Peter Schäfer. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity. Translated by Allison Brown. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020.[1]
In 2012, Daniel Boyarin released The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, in which he argued that so-called “binitarianism” (the idea that there exist two equal/co-ruling powers in heaven) is present in Jewish thought before the New Testament and early Christianity, a fact that explains the emergence of this idea later in history.[2] That same year, Schäfer responded to Boyarin’s thesis with a review titled “The Jew Who Would Be God,” in which he argued that the presence of binitarian ideas in ancient Judaism is seen, not only in the texts surveyed by Boyarin (Dan 7, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra), but also in numerous other texts from the Second Temple period. In fact, binitarianism is even found in a number of late antique rabbinic texts as well, ultimately signaling that binitarian ideas did not necessarily serve as a form of proto-trinitarianism, remaining a part of Jewish thought even after the founding of Christianity.[3]
Adding to this ongoing discussion, Schäfer’s recent publication, Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity, traces the development of so-called binitarianism throughout both of these two eras, with Part I focusing on Second Temple Judaism.[4] Here Schäfer not only examines Dan 7, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, but he also highlights binitarian ideas in the Book of Proverbs, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, Philo, and other texts. In Part II (Chapters 9-11), Schäfer shifts his focus to late antiquity in order to argue that binitarianism only appears problematic in the Babylonian Talmud and was even, in fact, an acceptable view among some Babylonian rabbis. To demonstrate this, he examines the reception of Dan 7 in both Palestinian and Babylonian rabbinic sources in light of a number of so-called mystical texts, such as 3 Enoch and the Hekhalot literature. This portion is a unique contribution and a little more detail here is appropriate before turning to a brief discussion regarding Schäfer’s argument and its broader place in the fields of Second Temple and late antique Judaism.
To make his case, the first two chapters set out to make a distinction between the reception of Dan 7 in the Mekilta de Rabbi Yishmael on Exod 24:10 and b. Ḥag 14a, beginning first with an examination of the Mekilta in Chapter 9. Schäfer’s primary argument here is that the Mekilta’s citation of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9 serves as a prooftext to demonstrate that the Mekilta’s quotation of Exod 24:10—which describes YHWH as seated with a sapphire footstool—simply portrays YHWH as an old man, as he appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.[5] That is, the Mekilta’s citation of Dan 7:9 does not engage with the so-called two powers controversy. This is in contrast to Boyarin’s claim that the writer not only quotes Dan 7:9-10, but also alludes to its immediate context, which references “two powers” (i.e. the Ancient of Days [Dan 7:9-10] and the Son of Man [v. 13]), in order to account for the Mekilta’s description of two manifestations of YHWH (i.e., a young warrior at the Sea of Reeds [Exod 15:3] and an old man at Sinai [Exod 24:10]).[6] In response, Schäfer ultimately argues that Boyarin reads the Mekilta through the lens of b. Ḥag. 14a, motivated, in part, by a desire to see the Mekilta as a Palestinian link between early Jewish apocalyptic and the Babylonian Talmud, where the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man in Dan 7:9-13 is clearly cited as problematic.[7]
Thus, Chapter 10 turns to b. Ḥag. 14a.[8] Here, a baraita attributed to Rabbi Akiva understands Dan 7:9’s multiple thrones as a reference to two thrones—one for the Ancient of Days and the other for King David, implying that the Son of Man in Dan 7:13 is none other than David himself. This interpretation is rejected by Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eleazar, and given that the origin of baraitot are difficult to know, Schäfer argues that this rejection of David as the Son of Man likely does not reflect a genuine Palestinian discussion, but rather a Babylonian context. That is, the sugya is an attack on Jewish opponents from the direct environment of the Bavli redactor and the adversaries represent groups that held to the two powers controversy—adversaries whom, Schäfer argues, should be sought not only within Christian circles, but also among the composers of the Hekhalot literature.[9]
Chapter 11 devotes space to arguing that binitarianism was an acceptable belief within some Babylonian rabbinic circles. The first section sets the stage for this argument by examining the first three books of Enoch and different interpretations of the character Enoch in both Rabbinic and Christian tradition. Schäfer highlights Enoch’s degradation in Genesis Rabbah, where he is described as both wicked and a hypocrite. This is novel according to Schäfer, and seems motivated not solely by a rejection of Christian trinitarian ideas and Christianity’s elevation of Enoch as a character (cf. Hebrews 11), but also by Jewish binitarian ideas, such as those that are found in the Third Book of Enoch, which elevates Enoch/Metatron to the status of a second power (YHWH ha-qatan).
To Schäfer, the rabbis’ degradation of Enoch indicates an inner Jewish debate regarding binitarian ideas. To further demonstrate this, the remainder of Chapter 11 turns to b. Sanh. 38b, which describes a dispute between Rav Idith and a so-called heretic (min) over Exod 24:1, which reads, “And to Moses he [YHWH] said ‘Come up to YHWH.’” In short, the min asks why Exod 24:1 does not simply say “come up to me,” inferring a reference to two separate subjects/divine powers in the text. Interestingly, Rav Idith agrees that there are two subjects. But, he argues that the explicit YHWH refers to Metatron—an angel interchangeable with YHWH who has YHWH’s name “in him”—citing Exod 23:21 as proof. The min then argues that, if Metatron is interchangeable with YHWH, then Metatron should also be praised. Rav Idith then quotes the remainder of Exod 23:21, contending that “do not rebel against him” (al tamer bo) can also mean “do not mistake me [YHWH] for him [Metatron].” Thus Exod 23:21 functions as a warning against binitarianism and, according to Schäfer, the only way to understand Rav Idith’s harsh and awkward refutation, made possible by a hurried philological trick, is to understand that such ideas had gained popularity and even become acceptable within some Babylonian rabbinic circles.
Schäfer’s overall argument, that binitarian views were more widespread and ongoing in ancient and late antique Judaism than commonly assumed, is provocative, and a number of his examples are convincing. At the same time, his work also raises some questions regarding whether or not so-called binitarinism is a proper label for what is portrayed in some of these texts, as many seem to describe far more than just two powers in heaven. Consider, for instance, the divine beings throughout the Self Glorification Hymn. While Schäfer vacillates, rendering elim sometimes as “angels,” “divine beings” or “gods,” it seems clear that elim does, in fact, mean “gods” in this context.[10] This seems all the more obvious considering the divinized individual’s application of Exod 15:11 to himself (“who is like me among the gods [elim]).”[11] Clearly, this description consists of more than just two gods in heaven that preside over an infinite number of so-called angelic beings; rather, the text portrays a multiplicity of deities arranged in some sort of hierarchical order, akin to the divine councils of Ancient West Asia. This in turn raises more even more questions. Are there other texts, surveyed by Schäfer, that refer to deities where he (and others) see “angels” (whether “elevated” or “semi-divine”)? And if so, what does this say about so-called “binitarian,” “inclusive” or even “fluid” monotheism, as well as its relationship to the development of angelology throughout these periods?
In the end, Schäfer’s chief contribution is a product that surveys the continuation of so-called binitarian ideas from the Hebrew Bible to late antiquity—a difficult task that he masterfully accomplishes in so few pages.His text is accessible and does well to introduce readers to a highly debated subject: namely the existence of monotheism and the types of monotheisms that may or may not have existed at different stages in Israelite and Jewish history, all while bringing texts from the Second Temple period, rabbinic Judaism, and early Jewish mysticism to bear on the discussion. Furthermore, his understanding of b. Ḥag. 14a and b. Sanh. 38b as reflecting an internal debate regarding binitarian ideas found in early Jewish mystical texts adds to broader discussions about the relationship between Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and early Jewish mysticism, demonstrating, yet again, that these texts and traditions evolved and were shaped in conversation with one another. Their boundaries were porous and not so well defined as is often presumed. While readers might not agree with all of Schäfer’s interpretations, his overall thesis is provocative and will likely incite others toward further research to test the veracity of his claims.
[1] Schäfer’s Two Gods, was originally published in German in 2017. See: Peter Schäfer, Zwei Götter im Himmel: Gottesvorstelllungen in der jüdischen Antike (München: C.H. Beck, 2017).
[2] As Boyarin puts it: “The ideas of Trinity and incarnation, or certainly the germs of those ideas, were already present among Jewish believers well before Jesus came on the scene to incarnate himself . . .” Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012), xiii.
[3] Peter Schäfer, “The Jew Who Would Be God.” The New Republic. May 18, 2012. https://newrepublic.com/article/103373/jewish-gospels-christ-boyarin.
[4] Readers will find Schäfer engaging with Boyarin on a number of his arguments throughout this work. For example, while Boyarin not only sees early Jewish binitarianism as trinitarianism in germane form, he asserts that the idea of incarnation is present in early Judaism, specifically in the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch. See n. 2 above. For his arguments regarding the Similitudes see Boyarin, Jewish Gospels, 74-75, 84-85. Schäfer disagrees, and argues that the incarnation is unique to the NT, specifically the Gospel of John. Schäfer, Two Gods, 52-53, 136; idem., Zwei Götter, 59-60, 153.
[5] Ibid., 72-73; idem., Zwei Götter, 79-80.
[6] Ibid., 74-76; idem., Zwei Götter, 81-84. See also, Daniel Boyarin, “Is Metatron a Converted Christian?” Judaïsme Ancien/Ancient Judaism 1 (2013): 28.
[7] Schäfer, Two Gods, 78-80; idem., Zwei Götter, 87-88. Elsewhere, Schäfer also critiques Boyarin in the same manner, arguing that he reads b. Hag 14a back into Dan. 7. Schäfer, Two Gods, 22-24; idem., Zwei Götter, 28-30
[8] Schäfer, Two Gods, 81-88; idem., Zwei Götter, 89-98.
[9] As proof, Schäfer cites texts such as the Apocalypse of David, which describes a divinized David as the Messiah, elevated to heaven and enthroned next to god “fulfilling the function that the Bavli polemicizes against so strongly.” Schäfer, Two Gods, 91; idem., Zwei Götter, 100-101.
[10] For instance, his translation of the Self Glorification Hymn renders elim as “gods” (lines 5, 7, and 11) and yet, regarding the unnamed speaker, he says “The speaker, definitely a human being, is sitting on a throne in heaven among the divine beings (the angels; in these texts, elim is a term denoting angels).” Ibid., 33-34; idem, Zwei Götter, 40-41. See also p. 35 (p. 41 in Zwei Götter) where Exod 15:11 is rendered as “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods/angels (mi kamokha ba-’elim YHWH).” Schäfer similarly vacillates between rendering elim as “angels” and “gods” in The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (New Jersey: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), 146-148. Finally, it’s worth highlighting here that Schäfer admits to downplaying deification in his Origins of Jewish Mysticism, arguing that angelomorphosis is described in the Self Glorification Hymn—a position which he now denies. Instead, he states, “Our hero is not just one angel among many angels, and it is not said that he will be transformed into an angel. Rather, he is and remains a human being who is elevated to the status of a god . . .” Schäfer, Two Gods, 37; idem, Zwei Götter, 44; idem, Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 150-151.
[11] Elsewhere the speaker also states, “I shall be reckoned with the gods (elim) . . .” See line 7 of Schäfer’s translation. Schäfer, Two Gods, 34; idem, Zwei Götter, 40.