The Interpreting Angel Motif in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature

David P. Melvin

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781451465600
• eBook ISBN: 9781451469660
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Melvin traces the emergence and development of the motif of angelic interpretation of visions from late prophetic literature (Ezekiel 40–48; Zechariah 1–6) into early apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch 17–36; 72–82; Daniel 7–8). Examining how the historical and socio-political context of exilic and post-exilic Judaism and the broader religious and cultural environment shaped Jewish angelology in general, Melvin concludes that the motif of the interpreting angel served a particular function. Building upon the work of Susan Niditch, Melvin concludes that the interpreting angel motif served a polemical function in repudiating divination as a means of predicting the future, while at the same time elevating the authority of the visionary revelation. The literary effect is to reimagine God as an imperial monarch who rules and communicates through intermediaries—a reimagination that profoundly influenced subsequent Jewish and Christian tradition.

4

Angelic Bystanders and a Man Named Gabriel

Interpreting Angels in The Book of Luminaries (1 Enoch 72–82), The Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 17–36), and Daniel 7–8

We have seen in the previous chapter that several new developments of the interpreting angel motif appear in Zechariah 1–6, including the clear identification of the guide/interpreter as an angel (המלאך הדבר בי), the seer’s admission that he cannot understand his visions apart from the angel’s explanation, and the adoption of a formal vision pattern clearly derived from earlier prophetic literature (Amos 7:7-9; 8:1-3; Jer. 1:11-19; 24). Niditch identifies in Zechariah 1–6 an intermediate stage in the development of the symbolic vision motif, of which the interpreting angel motif is an offshoot.^[1] Zechariah 1–6 draws upon this prophetic symbolic vision pattern, which has its roots in ancient Near Eastern divination, building upon the figure of the heavenly guide of Ezekiel 40–48. The endpoint in the development of this motif is in the apocalyptic literature of the third centuryBCE and later, to which I now turn. This chapter completes the present study by examining the interpreting angel motif in its mature form in the Jewish apocalyptic literature of the early Hellenistic period (1 Enoch 1–36; 72–82; Daniel 7–8).

The composition of an extensive body of texts centering on heavenly revelations given to the antediluvian sage Enoch began near the end of the Persian period and continued throughout the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, resulting in the corpus of literature known as 1 Enoch.^[2] Interpreting angels appear in three of the five books in the corpus (The Book of Watchers, The Book of Similitudes, and The Book of Luminaries), as well as in a final appendix in 1 Enoch 108. Of these, only The Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) and The Book of Luminaries (1 Enoch 72–82) fall within the chronological parameters of this study, and therefore I restrict my discussion to these two books. Because large portions of these texts consist of revelations given by interpreting angels, it is not practical to analyze each text in detail.^[3] Therefore, I present an overview of the interpreting angels in 1 Enoch 1–36 and 72–82, with a focus on new developments and major features.

Somewhat later than TheBook of Watchers, interpreting angels once again appear in Daniel 7–8. In Daniel 7, Daniel sees a vision of four mythological creatures, followed by a vision of the divine council and the throne of God, and finally the appearance of “one like a Son of Man” approaching the throne to receive dominion. Daniel is disturbed and perplexed by his visions, so he approaches an unnamed heavenly attendant and asks him to interpret the visions for him (Dan. 7:15-16). The rest of the chapter consists of the angel’s interpretation of the visions. In Daniel 8, Daniel sees another vision, this time of a ram and a male goat engaged in battle. Once again, Daniel is unable to understand his vision, and a “man” (איש) named Gabriel appears and interprets the vision (Dan. 8:15-16). Despite the angel’s explanation, Daniel still cannot understand his vision (Dan. 8:27).

In 1 Enoch and Daniel 7–8, the interpreting angel motif emerges in its mature form. Not only are the guides/interpreters clearly angels, they now have personal names (with the exception of Daniel 7). The transition from classical prophetic modes of revelation to apocalyptic-style angelic interpretation of visions is also complete, and prophetic oracles disappear completely. Even when revelation takes place through means other than symbolic visions (for example, Daniel 9), it is still mediated by angels.^[4] At the same time, however, God is not so distant as to be completely inaccessible, at least to select humans. Enoch ascends to heaven, where he sees God on his throne, and God speaks to him directly (1 En. 14:8—16:3). Daniel sees the “Ancient One” seated on his throne in the divine council (Dan. 7:9) and hears God’s voice speak directly to Gabriel (Dan. 8:16).

This chapter follows the same approach used in the previous two chapters. I begin with an examination of the historical background of these Hellenistic-period texts, with a focus on imperial administration techniques that parallel the picture of the heavenly realm found in the texts under discussion. Next, I discuss the composition and dating of the relevant Enochic texts and present, in summary fashion, the Enochic evidence concerning the interpreting angel motif. I then turn to Daniel 7–8, beginning with standard historical-critical concerns and proceeding with detailed analysis of the motif in Daniel 7–8. Finally, I present comparative religious data that may illuminate the development of the interpreting angel motif in the early Hellenistic period, before concluding with a summary of findings.

Historical Background: The Early Hellenistic Period

Sociopolitical developments during the early Hellenistic period (332–165BCE) do not seem to have played as great a role in the portrayal of divine mediation as they did during the Persian period.^[5] Nevertheless, the Macedonian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid administrations of Judah and other territories in the region continued to support a view of the divine realm that paralleled the political realm within which Second Temple Judaism developed. This view included the use of divine intermediaries who represented and extended Yahweh’s authority and presence and facilitated divine communication/revelation.

Alexander’s conquest of Palestine in 332BCE is usually viewed as the beginning of the Hellenization of the ancient Near East, and Jewish culture in particular. Recent research, however, has shown that Hellenization was a lengthy, gradual process, which began long before Alexander’s conquests and continued long after his death. Archaeological evidence indicates the limited spread of Greek culture and perhaps even religion in the Levant in the fifth–fourth centuriesBCE.^[6] At the same time, however, local indigenous culture and broad ancient Near Eastern traditions, such as the use of Aramaic as a lingua franca, continued to dominate well into thefirst centuryBCE and later in many areas, so that Hellenization must be understood as a very lengthy process that by no means uprooted and replaced local cultures.^[7] Rather, Hellenism was a blending of eastern and western cultures that touched, to greater and lesser extents, all inhabitants of the Mediterranean basin in the late fourth–first centuriesBCE and included considerable influences from ancient Near Eastern, as well as Greek, sources.

The administration of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires remains somewhat unclear, but it appears that much of the local administrative apparatus from the Persian Empire remained in place, at least in peripheral areas.^[8] In Egypt, at least, territory was divided into about forty nomes, each of which was governed by three officials of equal rank: a nomarch, who oversaw agriculture, an οἰκονόμος, who oversaw finances, and a royal scribe, who oversaw official records. Each of these officials reported to the διοικητής (finance minister) in Alexandria, who reported directly to the king and was the head of the Ptolemaic administration, next to the king.^[9] Alongside these three officials was a fourth, the στρατηγός (general), who was in charge of the military.^[10] Over time the power of the στρατηγός increased, eventually replacing the nomarch as the dominant authority over civil matters in the nomes. The lower levels of Ptolemaic administration consisted of village officials, including at least a κωμάρχης (village headman) and a κωμογραμματεύς (village scribe) for each village. Each of these officials, at all levels, had numerous subordinates answering to him. These “ground level” officials were typically highly specialized officers who oversaw individual industries, such as threshing and grain storage.^[11]

It is not clear how much of this system was replicated outside Egypt. In the Levant, local kings and priests often filled important administrative roles. While the upper levels of the administrative bureaucracy were typically, though not always, occupied by Greeks, mid- and lower-level officials were usually drawn from the native population.^[12] That there were Ptolemaic garrisons under the leadership of various στρατηγοί in the major cities of Phoenicia and Syria is known from the Zenon papyri (c. 260BCE). These papyri also indicate that the primary ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Table Of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Timeline
• Introduction
• A Mysterious Man
• The Angel Who Spoke With Me
• Angelic Bystanders and a Man Named Gabriel
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Names
• Index of Biblical References