of the glorious ones and there was no observable difference [i.e. between him and the angels]” (2 Enoch 22:10).Footnote 66

By identifying Enoch with the son of man, the author of the Similitudes asserts that Enoch is in fact the one who will “overturn the kings from their thrones and their kingdoms” (1 Enoch 46:5).Footnote 67 While I agree with Philip Alexander and Daniel Boyarin that the equation of Enoch with the son of man in the Similitudes facilitated the transformation of Enoch into Metatron in the later work of 3 Enoch, there seems to be something quite different about Enoch's later role as Metatron according to the Jewish Babylonian tradition. It is in this later context that God places Enoch on a glorious throneFootnote 68 similar to his own and appoints him ruler over all heavenly and earthly creatures. He provides him a kingly robe and a majestic diadem and names him the Lesser God (YHWH ha-katan).

R. Ishmael said: Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence, said to me: After all this, the Holy One, blessed be he, made for me a throne like the throne of glory, and he spread over it a coverlet of splendor, brilliance, brightness, beauty, loveliness, and grace, like the coverlet of the throne of glory, in which all the varied splendor of the luminaries that are in the world is set. He placed it at the door of the seventh palace and sat me down upon it.Footnote 69

R. Ishmael said: Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence, said to me: Out of love which he had for me, more than for all the denizens of the heights, the Holy One, blessed be he, fashioned for me a majestic robe, in which all kinds of luminaries were set, and he clothed me in it. He fashioned for me a glorious cloak in which brightness, brilliance, splendor, and luster of every kind were fixed, and he wrapped me in it. He fashioned for me a kingly crown in which forty-nine refulgent stones were placed, each like the sun's orb, and its brilliance shone into the four quarters of the heaven of ʽArabot, into the seven heavens, and into the four quarters of the world. He set it upon my head and he called me the Lesser YHWH in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, “My name is in him.”Footnote 70

The resemblance of these descriptions of Metatron to contemporaneous portrayals of Yima in Zoroastrian and Manichaean sources is difficult to deny. While the earlier Enoch bears perhaps some resemblance to Yima,Footnote 71 the full-blown figure of Metatron as described in 3 Enoch and the Babylonian TalmudFootnote 72 seems to be more intimately connected with the Iranian traditions about Yima. To wit, both Metatron and Yima are imagined to be humans who ascended to heaven and gained immortality and angelic status; both are appointed rulers over the entire creation; they receive the symbols of majesty (a robe, throne, and crown) from God; their glory or radiance resembles the divine; they share God's name and attributes; and they are acknowledged as lords by myriads of kings or angels.Footnote 73

Iranian Loanwords as a Cultural Trigger

According to B. Sanhedrin 38b,Footnote 74 in response to a question posed by a heretic (מינא), Rav 'Idit suggests that the instruction given to Moses to ascend to YHWH (“And to Moses he said: Come up to YHWH” [Exodus 24:1]) refers, in fact, to his ascent to Metatron, who shares the name YHWH with God.Footnote 75 After a brief give-and-take between Rav 'Idit and the heretic, Rav 'Idit concludes: “We maintain by oath that we would not accept him [Metatron] even as a parvanka.” It was correctly observed by Michael Sokoloff that the term parvanka is in fact the Persian word parwānag, which denotes in this context a guide or a leader.Footnote 76 The use of this loanword in this particular talmudic context functions as an important linguistic link between the Babylonian narratives of Metatron and the figure of Yima.

The assumption that Metatron may somehow function as a guide or a leader stems from the explicit reference to the biblical angel (Exodus 23:20–21), who is supposed to protect the Israelites and guide them to the Promised Land. In this context, Rav 'Idit expresses the notion that Metatron must not be accepted even in this limited capacity as a guide and leader, let alone as a second divine person. The choice of a Persian loanword in this context is noteworthy, however, insofar as it opens a window onto the Iranian background of the talmudic narrative and urges us to interpret and contextualize it in this framework.

Elsewhere, I have argued that the study of Iranian terminology in the Babylonian Talmud must not be limited to a linguistic and etymological investigation.Footnote 77 The editorial choice to use a specific Persian loanword,Footnote 78 rather than Aramaic or Hebrew terminology, often conveys broader structures of meaning, which may not be evident at first sight. In this regard, Persian words often function in the Babylonian Talmud as trigger-words, eliciting a broader range of cultural possibilities.

In the present context, the different interpretations of Metatron's role in B. Sanhedrin 38b—his “thin” description as a guide or leader and his “thick” description as a God-like angel—both of which are rejected by Rav 'Idit, can be significantly illuminated when read against the backdrop of the Yima traditions. By using the term parwānag to describe the role of Metatron, the authors consciously engage the broader cultural implications associated with the term in its Iranian context. Thus, it may be proposed that the talmudic text consciously engages the traditions of Yima and the ambiguity surrounding the bounds of his authority.

As we have seen, according to Videvdad 2.4–6, Yima is assigned the relatively minor role of “protector, guardian, and overseer” of living creatures—comparable with Metatron's description as a guide and guardian angel, while the later traditions colorfully portray his majestic and divine characteristics, akin to the portrayal of Metatron as a glorious and God-like figure. It would seem, therefore, that the talmudic reference to the Pahlavi term parwānag captures and engages the dual capacity of Yima as guide and protector, on the one hand, and as a majestic and God-like figure, on the other.Footnote 79

Metatron and 'Aḥer

The most well-known talmudic passage concerning Metatron tells the story of his conspicuous encounter with the archheretic Elisha ben ’Abuyah (B. Ḥagigah 15a). Upon the ascent of ’Aḥer (lit. the “other”) to heaven, he sees Metatron sittingFootnote 80 in heaven, and utters: “It is taught that above there is no standingFootnote 81 and no sitting, no jealousy and no rivalry, no napeFootnote 82 and no weariness. Perhaps, God forbid, there are two powers?”Footnote 83 This puzzling passage has raised a number of textual and interpretive difficulties, some of which cannot be addressed here in any detail.Footnote 84 Philip Alexander suggested that the version attested in MS Munich 95, which leaves the reason for 'Aḥer's error inexplicable, is the lectio difficilior and thus the original version of the text. The later versions seized on the element of sitting, which appears in the quotation, and interpreted 'Aḥer's mistake in the light of the idea that angels are not supposed to sit.Footnote 85

That the mention of sitting is only secondary seems rather implausible, not only because this reading relies on the evidence of MS Munich 95 against more reliable textual witnesses, but mainly because the posture of sitting appears to be absolutely crucial for understanding 'Aḥer's mistake. I agree, therefore, with Daniel Boyarin and Menahem Kister, who view the posture of sitting as representing Metatron's authority and sovereignty and therefore as the crux of 'Aḥer's dangerous confusion.Footnote 86

According to most textual witnesses, when 'Aḥer encounters Metatron he sees that “permission [רשותא]Footnote 87 had been given to him to sit down for one hour a day and write down the merits of Israel.”Footnote 88 While the term reshuta clearly refers, in its immediate context, to the permission that was given to him to sit down, Daniel Boyarin has pointed out that a fascinating word play is at stake, as the Hebrew term reshut and the Aramaic equivalent reshuta also refer to authority, power, and sovereignty. The latter meaning is clearly invoked when 'Aḥer utters: “perhaps, there are two powers [שתי רשויות].”Footnote 89 It is, therefore, the sovereignty and authority of Metatron that ’Aḥer encounters, expressed by his posture, which ultimately misleads him to mistake Metatron for God.

A much more coherent version of the encounter of 'Aḥer and Metatron is given in 3 Enoch. Here, the following story is related:

But when 'Aḥer came to behold the vision of the chariot and set eyes upon me [i.e. Metatron], he was afraid and trembled before me. His soul was alarmed to the point of leaving him because of his fear, dread and terror of me, when he saw me seated upon a throne like a king, with ministering angels standing beside me as servants, and all the princes of kingdoms crowned with crowns surrounding me. Then he opened his mouth and said: “There are indeed two powers in heaven!”Footnote 90

The relationship between the different versions of the 'Aḥer narrative attested in 3 Enoch and the Babylonian Talmud has been subject to much scholarly debate.Footnote 91 Without addressing the question of precedence and literary dependence, suffice it to point out in this regard that the implicit talmudic allusion to the sovereignty and authority of Metatron can be fully comprehended only in light of more explicit descriptions of his glorious and magisterial throne.Footnote 92 This does not necessarily indicate that the authors of the talmudic version relied on 3 Enoch, but simply that the two versions are intrinsically connected.

It has been suggested that, in contrast to the talmudic version, which seems to downplay the authority of Metatron and minimize his likeness to God, the purpose of the Enochic version is to validate Metatron speculation.Footnote 93 It seems, however, that both versions of the story attempt to devalue Metatron in one way or another,Footnote 94 as both versions stress the punishment of Metatron for misrepresenting himself as God and leading 'Aḥer astray. The Talmud relates that “they led Metatron forth and flogged him with sixty fiery lashes,”Footnote 95 while 3 Enoch asserts that an angel came at the command of the Holy One and “struck me [Metatron] with sixty lashes of fire and made me stand on my feet.”Footnote 96 The punishment in 3 Enoch, to be sure, stands in direct correlation to the sin: Metatron misrepresented himself as God by sitting (on a throne) and was eventually forced to symbolically rise. Nevertheless, even if the authors of the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch intended to downplay the role of Metatron by describing his punishment in relative detail, the fact that 'Aḥer was in fact misled to believe that Metatron is God underscores his sovereignty and magnetic appearance. In other words, precisely the need to critically downplay the power of Metatron conveys the notion of his overwhelming power.

It is not merely the glorious enthronement of Metatron, his authority over heavenly and earthly creatures, his seat in the heights of the seventh heaven, and his majestic symbols of lordship that connect the Jewish Babylonian tradition with the Zoroastrian and Manichaean descriptions of Yima, but also the description of his sin and subsequent punishment. Unlike the heavenly Jesus, both Yima and Metatron are found guilty of misrepresenting themselves as God and as a result they are cast down from their glorious thrones and, quite symbolically, struck by another heavenly creature.

There are also, to be sure, several differences between the narratives of Yima and Metatron. To mention one example, unlike Metatron, who is accused of conveying the wrong impression to 'Aḥer, Yima himself is deceived by his majestic and glorious appearance into believing he is God and Creator. This and other dissimilarities notwithstanding, the portrayal of Metatron in the Babylonian tradition is so comprehensively akin to contemporaneous descriptions of Yima that it is difficult to believe that the two figures were not associated in the minds of the Babylonian authors. While the existence of literary affinity is not, in itself, indicative of genealogical dependence, the Manichaean evidence strongly suggests that a more comprehensive discourse of identification is at stake.

Prince of the World

In addition to the Metatron traditions, the Babylonian Talmud refers to an obscure prince of the world (sar ha-ʽolam) on three separate occasions.Footnote 97 While this figure is nowhere explicitly identified with Metatron or Enoch, such an identification is compelling for several reasons.Footnote 98 The link associating the prince of the world with Enoch-Metatron is mainly the fact that the unique epithet “young” (naʽar) is attributed to both figures, presumably in reference to the fact that Enoch was regarded as the youngest angel. Peter Schäfer further noted in this context that an angel named Prince of the World appears in 3 Enoch. Although this figure too is not explicitly connected with Metatron, the way he is described and the tasks assigned to him make this identification rather likely.Footnote 99 Here is the discussion of B. Yevamot 16b:

R. Shmuel b. Naḥmani said in the name of R. Yonatan: The following verse was uttered by the Prince of the World: “I have been young and now I am old” [Psalms 37:25]. For who else may have said it! If the Holy One, blessed be he, be suggested, is there old age in his case? Then David must have said it? But was he so old? Consequently it must be concluded that the Prince of the World had said it.Footnote 100

In Re'uyot Yeḥezkel a certain prince (sar) is similarly described as follows:

And what is there in zevul [in the third heaven]? R. Levi said in the name of R. Ḥama bar ʿUkba, who said in the name of R. Yoḥanan: The Prince [ha-sar] does not dwell anywhere but in zevul and he is the very fullness [or essence] of zevul. And before him are thousands of thousands of myriads of myriads who minister to him. Of them it was said by Daniel [7:9]: “As I watched, thrones were set in place [and the Ancient of Days took his seat].” And what is his name? … Elazar Nadwadya said: Metatron,Footnote 101 like the name of God [gevurah; lit. “the power”].Footnote 102

While the date and provenance of Re'uyot Yeḥezkel is much debated among scholars,Footnote 103 it has been suggested by Peter Schäfer that the identification of the anonymous prince in our passage as Metatron may very well be a late, and perhaps Babylonian, addition.Footnote 104 The prince in Re'uyot Yeḥezkel thus appears to shed light on the identity of the talmudic sar ha-ʽolam and to firmly connect this figure to the complex of the talmudic and mystical traditions of Metatron. If the talmudic sar ha-ʽolam and Metatron are conceived of as related or proximate figures,Footnote 105 then the passages relating to sar ha-ʽolam further highlight the universal and magisterial authority of Metatron, characteristics that, as we have seen, were shared by the Iranian Yima.

Early Analogies

As demonstrated, the traditions surrounding the figures of Metatron and Yima—especially the motifs of their enthronement and receipt of majestic symbols; their acquisition of supreme lordly position; their partaking in the glory of the divine; their dangerous resemblance to God; their ultimate sin of misrepresentation and its dreadful consequences—were syncretized and converged in the cultural realm of Sasanian Babylonia. It is particularly in this cultural atmosphere that Enoch became so curiously similar to his Zoroastrian and Manichaean counterparts. As mentioned, attempts to identify, syncretize, and harmonize the figures of Yima, the Rex Honoris, and the son of man of the Similitudes are evident already in Manichaean fragments of the Book of Giants, which circulated in the early Sasanian period (from the third century onward). Similar tendencies are reflected in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch, in which the figure of Metatron is portrayed, both theologically and terminologically, in the likeness of local Zoroastrian and Manichaean depictions of Yima.

But what is it about Enoch that motivated his identification with Yima in the first place? Arguably, the emergence of a syncretic tradition in Sasanian Babylonia that identifies the persons of Enoch and Yima presupposes the existence of, at least, a basic resemblance of the two figures, which predated the harmonizing attempts. In other words, one would expect to find some degree of affinity between the earlier figure of Enoch, as he emerges from Second Temple literature, and the Iranian Yima. This does not necessitate, of course, the dependence of the early Enochic tradition on Iranian literature. It may merely be posited that the fundamental resemblance of Yima and the earlier figure of Enoch provoked the attempts of later Jewish Babylonian authors to syncretize and identify the two figures.

The affinity between the early Enoch and Yima is seen in certain characteristics of Enoch that unfold already in Second Temple literature: both Enoch and Yima were regarded as a mythic prefiguration of human repentance; both were associated with the sun and the solar calendar; both were correlated with the New Year celebration; and both were associated with endless and divine wisdom.

The connections of Yima with the sun and the solar calendar were already discussed in detail. Yima was originally (i.e. in the Indo-Iranian stage) believed to have originated from a solar figure; he was luminous and radiant; he was described by the epithet xšaēta, which was shared with the sun; and he was enthroned on the New Year festival. Also connected with this motif is the idea that Yima possessed ultimate knowledge, which he taught to humankind.Footnote 106

From early on, Enoch was similarly associated with wisdom, the sun, and the solar calendar. Having entered heaven alive, Enoch was assumed by many ancient exegetes to have acquired knowledge of “heavenly things,” including natural and practical wisdom. James Kugel collected several traditions depicting Enoch as a heavenly scribe, who wrote down the wisdom he acquired for the sake of generations to come. Other traditions depict him as a wise man or as a sage, who possessed knowledge of various things and, in particular, of astronomy and astrology.Footnote 107 The tradition concerning Enoch's wisdom stems from the exegetical assumption that while he was in heaven he must have acquired celestial wisdom. Another component of this motif is that according to Genesis 5:23 Enoch lived exactly 365 years,Footnote 108 a number associated with the sun and, therefore, with wisdom.Footnote 109

In the course of a rabbinic critique of Enoch, seeking to demonstrate that he was not a righteous man who ascended to heaven, but, in fact, a wicked man who was killed by God, Bereshit Rabbah records a tradition according to which Enoch was judged on New Year's Day (Rosh Ha-shanah).Footnote 110 Although the New Year is regarded as a time of judgment for all creatures,Footnote 111 it may be the case that Enoch's judgment in particular is associated with the New Year because of his connection to the solar calendar. Be that as it may, the connection of both Enoch and Yima to the sun and the solar calendar is clearly not reflective of a genealogical dependence of the early Enochic tradition on Iranian traditions, as solar figures are commonplace in ancient cultures. These early connections may simply have contributed to the later interweaving of the biographies of Enoch and Yima evident during the Sasanian period.

Another element that links the early Enochic tradition with the figure of Yima is the motif of repentance. In several ancient sources, mostly of an Alexandrian provenance (the Greek version of Ben Sira, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo) we find the motif of “Enoch the Penitent.”Footnote 112 James Kugel assumed in this regard that the exegetical basis for the development of this motif is Genesis 5:21–22 (“Enoch walked with God after he became the father of Methuselah for three hundred years.”), which seems to imply that Enoch became righteous only after he fathered Methuselah, but not before. Thus, according to the Greek version of Ben Sira, “Enoch pleased the Lord, and was taken up; he was an example of repentance [metanoia] to all generations.”Footnote 113

A similar role was reserved for Yima, who is said to have been a mythic exemplar of repentance. A fascinating articulation of this notion appears in the ninth-century work, Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg.

[It is] revealed that repentanceFootnote 114 is something so valuable and worthy that Zarathustra asked Ohrmazd: “Show me the soul of him who was most active in the human body in the world.” Ohrmazd summoned the soul of Jam from the northern direction.Footnote 115 He was approaching on [his] knees and elbows and he was covered by a torn garment which had holes on all sides. And he was wearing clothes [worthy] of the sinful. And, because of his shame in the presence of Ohrmazd, he sat twelve paces away from Ohrmazd. Zarathustra said: “O Ohrmazd, who [is] this who sat [twelve paces] away [from you] because of his shame in your presence?” And Ohrmazd said: “This [is] Jam son of Wīwanghān.”Footnote 116

* * * * *

In the course of the transmission of Enochic traditions in Babylonia, the figure of Enoch was reimagined and reconfigured by the Babylonian authors so as to resemble local traditions pertaining to the Iranian hero Yima. The process of translating and repackaging the figure of Enoch in the image of his Iranian counterpart was not merely a conscious act of comparison on the part of the Babylonian authors, in which an analogy was drawn so as to highlight particular aspects common to both figures, but rather an expression of a more comprehensive discourse of identification.

Very much like the reconstructed figure of Metatron in the Jewish Babylonian tradition, Yima is perceived in the Zoroastrian and Manichaean sources as a mortal who was elevated to the divine realm and made lord of the entire creation. He receives from God majestic symbols and is seated on a throne in the seventh heaven, presiding over the entire earthly and celestial creation. He is ministered to by myriads of kings, is addressed by the epithet Lord of the World, and shares the glory of God. Like Metatron in the Jewish Babylonian tradition, moreover, Yima was ultimately misled by his glorious and divine appearance to believe he was God and Creator, a sin for which he was severely punished.

The connections between Metatron speculation and the Zoroastrian and Manichaean Yima traditions are further supported by the identification of Yima with the son of man implied in two Sogdian fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants. In view of this evidence, I suggest that the syncretic atmosphere that pervaded Sasanian culture in general and the Manichaean identification of Yima with the son of man in particular facilitated, and perhaps reinforced, the refiguring of Enoch in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch in the image of local traditions pertaining to Yima.

References

1. I use this term in the limited sense of “traditions pertaining to the figure of Enoch” (as opposed to the corpus associated with his name) without presuming a continuous, static, and unbroken discourse throughout the ages.

2. The literature on the Enoch-Metatron traditions is vast. See e.g. Joseph Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism and Esotericism: Ancient Times (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2008), 2:641–677; Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, trans. George Lichtheim (New York: Schocken, 1946), 68–69; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkavah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1960), 41–42; David J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 420–427; Nathaniel Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 27–47; Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, SJLA 25; (Leiden: Brill, 1977); Idel, Moshe, “Enoch is Metatron,” Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 220–240Google Scholar; idem, “Metatron: Notes towards the Development of Myth in Judaism,” ʾEshel Beʾer-Sheva 4 (1996): 29–44Google Scholar; idem, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, Kogod Library of Judaic Studies (London: Continuum, 2007); Alexander, Philip S., “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28 (1977): 156–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 18 (1987): 40–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morray-Jones, Christopher, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition: Alexander's Three Test Cases,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 22 (1991): 1–39Google Scholar; Stroumsa, Guy G., “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ: For Shlomo Pines,” Harvard Theological Review 76 (1983): 269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Boyarin, Daniel, “Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010): 323–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peter Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 103–149; Kister, Menahem, “Metatron, God, and the ‘Two Powers’: The Dynamics of Tradition, Exegesis, and Polemic,” Tarbiz 82 (2014): 43–88Google Scholar.

3. See for instance Idel, Ben, 46, 160; Alexander, “Historical Setting”; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 333–335; Orlov, “Enoch-Metatron,” 99–100.

4. Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 160.

5. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 13–15, 103–149. Schäfer's argument, in a nut shell, is that the vast majority of the Metatron passages are found either in the Babylonian Talmud or in 3 Enoch, a work that appears to have reached its final form in Babylonia. The Babylonian provenance of the Metatron traditions is also corroborated by the extraliterary evidence, as Metatron plays a significant role in the Babylonian incantation bowls.

6. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 103–149; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 323–365 (See especially 326 n. 6, in which Boyarin traces the development from his earlier position in Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religions [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004].)

7. Different aspects of Christian impact on the Babylonian Talmud were discussed in Gafni, Isaiah M., “Ḥiburim Nestorianim ke-makor le-toldot yeshivot Bavel,” Tarbiz 51 (1982): 567–576Google Scholar; Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Jewish-Christian Conversation in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia: A Reconstructed Conversation, Judaism in Context 12 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011); eadem, Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 129–238; eadem, “Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noah's Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, ed. Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay (Lovanii: Peeters, 1997), 57–71; Shlomo Naeh, “Freedom and Celibacy: A Talmudic Variation on Tales of Temptation and Fall in Genesis and Its Syrian Background,” in Frishman and Van Rompay, Book of Genesis, 73–89; Becker, Adam H., “The Comparative Study of ‘Scholasticism’ in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East Syrians,” AJS Review 34 (2010): 91–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007); idem, Jewish Jesus, 1–20; and cf. the review of the former by Kalmin, Richard in Jewish Quarterly Review 99 (2009): 107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holger M. Zellentin, “Margin of Error: Women, Law, and Christianity in Bavli Shabbat 116a–b,” in Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity, ed. Eduard Iricinschi and Holger M. Zellentin (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 339–363; Michal Bar-Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

8. The absence of scholarly discussion regarding the relevance of the Zoroastrian and Manichaean traditions to Metatron speculation is particularly surprising in light of the recent interest in the field of Irano-talmudic studies. For a brief history of the field, see Herman, Geoffrey, “Ahasuerus the Former Stable-Master of Belshazzar, and the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: Two Parallels between the Babylonian Talmud and Persian Sources,” AJS Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar (esp. 283–288); Secunda, Shai, “Reading the Bavli in Iran,” Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 2 (2010): 310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elman, Yaakov, “Up to the Ears in Horses' Necks: On Sasanian Agricultural Policy and Private ‘Eminent Domain,’” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 3 (2004): 95–102Google Scholar.

9. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 276 n. 21. Similar remarks to that effect can be found in Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism, 2:642.

10. Some of the different forms of the name include Avestan Yima, Vedic Yama, Middle Persian Jam/Jamšed, and New Persian Jamšid. Comprehensive treatments of the myths of Yima are provided in Prods Skjærvø, Oktor, “Jamšid I: Myth of Jamšid,” Encyclopedia Iranica 14:501–522 (updated online April 10, 2012)Google Scholar; Götz König, Die Erzählung von Tahmuraṯ und Ğamšid: Edition des neupersischen Textes in Pahlavi-Schrift (MU 29) nebst zweier Parallelfassungen, Iranica 14 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008).

11. Thus, for instance, in the Avesta Yima is said to have ruled the world during the golden age; he saved the good creation from a flood by preserving samples of it in his var- (fortress); he possessed the divine fortune (Avetsan xvarǝnah; Pahlavi xwarrah) among mortals; he lost his fortune and kingship as a consequence of lying; and he was cut in half by an evil being. The Pahlavi literature preserves additional myths about Jam: he was enthroned on the New Year festival (nowruz); He had a twin sister named Jamag; his sin consisted of hubris; he propagated the “good measure” (paymān); and he defeated the demon-king Dahāg. Persian literature contains stories about Jamšid saving his brother Tahmuraṯ from Ahriman; his discovery of the healing powers of bull's urine (gōmēz); Jamšid as a cultural hero; and so on. See Skjærvø, “Jamšid,” 501–522; Shaul Shaked, “First Man, First King: Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism and Iranian Mythological Transformations,” in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution, and Permanence in the History of Religions, Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ed. Shaul Shaked et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 238–256.

12. For recent discussions of the meaning of pseudepigraphic attributions, see Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Najman, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez, ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 529–536; eadem (with Itamar Manoff and Eva Mroczek), “How to Make Sense of Pseudonymous Attribution: The Case of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” in Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 308–336.

13. Stanley Cavell, Must We Mean What We Say? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 78–80; Hindy Najman, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 58–59. I am indebted to Hindy Najman for elucidating this important methodological distinction and for generously sharing her work with me.

14. A related phenomenon is the reception of Greco–Roman mythical figures in Syriac and Arabic literature, see Kevin van Bladel, The Arabic Hermes: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science, Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 23–63. And see Kiel, Yishai, “Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra,” Journal of Religion 95, no. 1 (2015): 36 n 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Such attempts were also made by medieval Zoroastrian authors, who sought to improve their social standing by identifying their heritage as part and parcel of the monotheistic tradition, thus rendering themselves eligible for the status of ahl al-kitāb (people of the book). Thus, for example, several authors identified Zarathustra with Abraham: see Russell, James, “Our Father Abraham and the Magi,” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 54 (1987): 56–67Google Scholar; Daniel Sheffield, “In the Path of the Prophet: Medieval and Early Modern Narratives of the Life of Zarathustra in Islamic Iran and Western India” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2012), 52–83; Wheeler M. Thackston, The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisāʼī (Boston: Twayne, 1978), 136–150. An alternative crosscultural identification was proposed by several Greek Christian authors, who sought to identify Zarathustra with the biblical figure Nimrod, see Wilhelm Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (1907, reprinted Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 377; van der Toorn, Karel and van der Horst, Pieter W., “Nimrod before and after the Bible,” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 1 (1990): 1–29 (esp. 26–27)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kiel, “Abraham and Nimrod,” 35–50.

16. Shaked, “First Man, First King,” 245: “It seems, however, possible to assume that they [the Iranians] had already made it earlier, at the time of the Sasanians, in order to harmonize their traditions with those of their Semitic neighbors. The process of syncretistic adaptation of Iranian materials to the surrounding Semitic world may have begun long before the advent of Islam.”

17. Shaked, “First Man, First King,” 252–253. The latter tendency includes, for example, equating the Iranian Gayōmard with the biblical figure of Adam. This association is explicitly made by Masʽūdī, quoted in Arthur Christensen, trans., Les types du premier homme et le premier roi dans l'histoire légendaire des Iraniens, Archives d’études orientales 14.1–2 (Stockholm and Leiden: P.A. Norstedt, 1917–34), 194.

18. There are several affinities between Yima and Solomon, which provoked the identification of the two figures. Most notably, the reign of Yima, his advocating the “right measure” (paymān), and his association with the demons, were compared with the biblical and rabbinic narratives about Solomon. See for instance: Ibn Qotayba Dinavari, Ketāb al-maʿāref, ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Ibn Coteiba's Handbuch der Geschichte (Göttingen: Andenhöck und Ruprecht, 1850), 320; Abu Ḥanifa Dinavari, Aḵbār al-ṭewāl, ed. Vladimir Guirgass (Leiden: Brill, 1888), 9; Moṭahhar b. Ṭāher Maqdesi, Ketāb al-badʾ wa'l-taʾrikò, ed. and trans. Clément Huart as Le livre de la création et de l'histoire (Paris: Leroux, 1899–1919), 3:46–48, 106–109. Ibn al-Nadim does not identify the two figures but points out that some say Solaymān was the first to make the demons his subjects, while others say it was Jamšid, see: Ibn al-Nadim, Ketāb al-fehrest, ed. Gustav Flügel (Leipzig: Vogel, 1871–72), 309; Bayard Dodge, trans., The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 727. For a summary see Skjærvø, “Jamšid.” And see Yishai Kiel, “The Usurpation of Solomon's Throne by Ashmedai (bGit 68a-b): A Talmudic Story in Its Iranian Context,” Irano-Judaica 7, ed. Shaul Shaked and Julia Rubanovich (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, forthcoming).

19. There are several affinities between Yima and Noah, which triggered the identification of the two figures. Most notably, both figures are associated with a mythic flood; Yima's var- (fortress) to which he brought samples of all species of the good creation is comparable with Noah's ark; Yima's gift of meat to mankind is reminiscent of Noah's sacrifice, by which mankind was allowed to eat meat, and so on. Masʽūdī records a tradition, according to which the flood occurred during the reign of Yima. See Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille, trans., Les Prairies d'or, revised and corrected by Charles Pellat (Paris: Société Asiatique, 1962–71), sec. 536. Maqdesi says that Jamšid lived at the time of Noah (ed. and trans. Huart, 3:23–25). For a summary see Skjærvø, “Jamšid.” For the Zoroastrian version of the flood story (Videvdad 2) see Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 70–75; Moazami, Mahnaz, “The Legend of the Flood in Zoroastrian Tradition,” Persica 18 (2002): 55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jason M. Silverman, “It's a Craft! It's a Cavern! It's a Castle! Yima's Vara, Iranian Flood Myths, and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions,” in Opening Heaven's Floodgates: The Genesis Flood Narrative, Its Contexts and Reception, ed. Jason M. Silverman, Biblical Intersections 12 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013), 191–230.

20. Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Iranian Elements in Manicheism: A Comparative Contrastive Approach: Irano-Manichaica I,” in Au carrefour des religions: Hommages à Philippe Gignoux, ed. Gyselen, Rika, Res Orientales 7 (1995): 263–284Google Scholar; idem, “Iranian Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants: Irano-Manichaica III,” AOASH 48, no. 1–2: Zsigismond Telegdi Memorial Volume, ed. Eva Jeremias (Budapest: Akad Kiadó, 1995 [1997]), 187–223. A fascinating example of a three-way Manichaean/Zoroastrian/Semitic identification is the Manichaean Third Messenger (Syriac izgaddā, Latin tertius legatus, Middle Persian narēsahyazad), who was identified with the Zoroastrian god Nēryōsang (Avestan Nairyō Sangha), on the one hand, and the Semitic Ēl, on the other hand. See Sundermann, Werner, “Ēl as an Epithet of the Manichaean Third Messenger,” JSAI 26 (2002): 172–175Google Scholar.

21. Mani's Book of Giants was composed in the third century and is attested mainly in Iranian languages (Manichaean Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian). In other words, as far as we know, the work was only transmitted in the eastern Manichaean tradition. See Werner Sundermann, “Giants, the Book of,” Encyclopedia Iranica, 10:592–594 (updated online February 9, 2012); idem, “Mani's Book of Giants and the Jewish Books of Enoch: A Case of Terminological Difference and What It Implies,” in Irano-Judaica 3, ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994), 3:40–48; John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992); Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic.”

22. This is the Latin form for the “King of Honor”; Syriac: . Cf. Aramaic (Dead Sea Scrolls): מלכא רבא דאיקרא.

23. On the connections between Mani's Book of Giants and the Enochic tradition see below in greater detail.

24. For example, both figures are regarded as mythical exemplars of human repentance; both are associated with the sun and the solar calendar; both are associated with the New Year celebration; both are associated with celestial wisdom; and both are linked to immortality. The similarities between Yima and the earlier traditions of Enoch reflect, for the most part, analogous connections, which do not necessitate any kind of exchange or genealogical dependence (I refer here to the concept of analogous and genealogical connections in the sense discussed by Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and Religions of Late Antiquity [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990], 46–53).

25. Videvdad 2.5–6, in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 71: “Then beautiful Yima answered me: I shall accept to be the protector, guardian, and overseer of your herds. Under my command there shall be no cold or heat, no illness or destruction. Then I gave him two tools: a golden pick and a gilded goad. Thus Yima possessed two commands.” Yašt 19.31–32, in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 113: “The Fortune followed splendid Yima with good herds for quite a long time thereafter; so that he ruled on the sevenfold earth, over evil gods … he deprived the evil gods of sheep and herds, satisfaction and glorification.” On Yašt 19 in general see Jean Kellens, “Langues et religions indo–iraniennes: de la naissance des montagnes à la fin du temps: le Yašt 19,” in Annuaire du Collège de France 1997–1998: résumé des cours et travaux (Paris: Collège de France, 1998), 737–765; idem, “Langues et religions indo-iraniennes: Promenade dans les Yašts à la lumière de travaux nouveaux (suite),” in Annuaire du Collège de France 1999–2000: résumé des cours et travaux (Paris: Collège de France, 2001), 721–751.

26. The Videvdad is a Zoroastrian work in Young Avestan composed (or rather “crystalized”) orally at some point during the first half of the first millennium BCE. On the name of the Videvdad see especially: Émile Benveniste, “Que Signifie Vidēvdād,” in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, ed. Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch (London: Lund Humphries, 1970), 37–42. And, in general, Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “The Videvdad: Its Ritual-Mythical Significance,” in The Idea of Iran: The Age of the Parthians, ed. Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Sarah Stewart (London: Tauris, 2007), 105–162.

27. His subsequent sin and punishment will be discussed below.

28. The concept of the golden age is connected to the notion of metallic substances (often gold, silver, copper, and iron) representing the unfolding of history. This motif is known from the book of Daniel, the book of Revelation, Hesiod, the Iranian Zand ī Wahman Yasn, and other ancient works, and numerous studies were devoted to its various manifestations. For the Iranian version see Dan Shapira, “Studies in Zoroastrian Exegesis: Zand” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998), 154; Yuhan S. D. Vevaina, “Miscegenation, ‘Mixture,’ and ‘Mixed Iron’: The Hermeneutics, Historiography and Cultural Poesis of the ‘Four Ages’ in Zoroastrianism,” in Revelation, Literature and Community in Late Antiquity, ed. Phillipa Townsend and Moulie Vidas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 237–270.

29. Yasna 9.5: “Under Yima the *brave's command, there was no cold, no heat, there was no old age, no death, no envy set in place by the daēuuas” (based on an unpublished translation by Prods Oktor Skjærvø).

30. By comparison, according to the Rigveda, Yama was regarded as immortal or among the immortals (Rigveda 1.83.5: yamásya jātám amṛˊtamṟ) and he became a king “at the barrier of the sky” (Rigveda 9.113.8). His realm of the dead, the abode of the “fathers,” was originally in highest heaven (Rigveda 10.14.8: paramé vyòman) and only later underground. See Skjærvø, “Jamšid.”

31. The Persian Rivāyats are collections of questions addressed by the Zoroastrian community in India to the religious leadership in Iran during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and the responses they received. The Persian Rivāyats are much later than the Pahlavi Rivāyats (dated to the ninth to tenth centuries), but often preserve much earlier traditions. For an edition of some of the Persian Rivāyats see Ervad Bamanji Nusserwanji Dhabhar, The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others: Their Version with Introduction and Notes (Mumbai: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1932).

32. Trans. in Arthur Christensen, Les types du premier homme et le premier roi dans l'histoire légendaire des Iraniens, Archives d’études orientales 14.1–2 (Leiden: Brill, 1934), 2:60–67. Compare the tools Yima receives according to Videvdad 2.6.

33. The Šāh-nāma (“Book of Kings”) is a long epic poem written by the Persian poet Firdausī between the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. For a recent discussion of the Pahlavi precursors of this work, see Yuhan S. D. Vevaina, “‘The Ground Well Trodden, But the Shah Not Found…’: Orality and Textuality in the ‘Book of Kings’ and the Zoroastrian Mythoepic Tradition,” in Orality and Textuality in the Iranian World: Patterns of Interaction across the Centuries, ed. Julia Rubanovich (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 169–190.

34. Abu'l-Qāsem Ferdowsi, Šāh-nāma, ed. Djalal Khaleghi-Motlagh (New York: Bibliotheca Persica, 1987), 1:44, verses 48–55.

35. Videvdad 19.28.

36. Jean Kellens, “Langues et religions indo-iraniennes: Promenade dans les Yašts à la lumière de travaux nouveaux (suite),” 727 n. 7.

37. Yasna 9.4.

38. Yasna 9.1.

39. Yasna 9.4: “Yima the radiant with good herds, the most fortunate [=endowed with the divine royal Fortune] among those born, like the sun to look at among men” (based on an unpublished translation by Prods Oktor Skjærvø).

40. For a summary of scholarship see Gherardo Gnoli, “Farr(ah),” Encyclopedia Iranica 9:314–315 (updated online December 15, 1999).

41. Skjærvø, “Jamšid.”

42. See for instance: Abu'l-Fedā ʿEmād-al-Din Esmāʿil, al-Moḵtaṣar fi aḵbār al-bašar, ed. Henricus Orthobius Fleischer as Abulfedae Historia anteislamica; Arabice, e duobus codicibus Bibliothecase regiae Parisiensis (Leipzig: Vogel, 1831), 66–69. Reference from Skjærvø, “Jamšid.”

43. Yašt 19.33–34: “That was before, when he [Yima] had not yet lied, before this one insidiously brought him the word Deception, for him to understand (the world?) as it not really was.… After that, the Fortune, now visible, ran away from him in the form of a bird” (trans. in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 113).

44. Dādestān ī Dēnīg 38.19–20. Cf. Mahmoud Jaafari-Dehaghi, ed. and trans. Dādestān ī Dēnīg, Part 1: Transcription, Translation and Commentary, Studia Iranica 20 (Paris: Association pour l'avancement des études iraniennes, 1998), 158–159.

45. The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg 31a10. Cf. Alan V. Williams, ed. and trans., The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, 2 vols., The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters: Historisk-filosofiske meddelelser 60 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1990), 1:136–137, 2:57.

46. Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari, Taʾ riḵ al-rosol wa'l-moluk, ed. Michaël Jan De Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 1:182; trans. Franz Rosenthal, The History of al-Ṭabari (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1985–2007), 1:351. For the references in this footnote and the following one, I am indebted to Prods Oktor Skjærvø.

47. Abu ʿAli Moḥammad Amirak Balʿami, Tāriḵ-e Balʿami, ed. Moḥammad-Taqi Bahār (Tehran: Zavār, 1962), 131; rev. ed., ed. Moḥammad Parvin Gonābādi (Tehran: Zavār, 2000), 89; Hermann Zotenberg, trans., Chronique de Tabari traduite sur la version persane d'Abou-ʿAli Mohammad Balʿami (reprinted Paris: Maisonneuve, 1958), 1:104.

48. A similar expression appears in the Paikuli inscription: dēhēm sar bast “bound the diadem to his head.” See Helmut Humbach and Prods Oktor Skjærvø, The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983), pt. 3.1, 29; pt. 3.2, 26.

49. Kaw Sogdian V, p. 2, in Walter B. Henning, “The Book of the Giants,” BSOAS 11 (1943): 52–74 (esp. 74); reprinted in idem, Selected Papers II, Acta Iranica 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 115–137 (esp. 137). Translation follows Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 203.

50. Sogdian nawí m[ēθ], which corresponds with the Iranian festival now ruz (Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 204). Skjærvø notes that this term is also found in a Manichaean letter with New Year's greetings, all of which echoes closely Ferdousi's account in the Book of Kings of the beginning of Jamšid's reign (ed. Khaleghi-Motlagh, 1:41). On the connection of Yima (and Enoch-Metatron) to the celebration of the New Year, see below.

51. Kaw Sogdian V page 1, in Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 203–204.

52. Another Sogdian fragment (M178ii 106–111; Walter B. Henning, “A Fragment of the Manichean Cosmogony,” BSOAS 12 [1948]: 312–313) describes the Rex Honoris as follows: “After that, the Living Spirit (Wēšparkar) evoked the Lord of Honor (smānxšēδ). And they sat him upon a throne in the seventh heaven and made him lord and ruler of all ten heavens.” See Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 204–207.

53. Following the lead of Milik, Reeves has demonstrated that Mani faithfully followed the Aramaic version of the story, part of which is found in the Enoch fragments at Qumran. See, for instance, Jozef T. Milik ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976); Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony, 51–164; Sundermann, “Mani's Book of the Giants,” 40–48. Guy Stroumsa, on the other hand, has argued for gnostic mediation: Guy A. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 153 and throughout.

54. Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 204; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 82.

55. Prods Oktor Skjærvø suggested to me, however, that since mythical characters can easily be “split” when adopted and adapted, there is no reason to reject the possibility that Yima represents both God and other semidivine figures at one and the same time (private communication).

56. On the son of man in the Similitudes see recently a number of articles conveniently collected in Gabriele Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 153–259, and see below in greater detail.

57. 1 Enoch 46:1–5, translation follows George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 59–60. And cf. Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 48.

58. 1 Enoch 48:2, 5 (Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 62; cf. Black, Book of Enoch, 49).

59. For a compelling argument to that effect, see Greenfield, Jonas C. and Stone, Michal E., “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977): 51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenfield and Stone, “The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch,” Numen 26, no. 1 (1979): 89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More recently, see James H. Charlesworth, “The Date and Provenance of the Parables of Enoch,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Darrell L. Bock, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Series, ed. James H. Charlesworth (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 37–57; Darrell L. Bock, “Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht,” in Charlesworth and Bock, Parables of Enoch, 58–113.

60. For the question of the sectarian or nonsectarian nature of the Similitudes, see recently P. Piovanelli, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and Mighty Who Possess the Earth’: The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch,” in Boccaccini, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 363–379; Daniel Boyarin, “Was the Book of Parables a Sectarian Document?: A Brief in Support of Pierluigi Piovanelli,” in ibid., 380–385. And cf. Greenfield and Stone, “Enochic Pentateuch.”

61. Alongside the incorporation of the heavenly Enoch (identified with the son of man) into the Manichaean system, the earthly Enoch too played a significant role in Manichaeism, insofar as he was perceived by Mani as a link in the chain of prophetic succession (which typically included Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, and Mani himself). For the different variants of the prophetic list, see John C. Reeves, Heralds of the Good Realm: Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 7–17.

62. Gen. 5:24: “Enoch walked with God; and then he was gone, because God had taken him” (ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים ואיננו כי לקח אותו אלהים); Gen. 5:22: “Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah” (ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים אחרי הולידו את מתושלח).

63. A number of traditions concerning the disappearance of Enoch are collected and discussed in James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 173–174; Levi Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968), 5:156–157; Devorah Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 14–29; James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQ Monograph Series 16 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984); Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 9–28. For some of these traditions see, e.g., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:85, 9:28; Philo, Change of Names 38; Jubilees 10:17; Septuagint to Gen. 5:24; 1 Enoch 14:8–25. A rabbinic polemic against the notion of Enoch's “elevation,” insisting that Enoch did in fact die, is found in Bereshit Rabbah, Bereshit, par. 25:1, to Genesis 5:24 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 238), and see also Targum Onkelos to Gen. 5:24: “And Enoch walked in the fear of the Lord, and he was not, for the Lord had killed him” ('והליך חנוך בדחלתא דיי', ולייתוהי, ארי אמית יתיה יי). A positive rabbinic depiction of Enoch is found in Vayikra Rabbah, ’Emor, par. 29:11, to Leviticus 23:24 (ed. Margulies, pp. 680–681) and parallels. For rabbinic attitudes towards Enoch, see Martha Himmelfarb, “A Report on Enoch in Rabbinic Literature,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, SBLSPS 13 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 259–269 (esp. 262); Ephraim E. Urbach, Ḥazal: Pirkei 'emunot ve-deʾot (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1969), 295; Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 124–140.

64. 1 Enoch 71:14: “You are that son of man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you” (Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 95; cf. Black, Book of Enoch, 68). For a recent discussion of this identification and its problems, see Helge S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Boccaccini, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 179–215. For a source–critical approach to the problem and the suggestion that the identification of Enoch and the son of man stems from a secondary addition, see John Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chiala and Helge Kvanvig,” in Boccanccini, Enoch and the Messiah, 221–227. See also Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 333; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 292 n. 13. And see the cautious stance taken in Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 48 n. 20.

65. For the connections between this description and Daniel 7:13, see Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 70–85; Sabino Chiala, Il libro delle Parabole di Enoc: Testo e commento (Brescia: Paideia, 1997), 303–340; John Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304–310.

66. 2 Enoch 22:10, in Francis I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 139. On the figure of Enoch according to 2 Enoch see, in general, Orlov, Enoch-Metatron, 148–202.

67. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 60.

68. Compare, however, 1 Enoch 62:5.

69. 3 Enoch 10: 1–2, in Philip Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 263–264.

70. 3 Enoch 12:1–5, in Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 265.

71. The analogies between the early Enoch and Yima will be addressed below in greater detail.

72. In contrast to 3 Enoch, the Babylonian Talmud does not address the transformation of Enoch into the angel Metatron or the identification and convergence of the two figures (although we will see that, at least in certain talmudic passages, this may be implicit). Rather, the Babylonian Talmud sketches, in a number of passages, the “mature” figure of Metatron. Notwithstanding several important differences, which will be discussed below, the basic description of Metatron in 3 Enoch as God's viceroy, who sits on a glorious throne and rules the celestial and earthly creatures, emerges from the Babylonian Talmud as well.

73. While these God-like characteristics are reminiscent of the heavenly Jesus, seated on a throne in heaven on the right hand of God, we shall see below that, unlike the heavenly Jesus who is indeed of divine nature, Metatron and Yima are charged with misrepresenting themselves as God and are severely punished.

74. Recent interpretations of this passage include, Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 329–333; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 104–115; Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 74–83.

75. Rav 'Idit's assertion that God's name is borne by Metatron indicates that it is God who told Moses to ascend to Metatron (aka YHWH) and not that Metatron told Moses to ascend to God as suggested by several traditional exegetes. See Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 291–292 n. 8.

76. Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 929. Cf. Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 75, who applies the more common use of the term in the sense of “messenger, agent.” See also David N. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 65, s.v. parwānag. Prods Oktor Skjærvø informs me that this term is typically used in Zoroastrian and Manichaean texts of gods/demons who lead to paradise/hell (private communication).

77. Yishai Kiel, “Redesigning Tzitzit in the Babylonian Talmud in Light of Literary Depictions of the Zoroastrian Kustīg,” in Shoshanat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, ed. Shai Secunda and Steven Fine (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 190–192 (185–202).

78. The use of Persian loanwords was definitely not the choice of the medieval scribes, who copied the extant textual witnesses. On the contrary, the scribes tend to replace obscure Persian terminology with decipherable Aramaic words. See for instance Rosenthal, David, “ʽArakhim nosafim la-milon ha-talmudi (3),” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 219–225Google Scholar, with regard to the replacement of the Persian term arzānīg in most textual witnesses.

79. While I was unable to find the term parwānag explicitly linked to Yima in the extant Iranian literature, there is little doubt that parwānagīh (guidance, leadership) is in fact the essence of the role assigned to him by God (see Videvdad 2.4: “Accept to be the protector, guardian, and overseer of my herds,” in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 71).

80. The motif of Metatron's sitting appears in all textual witnesses of B. Ḥagigah 15a, with the exception of Munich 95. In some textual witnesses (namely, Oxford - Bodl. heb. d. 63 (2826) 31–32 and Vatican 171), this motif is further emphasized later on in the narrative, when Metatron is asked: “Why, when you saw him (i.e. Elisha), did you not rise before him?” Cf. the interpretation of Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 297 n. 94, based on Septimus, Dov, “Ḥetʾo shel Metatron: bisvaḥ leshonot ve-nusḥaʾot,” Leshonenu 69 (2007): 292 (291–300)Google Scholar.

81. The idea that there is no standing in heaven appears in most textual witnesses, but as correctly noted by several scholars, this further complicates the interpretation of ’Aḥer's error. See Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 297 n. 92; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 346–347. Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 68, argues that the mention of “no standing” is indeed the more accurate reading according to the textual witnesses, but this does not imply that it was part of the original talmudic tradition.

82. That is, since they have faces on all sides, they have no nape. See Rashi, ad loc.; Bereshit Rabbah, Bereshit, par. 49:7, to Genesis 18:22 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 505); Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 66.

83. B. Ḥagigah 15a.

84. See the detailed discussion in Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 63–73.

85. Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 54–66; Idel, “Enoch,” 225.

86. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaism,” 349–350; Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 71.

87. The term “permission” appears in most textual witnesses, except for the Oxford fragment (Oxford-Bodl. heb. d. 63 (2826), 31–32), which reads: חזייה למיטטרון דמתיהבא לה חדא שעתא ביומא ויתיב כתיב להו לזכואתא דישראל (he saw that Metatron was given one hour a day, in which he sat and wrote down the merits of Israel).

88. B. Ḥagigah 15a.

89. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 350; Alon Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: The Rabbinic Invention of Elisha ben Abuya and Eleazar ben Arach (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 110.

90. 3 Enoch 16:2–3, in Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 268.

91. For the position that 3 Enoch is later and dependent on the talmudic version, see for example: Ephraim E. Urbach, “The Traditions about Merkabah Mysticism in the Tannaitic Period,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion, Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, ed. Ephraim E. Urbach, Raphael J. Z. Werblowsky, and Chaim Wirszubski (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 1–28; Alexander, “3 Enoch.” For the opposite position, see for example Christopher Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition”; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 349–351. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 130, argues that “both version supplement each other and presumably draw from a common source.”

92. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 349, suggests that the talmudic version deliberately obliterates the throne found in the Enochic tradition, so as to delegitimize Metatron speculation, and yet maintains the notion of sitting, representing his sovereignty and authority. Notably, however, a deliberate attempt on the part of the talmudic authors to eliminate Metatron's throne would altogether obscure 'Aḥer's mistake.

93. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 349.

94. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 298 n. 103.

95. B. Ḥagigah 15a.

96. 3 Enoch 16:5, in Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 268.

97. B. Yevamot 16b; B. Ḥullin 60a; B. Sanhedrin 94a.

98. Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism, 2:651–654; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 123–125; cf. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 48–50.

99. Peter Schäfer, with Margarete Schlüter and Hans G. von Mutius, eds., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 47, 56; Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 243; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 124–125.

100. B. Yevamot 16b.

101. Compare the identification of this figure with Michael, the Great Prince (ha-sar ha-gadol) in B. Ḥagigah 12b.

102. Gruenwald, Ithamar, “Re'uyot Yeḥezkel,” Temirin 1 (1977): 101–139 (128–131)Google Scholar; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 116–117.

103. See for instance Gruenwald, “Re'uyot Yeḥezkel,” 101–102; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 267–277.

104. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 116–123.

105. I would like to thank Steven Fraade for suggesting this articulation, which underscores the notion that the two figures need not be identical or synonymous.

106. See for instance Šāh-nāma (ed. Khaleghi-Motlagh, 1:41–43); Persian Rivāyats, trans. in Christensen, Les types du premier homme, 2:66–68.

107. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 174–178.

108. Steven Fraade suggested that this number is connected to the solar calendar promoted in Qumran and Enochic literature (private communication). See his “Theory, Practice, and Polemic in Ancient Jewish Calendars,” Dine Israel 26–27 (2009–2010): 147–181.

109. Certain scholars have stressed the connection between Enoch's solar characteristics and Mesopotamian sources. The primary basis for these connections has been the suggestion that the genealogy of Genesis 5 bears some resemblance to a Mesopotamian list of kings who lived before the flood (“The Sumerian King List”). While Enoch appears as the seventh generation from Adam in the genealogy of Genesis 5, the Mesopotamian tradition identifies the seventh king as a certain Enmeduranki, a figure associated with the sun god, Shamash, and with heavenly wisdom. While the connections between the biblical Enoch and the Mesopotamian list were largely called into question, the association of Enoch with the sun is indeed manifest in Scripture. For a discussion of the Mesopotamian connections see, e.g., Hartman, Thomas C., “Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 28, 34; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 191–192; Helge S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, WMANT 61 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988).

110. Bereshit Rabbah, Bereshit, par. 25:1, to Genesis 5:24 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 238).

111. See e.g. M. Rosh Ha-shanah 1:2.

112. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 177–179, 193–194.

113. Greek version of Ben Sira 44:16, trans. in Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 178. See also Wisdom of Solomon 4:10–14; Philo, Questions and Answers in Genesis 1:82; idem, On Abraham 17; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 1:15–16.

114. On repentance in Zoroastrianism, see: Jes P. Asmussen, X uāstvānīft: Studies in Manichaeism (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1965), 26–112; Kiel, Yishai, “The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 22 (2012): 119–135Google Scholar; idem, “Penitential Theology in East Late Antiquity: Talmudic, Zoroastrian, and East Christian Reflections,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014): 551–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115. Hell is located in the north.

116. The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg 31a1–7 (ed. Williams, 2:57), and cf. Dādestān ī Dēnīg 38.21 (ed. Jaafari, 158–161): “And he asked forgiveness from the Creator who is most beneficent. And in atonement for having abandoned the service of the Creator he informed and advised those who came after him.”