Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:43:57.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Origen, Ezekiel's Merkabah, and the Ascension of Moses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

David J. Halperin
David J. Halperin
Affiliation:
assistant professor of religion in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The issue of Origen's relations with contemporary Judaism has attracted considerable attention, particularly in the past decade. There seems to be little question that Origen produced the bulk of his extensive exegetical work during the years he lived, taught, and preached in the Palestinian coastal city of Caesarea, from about 232 to his death between 251 and 255, and that Caesarea was a major intellectual center of rabbinic Judaism at that time. It is also generally agreed that Origen had frequent exchanges with Jews, friendly consultations as well as public debates; that Origen's writings suggest reasonable acquaintance with contemporary Jewish belief and practice; and that biblical exegeses known to us from rabbinic sources appear in the commentaries and homilies of Origen.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 1981 , pp. 261 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Literature on Origen and Judaism published before 1970 is listed in Crouzel, Henri, Bibliographie Critique d'Origène (Brugge, 1971);Google Scholar see the index, pp. 650–651. Since 1970 see: Urbach, Ephraim E., “The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 247–275;Google ScholarBietenhard, Hans, Caesarea, Origenes, und die Joden (Stuttgart, 1974);Google ScholarLange, Nicholas R. M. de, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, 1976);Google ScholarWasserstein, Abraham, “Midraš Yehudi ʾEsel Oʾrigenes” [A rabbinic midrash as a source of Origen's homily on Ezekiel], Tarbiz 46 (1977): 317–318Google Scholar (on In Ezech. Horn. 4. 8); Kimelman, Reuven, “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 567–595.Google Scholar De Lange provides a particularly fine comprehensive study.

2. I presented this paper at the American Academy of Religion meeting in New York, 16 November 1979, as part of a session on “Christianity in Palestine” convened by Professor Robert C. Gregg (Duke University). Professor Gregg, Professor John H. Schütz (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), and Professor Peter S. Zaas (Hamilton College) read earlier drafts of the paper and offered valuable comments and suggestions. Professor Joseph W. Trigg (Rice University) shared his knowledge of Origen with me.

3. See Danielou, Jean, The Angels and Their Mission (Westminster, Md., 1957).Google Scholar

4. Nautin, Pierre, Origène: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1977), pp. 389–409,Google Scholar dates all of Origen's homilies to a three-year period early in the Caesarean phase of his career (238–241 or 239–242) and argues that the homilies on the Old and the New Testaments were delivered concurrently. Homily 1 on Ezekiel and Homily 27 on Luke (discussed below) may therefore be nearly contemporary and neither need be more than a few years later than Book 6 of the Commentary on John (see below, n. 13). The homilies on Ezekiel and Luke survive, apart from fragments, only in Jerome's Latin translation. The question of the translation's reliability, while always present, is not as acute as it is in the works translated by Rufinus.

I discuss the term merkabah and the related måaśeh merkabah in Halperin, David J., The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven, 1980), pp. 23–26.Google Scholar

5. This is a familiar theme of Origen's; for example, see Hanson, Richard P. C., Allegory and Event (London, 1959), pp. 335–341.Google Scholar

6. According to a Greek fragment, probably of the beginning of Homily 1. 5 (Origen, Origenes Werke [hereafter cited as OW], Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 8. 329). Compare Baehrens's, W. A. introduction to this volume (OW 8. xl–xli).Google Scholar

7. “Novus annus imminet iam Iudaeis …’ (Origen, Homily 1. 4 [OW 8. 329]). “Fuit quippe Adam in paradiso, sed serpens captivitatis eius causa exstetit et fecit ut eiceretur sive de Hierusalem sive de paradiso et veniret in locum hunc lacrimarum” (Origen, Homily 1. 3 [OW 8. 326]). Compare Genesis Rabbah 19:9 (Theodor, Julius and Albeck, Chanock, eds., Bereschit Rabbah, 2d ed., 3 vols. [Jerusalem, 1965] 1: 178–179)Google Scholar and parallels, attributed to “R. Abbahu in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina.” The latter individual was a prominent Caesarean scholar, a younger contemporary of Origen. The former was R. Jose b. Hanina's disciple, also a Caesarean.

8. I have translated the text of OW 8. 331–332.Google Scholar

9. Origen, De Principiis. 2.3.6; idem, Contra Celsum. 6. 19–21. Ginzberg, Compare Louis, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern (Amsterdam, 1899), p. 12.Google Scholar

10. For the denial, see Origen, , Contra Celsum 1. 48.Google Scholar Compare ibid., 6. 4; Origen, , De Principiis 1.1.19,Google Scholar 2.4.3; and fragments of Origen, , Commentary on John on 1:31 and 1:51 (OW 4. 499–501, 567).Google Scholar

11. I have translated the text in Origen, , Origène: Homélies sur S. Luc, ed. Crouzel, Henri, Fournier, Francois, and Périchon, Pierre (Paris, 1962), p. 348,Google Scholar with the aid of the French translation on p. 349.

12. According to Max Rauer's apparatus (OW 9. 171), one manuscript places et before quem while another manuscript and the printed editions place et before resurrectionis. The former variant perhaps may reflect an effort to avoid the implication of a second gift of the Spirit. If quem quidem et dedit does no more than supplement the preceding qui ad se venerat— “which had come to him, and which he also gave”—it is surely gratuitous after the preceding ut…tribueret nobis Spiritum.

13. I have translated the text in Origen, , Origène: Commentaire sur Saint Jean, ed. Blanc, Cécilc (Paris, 1970), 2: 348–352,Google Scholar with the aid of the French translation on pp. 349–353. Book 6 of the Commentary on John was certainly begun after Origen had left Alexandria (6. 1–12).Google ScholarNautin, , Origène, pp. 377–380,Google Scholar suggests it was composed in Caesarea about 235.

14. Compare Danielou, , Angels, pp. 37–40.Google Scholar According to Danielou, the application of Psalm 24 to the Ascension goes back prior to Justin Martyr, but the invocation of Isaiah 63—which gives the account of Christ's triumphal ascent its martial quality—is Origen's innovation.

15. Luke 12:50 is applied to the passion by Tertullian, (De Pudicitia 22. 10;Google ScholarDe Baptismo, ch. 16), Cyprian, (Ep. 73. 22),Google Scholar and by Origen, himself (De Martyrio 30; In Lib. Jud. Hom. 7. 2).Google Scholar The ending of Clement, Stromata 5. 6 offers a remote parallel to the conception found in the Commentary on John, but the reference seems to be to the “gnostic” rather than to Christ; compare Méhat, André, Étude sur les ‘Stromales’ de Clement d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1966), p. 465.Google Scholar

16. Justin, First Apology, ch. 32; idem, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 54; Tertullian, , Ado. Marc. 4. 40;Google ScholarClement, , Paedagogus 1. 6;Google Scholar Hippolytus, fragment on Gen. 49:11 (trans. Stewart D.F. Salmond, Ante-Nicene Christian Library 6. 411). Clement and Hippolytus attest a further equation of the wine/blood with the Word. Compare Origen, , In Lev. Horn. 7. 2;Google Scholar Cyprian, Ep. 63. 7; Novatian, De Trinitate, ch. 21.

17. “Lavit ergo in vino—id est in sanguine suo—stolam suam in vesperam et factus est mundus. Et inde fortassis erat quod post resurrectionem Mariae volenti pedes eius tenere dicebat: noli me tangere” (OW 6. 424). The reference to evening is presumably based on a combination of Lev. 16:26 with, for example, Lev. 11:28. On its application to the passion, compare Origen, , In Ex. Hom. 7.Google Scholar 7. Origen's subsequent allusion to a fuller celestial purification of Jesus (“Ut…adscenderet ad patrem ibique plenius apud altare illud coeleste purificaretur,” ibid., pp. 425–426) may well refer to the heavenly baptism in the Commentary on John. Neither Gen. 49:11 nor John 20:17 is invoked at this point.

18. Compare In Ex. Hom. 11. 7 on Exod. 19:15, and the use made of John 20:17 in the Pseudo-Titus Epistle (in Hennecke, Edgar, ed. New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vols. [Philadelphia, 1964], 2: 154).Google Scholar

19. In De Oratione 23. 2 and Dialogue with Heracleides 8, Origen interprets John 20:17 along two entirely different lines, neither of which introduces the issue of purification. Joseph Crehan's attempt to harmonize the latter text with the Commentary on John is not convincing. Crehan, Joseph, “The Dialektos of Origen and John 20:17,” Theological Studies 11 (1950): 368–373,CrossRefGoogle Scholar is followed by Henri-Charles Puech and Hadot, Pierre, “L'Entretien d'Origène avec Héraclide et le Commentaire de Saint Ambrose sur l'Evangile de Saint Luc,” Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959): 229–233.Google Scholar

20. For example, Targum to Ezekiel 1; Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 13b.

21. The edition of Ithamar Gruenwald, Rêuyot Yebezgel [The visions of Ezekiel], in Temirin, ed. Israel Weinstock (Jerusalem, 1972), 1: 101–139Google Scholar hereafter cited as Gruenwald, Visions), supersedes all previous publications. Gruenwald provides an introduction and an exhaustive commentary. The free English translation provided by Jacobs, Louis, Jewish Mystical Testimonies (New York, 1977), pp. 27–31,Google Scholar must be used with caution.

22. Scholem, Gershom, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1960), pp. 44–45;Google ScholarGruenwald, , Visions, p. 102;Google Scholaridem, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden, 1980), pp. 134–141.

23. Halperin, , Merkabah, pp. 78–79;Google Scholar compare Marmorstein, Arthur, “A Fragment of the Visions of Ezekiel,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 8(1917–1918): 374–375.Google Scholar

24. This would explain the midrash's meticulous attention to the first verse of the chapter which is not even part of the merkabah vision proper. Compare Strack, Hermann L., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia, 1931), pp. 204–205;Google Scholar and, as an example, the midrash to the lection Dibre Yirmeyahu (Jer. 1:1ff.) in Pesiqta deRab Kahana (Mandelbaum, Bernard, ed., Pesikta de Rav Kahana, 2 vols. [New York, 1962], 1: 225–239).Google Scholar The structurally cognate “Targumic Tosefta” to Ezek. 1:1 is evidently associated with the lectionary use of Ezekiel 1; see Wertheimer, Shlmo Aharon, Batei Midrashot, 2 ed., 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1968), 2: 135–140.Google Scholar

25. “Is it possible that God could have thus said to Ezekiel, I am showing you my merkabah on condition that you describe it in detail to the Israelites? As it is said, Relate all that you see to the house of Israel [Ezek. 40:4] … Rather, [one is? he was?] to expound them [ledorsan] to a person, according to what the eye is able to see and the ear able to hear” (my translation of Gruenwald, Visioru, pp. 120–121). Expounding the merkabah to the people is a task proper to the contemporary preacher.

26. On this epithet (Power, dunamis) for the deity, see Urbach, Ephraim E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1975), 1: 80–96.Google Scholar

27. I have translated Gruenwald, , Visions, pp. 104–106, 115–116.Google Scholar

28. This assumption underlies Origen's treatment of the symbolism of Ezekiel 1 (1. 11–13; compare 1. 3). Rabbinic sources generally attribute an ominous import to the merkabah vision. So does Theodoret in his Commentary on Ezekiel, on Ezek. 1:4, 13–14 (Migne, PG 81. 821–824, 828). Jerome vacillates between interpretations “ab aliis in bonam, ab aliis in contrariam partem.” The former evidently refers to Origen (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, on Ezek. 1:4, in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75. 8).

29. “Videtur mihi ironicos dictum: et ego cram in medio captivitatis, et ego, quasi si dicat iuxta historiam quidem propheta: et ego, qui non detinebar in peccatis populi, cram in medio captivitatis, iuxta allegoriam autem Christus…” (Origen, In Ezech. Horn. 1. 5 [OW 8. 329]). Origen seems to understand kai ego as “even I,” while the Visions apparently takes the waw of waanj as adversative: Ezekiel contrasts himself with Isaiah and with Hosea. But the thrust of the exegesis is the same. Contrast the treatment of waani in Lamentations Rabbah, Proem 34 (Buber, Salomon, ed., Midrash Echa Rabbati [Vilna, 1899Google Scholar], p. 19b). Theodoret (Migne, PG 81. 820–821) evidently borrows this exegesis from Origen; Jerome ignores it.

30. “Igitur in captivitate constitutus est propheta, et cerne, quae videat, ne dolores sentiat captivitatis; deorsum videt labores, sed sursum elevans oculos apertos suspicit caelos, cerhit sibi reserata caelestia, videt similitudinem gloriae Dei…” (Origen, In Ezech. Hom. 1. 3 [OW 8. 323]).

31. Observed by Gruenwald, , Visions, pp. 115–116.Google Scholar

32. Out of approximately 600 occurrences of ouranos recorded in Hatch and Redpath's Concordance to the Septuagint, I count 49 uses of the plural of which seven are in the Apocrypha. In the surviving fragments of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, the plural is proportionally more common than in the Septuagint, but still relatively infrequent.

The notion that Visions of Ezekiel incorporates midrash based on a Greek text of scripture may be confirmed by its designation of angels as nosese kanaf, “sparkling-winged ones” (Gruenwald, , Visions, p. 114).Google Scholar This term, like the similar nosesim (sparkling ones) found in the piyyut literature, is plainly drawn from Ezek. 1:7, wenosesim ke'en nehošet qalal (ibid., p. 115). But why “sparkling-winged?” Wings are mentioned nowhere in the Hebrew text of this verse. They figure prominently, however, in the Septuagint's version of Ezek. 1:7, kai spinthēres hōs exastraptōn chalkos kai elaphrai hai, pteruges antōn.

33. Evidence for Caesarean Jews' use of Greek and ignorance of Hebrew is in Levine, Lee I., Caesarea Under Roman Rule (Leiden, 1975), pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

34. Friedmann, Meir, ed. Pesikta Rabbati, (Vienna, 1880),Google Scholar pp. 96b-98b; Braude, William G., trans., Pesikta Rabbati, 2 vols. (New Haven, 1968), 1: 405–411.Google Scholar The text is discussed in Schultz, Joseph P., “Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and the Revelation of the Law,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 61 (1970–1971): 282–307;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchäfer, Peter, Rivalität Zwischen Engeln und Menschen (New York, 1975), pp. 131–135;Google ScholarGrözinger, Karl-Erich, Ich bin der Herr, dein Gott! (Frankfurt, 1976), pp. 129–214.Google Scholar Compare Meeks, Wayne A., The Prophet-King (Leiden, 1967), pp. 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Schäfer, , Rivalität, pp. 127–131, 135–142.Google Scholar

36. I have translated Friedmann's text, Pesikta Rabbati, p. 98b; compare the manuscript published by Grözinger, , Ich bin der Herr, p. 296.Google Scholar

37. Compare Grözinger, , Ich bin der Herr, pp. 190, 201.Google Scholar The citation of “R. Nahum” (originally doubtless “R. Tanhum”) in Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, p. 98a, suggests that certain Tanhuma midrashic collections already existed as literary sources when this account was composed.

38. In the manuscript Oxford, Bodl. Or. 135, published by Grözinger, , Ich bin der Herr, pp. 292–295;Google Scholar compare ibid., p. 140.

39. I have translated the text published by Lieberman, Saul, Midrash Debarim Rabbah (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 65–66.Google Scholar

40. Compare ibid., pp. 51–52, and Lieberman's notes.

41. Midrash copied into Pesiqta deRab Kahana, BaHodeš (no. 22) from a lost recension of Tanhuma (Mandelbaum, 1: 219–220; parallels are cited there). The cryptic word šinʾan provoked extensive midrashic speculation; RSV translates “thousands upon thousands.” I discuss the use of Ezekiel I as Shabûot lection, and its association with the Sinai revelation in Halperin, , Merkabah, pp. 55–59, 132–133.Google Scholar

42. Compare Philo, , Quaest. Ex. 2. 46, Loeb Classical Library, Supplement 2 (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 90–92,Google Scholar and Greek fragment in ibid., p. 251, where Moses' being “called above” (Exod. 24:16) is understood as a “second birth” (deuterageneszs) of the prophet.

The baptismal imagery, used sparingly in Origen, In Ezech. Horn. 1. 7, is the focus of idem, In Lib. Jesu Nave Horn. 9. 4, where throngs of angels are said to attend the rite of baptism; compare Danielou, , Angels, pp. 56–61.Google Scholar Significantly, Origen treats baptism here as a lawgiving. He interprets Josh. 8:32 allegorically to mean that Jesus/Joshua writes the “second law” on the believer's heart in the presence of the angels, who are “the children of Israel” of the biblical verse. (Contrast ibid. 9. 5. 7, where “Israel” is understood as the Christian people). Origen clinches his argument with a free quotation of Heb. 12:18–19, 22–23, where the Sinaitic experience is contrasted with the Christian. He thus utilizes a theme associated with Sinai and at the same time shifts if from the first to a second lawgiving. Compare the concluding paragraph of this article.

43. Deuteronomy Rabbah 11:10 vividly expresses the martial character of Moses' feat: “I ascended and trod a path in the heavens. I took part in the war of the angels and received a fiery Torah. I dwelt under a fiery throne and sheltered under a fiery pillar, and I spoke with [God] face to face. I vanquished the celestial retinue and revealed their secrets to humankind. I received Torah from God's right hand and taught it to Israel.”

44. Schultz, , “Angelic Opposition,” pp. 292, 294;Google Scholar following Widengren, Geo, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (Uppsala, 1950), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar It must be admitted that the detail observed by Schultz—“he had washed in their [the angels'] trough”—does not loom very large in Marqah's account; see Macdonald, John, Memar Marqah, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1963), 1: 95, 2: 156.Google Scholar Schultz also calls attention to the washing of Lévi in T. Levi 8:5, but this seems to have no connection with the heavenly ascent described in chs. 2–5. It has been explained as a reflection of Exod. 29:4, Lev. 8:6 by Caquot, André, “La Double Investiture de Levi,” in Ex Orbe Religionum: Stuidia Geo Widengren (Leiden, 1972), pp. 156–161.Google ScholarJonge, Marinus de, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 2d ed. (Assen, 1975), pp. 43–46,Google Scholar explains it as a reflection of Christian baptism.

45. References in Gruenwald, , Visions, pp. 126–127;Google ScholarGrözinger, , Ich bin der Herr, pp. 138, 147, 172.Google Scholar

46. Jellinek, Adolph, Bet ha-Midrasch, 6 vols. (Jerusalem, 1967), 5: 165–166;Google Scholar partly translated by Grözinger, , Ich bin der Herr, pp. 136–139.Google Scholar The reference to “the understanding of your heart” betrays the actual setting of the homily, for the Israelites whom Moses is purportedly addressing saw the theophanies with their own eyes. The text cites Ps. 68:18 in its description of the Sinai event.

47. I discuss this passage in Halperin, Merkabah, pp.172–175.Google Scholar

48. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah 2:1 (77a). The fire occurs in the parallels in the Babylonian Talmud (Hagigah 14b) and the Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai to Exod. 21:1 (Epstein, Jacob N. and Melamed, Ezra Z., eds., Mekhilta d'Rabbi Sim˚on b. Jochai [Jerusalem, 1955], pp. 158–159);Google Scholar the angels appear in the former. In Leuiticos Rabbah 16:4 (Margulies, Mordecai, ed., Midrah Wayyikra Rabbah, 3 vols. [Jerusalem, 1972], 1. 354–355),Google Scholar Ben Azzai sits “expounding, fire burning around him.” When R. Akiba suggests that “perhaps you are engaged in the Chambers of the Merkabah?,” Ben Azzai responds, “No; but I was stringing together words of the Torah to the Prophets, and words of the Prophets to the Writings, and the words of Torah were as joyful as the day they were given from Sinai. And was not the essense of their being given from Sinai in fire? So it is written, And the mountain burned with fire, to the heart of heaven [Deut. 4:11].” See Halperin, , Merkabah, pp. 128–133.Google Scholar

49. Lieberman, Saul, Talmudah šel Qisrin [The Talmud of Caesarea], (Jerusalem, 1931), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

50. Published in Migne, PG 12. 1056. Its source is discussed by Nautin, , Origène, pp. 275–279.Google Scholar

51. Grätz, Heinrich, “Hillel, der Patriarchensohn,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 30 (1881): 433–443;Google Scholar also Krauss, Samuel, “The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,” Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893): 156–157.Google ScholarMidrash on Psalms (Šoher Tob) to Psalm 90 (Buber, Salomon, ed., Midraš Tehillion [Vilna, 1891]Google Scholar, p. 194a); Pesiqta deRab Kahana (Mandelbaum, 2: 442–443).Google Scholar

52. But compare n. 42 above.

53. Evidence in Bietenhard, , Caesarea, pp. 50–51;Google ScholarLange, de, Origen and the Jews, pp.86–87.Google Scholar