Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12




Christopher Rowland

Jesus College, Cambridge CB5 8BL

There has been a growing interest in Jewish angelology in recent

years, particularly with regard to the contribution it might have

made to early christology.’ Several Old Testament passages have
attracted attention, especially those concerning the i1’i1~ ixbi, but of
greater importance, not least because of the way it has contributed to
the christophany in Rev. 1.13ff, is the angelophany in Dan. 10.6ff.’
It is the assessment of the influence of this passage on several later
Jewish texts, particularly Joseph and Asenath 14, which is the aim of
this study.
That early christologies owed much to angelomorphic categories is
not now disputed, at least as far as the post-New Testament period is
concerned. Nevertheless the fact that the New Testament writings do
not contain any passage which speaks of Christ as an angel has

persuaded many that, if there was an angel christology, it was merely

a peripheral phenomenon, rapidly rejected by mainstream Christianity

(e.g. Heb. 1-3; cf Col. 2.18). It is the implicit threat both to the
uniqueness and divinity of Christ involved in the attribution of the
title angel that has lead to suspicion of this particular development.
Such a negative assessment of the theological implications on
angelomorphic christology should not be too precipitate, however.
There is clear evidence that at least one New Testment writer
identified the divine figure on the throne of glory, seen by the prophet
Isaiah, with the pre-existent Christ (John 12.41).3 The rich theological
tradition prompted by the throne-theophany tradition has been
recognized in recent scholarship. The angelomorphic categories
linked with this interpretative stream provide evidence of subtle
variations within the parameters of monotheism, by the delegation of

divine authority and attributes to other beings in the divine hierarchy.

It has become possible to glimpse something of the raw material for
christological reflection available in Second Temple Judaism; but
this has made clarification of what is meant by monotheism at this
period very necessary.
Those of us who have sought to explain this rich seam of Jewish
theology have in the past been a little too imprecise in our identifi-
cation of what exactly may have been going on in the appropriation
of Jewish angelology in primitive Christianity. It is probably a
mistake simply to talk of angel-christology, at least in the primitive
period, without further qualification. It is, in my view, more appro-
priate to speak of angelomorphic christology in the earliest period.
This kind of description in no way implies that Christ was identified
entirely with the created order. There is an implicit recognition, that,
while there may indeed be a prima facie case for the transference of
angelomorphic categories in passages like Mark 9.2ff. and Rev. 1.13ff.
this need not necessarily mean that Christ was identified as an angel,
if by that is meant a being ontologically distinct from God.
Commentators have for a long time been perplexed by the identity
of this figure, but, unlike the equally mysterious figure of the v3m 133
in Dan. 8.13, it has not attracted anything like as much attention.
That we are dealing here with an angel who in his person manifests
the divine kabod and not just a known messenger like Gabriel, is
recognized by several commentators. Not least important is the fact
that there is evidence in this passage of dependence on the vision of
the divine glory in Ezek. 1.‘ I have examined the links with Ezek. 1 in
more detail elsewhere.’ Suffice it to say here that they indicate that
the writer of this passage gives the impression that the angelophany
has some of the ingredients of a theophany.
That there was a continuing interest in the angelophany in Dan.
10.6f. is indicated by the evidence of dependence on it in descriptions
of heavenly beings: Christ in Rev. 1.13ff., Jaoel in the Apocalypse of
Abraham (AA) 11 and Michael in Joseph and Asenath (JA) 14.~7
Indeed, so close are the links that the parallel passages may be set out
in synoptic form. The synopsis on the two pages overleaf includes
the Massoretic Text of Dan. 10.6 together with the Greek versions of
Theodotion and the Septuagint, parallel passages from Dan. 7.9 and
the descriptions of the heavenly beings in AA, JA, Rev. and, by way of
comparison, passages from Rev. 10.1, 14.14 and the Apocalypse of
Zephaniah 9.12ff.

When the material is placed in a synopsis, it is possible to see at a

glance the extent of the relationship between Dan. and the later
passages. As the link between Dan. 10, Rev. 1 and AA has been
examined elsewhere, I should like to pay particular attention to the
angelophany in JA 14. The links between Dan. and JA are, if
anything, more obvious than between Dan. and AA. Certainly AA
mentions the clothing,’ body and face of the angel (lines 13, 15 and
28), but its comparisons differ from Dan.’ Despite mentioning the
clothing only in passingl° and omitting reference to the body of the
angels JA starts in a similar fashion to Dan. 10 and goes on to speak
of the face, eyes and limbs of the angel in very similar, though not
identical, terms (lines 15ff.).
A superficial glance at JA may seem to suggest that the similarities
with Dan., far from being the result of direct dependence on the
latter, indicate borrowing from Rev. 1.13ff. Of course, the relationship
between JA and Christian ideas has been a matter about which there
has been considerable divergence of opinion, though most recent
commentators consider it to be a product of pre-Christian Egyptian
Judaism The connections between JA and Rev. are certainly close.
Reference to the face (line 15), eyes (line 17) and feet (line 31), for
example, can all be paralleled in Rev. as well as Dan. But when one
comes to a detailed examination of these common elements, we note
that in no case do we have exact verbal parallels between Rev. and
JA. Thus whereas in Rev. the eyes of Christ are compared to wX6§
nvp6g (line 24), this phrase in JA describes the hair of the angel. Also,
whereas in JA otyyoq llÀiou describes the eyes of the angel (line 18),
in Rev. iíÀlOÇ describes the face of Christ (line 46). In Rev. the feet
are likened to xaÀKoÀi0avoç (cf Dan. coS 6PCtGtq xahKo0 <J&dquo;CiÀ0oVtoç

[0]; (host xaXK6g E~aazparricw [LXX], lines 32f), whereas JA has

a16qpog tK nvp6g (line 33). These differences indicate that there is no
compelling evidence to suggest that JA is dependent on Rev. 1; it
most probably depends on the source common to both it and Rev.,
namely 10.6f
Let us now turn to examine some of the details in these passages.
JA, like Dan., describes the angel as a man (line 3f), though adding
that he was in all respects like Joseph. The angel is probably to be
identified with Michael as he is called dpXt(5-updrflyo~ in 14.7, a title
given to Michael in Test. Abraham 7 and Slav. Enoch 33.10. The link
between a patriarch and an exalted angel is to be found also in the
Jewish apocryphal work, the Prayer of Joseph, quoted by Origen in

his commentary on John 2.6 (Comm. 2.31).1~ In the fragment quoted

by Origen we learn that Jacob is said to be the incarnation of an
angel: ’When I, Jacob, was coming from Mesopotamia of Syria, Uriel,
the angel of God, came forth and said that I had come down to earth
and tabernacled among men and that my name was Jacob’ (Kareprjv
t1Ti rqv y~v Kai xazc6K~vc~aa ~V jV0pdJflOlg ...
Unlike the 1_xx, JA, and AA, Rev. does not use either dvqp 0 A) or
dv0pwnog (Dan., LXX). Rather, the author describes Christ as 6poiov
ui6v åv8pcímou. Most commentators have argued, rightly in my
opinion, that we have an allusion to Dan. 7.13 v~,4 ~~~/c~5 v16g
dN,Op(6nou. Recently, however, Maurice Casey, 14 referring to
Dalman, 15 has challenged this assumption. He points out that in
Dan. 10.16 (Theod.) we find opoiwmS viou åv8pW1TOU (cf LXX
6poiwaig yEip6~ åv8pW1TOU and MT r7x ~3 nin7r). The fact that
Rev. 1.13f1: is a vision which utilizes elements mainly from Dan. 10
rather than Dan. 7, he argues, makes it more likely that the phrase
6poiov ui6v tv0pknov is borrowed from Dan. 10.16, 18 rather than
7.13. There are, however, good reasons why we should prefer the
explanation which finds an allusion here to 7.13.
Although Rev. 1.13 is not exactly the same form as the Greek of
Dan. 7.13, R.H. Charles has pointed out that the author of Rev. uses
6poiog as synonymous in meaning with (Í)ç.16 What is more, he
demonstrates that Rev. 1.13 and 14.14, where the phrase 6poiov viov
åv8pW1TOU occurs, exhibit not only an identification of6uoio<; and 6),;
in respect of meaning but also in respect of construction. Thus the
difference between Rev. and the Greek versions of Dan. 7.13 should
not be taken as indicative of an origin in Dan. 10 for the phrase.
We have an explicit allusion to Dan. 7.13 in 14.14. Whatever
problems this passage may present for the interpretation of the
christology of Rev., both the presence of the phrase opotov ui6v
åv8pW1TOU and the reference to t1Ti TIlV VE<!>ÉÀTJV make a link with
Dan. 7.13 virtually certain. Thus the fact that one of the two
instances of the use of ui6~ av6pc~nov in Rev. is to be found in a
context where Dan. 7.13 is alluded to makes it likely, in view of the
identical form in which the expressions appear in 2.13 and 14.14, that
both refer to Dan. 7.13 rather than that Rev. 1.13 is dependent on
Dan. 10.16.
JA and AA refer to the garment of the angel only in passing (lines
5f), with only AA pausing to describe its colour (’like purple’, line
29). Rev. is much closer to Dan., though the priestly garb of the

figure is given even more prominence (line 69f).~ Various explan-

ations of this development have been offered, though we ought not to
lose sight of the possibility that what we have in Rev. may be a
reformulation of Dan. 10 due in part to the apocalyptist’s visionary
Both JA and Rev. agree in omitting all reference to the body of the
angel (line 13), though in AA Jaoel’s body is compared to sapphire
(line 14). The reason for the omission of this particular element is not
entirely clear. Holtz explains its absence in Rev. as John’s attempt to
explain a difficulty in the Danielic vision.18 He points out that the
body of the angel is described as well as the garment which covered
the angel’s body. John, he suggests, avoids the confusion by replacing
the reference to the body by the references to the head and hair (lines
19f.). Reference to the body of the angel is also absent in the Peshitta
of Dan. 10, which departs quite significantly from the Hebrew (’and
his appearance was changed, and he had no form’).19 The reluctance
we find here to describe the body of the angel is similar to the
reluctance found in some apocalyptic texts to describe the details of a
theophany (e.g. Slav. Enoch 22.2, ’And who am I to tell of the Lord’s
unspeakable being and of his very wonderful face?’ ).20 This deviation
in the Peshitta may indicate that JA and Rev. may have omitted
reference to the body of the angel for reverential reasons.
The closest similarities between Dan., JA, and Rev. are to be found
in the descriptions of the face and eyes of the heavenly being (lines
15ff.). JA only, however, follows the order in Dan., whereas Rev. has
the references to the face tacked on at the end of the description of
the vision, and the reference to the eyes follows immediately after the
description of the head and hair (line 23); AA has a reference to the
face only (line 15). Similar to these passages is the description of the
angel who guides Enoch in Slav. Enoch 1 (’And there appeared to me
two men, exceeding big,21 so that I never saw such on earth; their
faces were shining like the sun; their eyes were like burning candles,
out of their mouths was fire coming forth, and their arms like golden
wings’ ... ).
The major difference between Dan. 10 and the other three texts we
have been examining is the fact that JA, AA and Rev. all make
mention of the hair of the heavenly being (lines 19ff.) (cf 1 Enoch
106.2). Although the wording of JA differs from AA and Rev. (JA: (Í)ç
wX6§ nvp6g; Rev.: 6)~ epiov XEvK6v Kia..; lines 21 and 24), this
difference is not so marked as to set JA apart from the other two

passages. Commentators on Rev. 1.14 all assume that there is an

allusion to Dan. 7.9 here. Holtz, for example,22 asserts that the
bestowal of this divine attribute on Christ is the conscious endow-
ment of divinity from the theophanies of Dan. 7 and 1 Enoch 46, so
that the angelophany of Dan. 10 is given a new dimension with the
attribution of this element to Christ.23
Considerations of this feature in Rev. 1.14 have usually ignored
the parallel developments in Jewish literature. The fact that we have
a feature of the theophany of Dan. 7.9 given to an angelic being in
two texts in addition to Rev. 1.14 demands some explanation. There
seem to me to be two possibilities: either in JA, AA and Rev. we have
three texts which have independently used Dan. 10 as the basis of a
description of a heavenly being and then added to that description a
feature of the theophany in Dan. 7.9; or, already there was an
established exegetical tradition in Judaism which linked the angelo-
phany in Dan. 10 with the passage about the Ancient of Days in 7.9.
In the light of the fact that the combination of Dan. 10.6 and 7.9
can be found in no less than three texts, and may be hinted at in other

passages, 24 the first alternative seems to be ruled out. But if we

assume that the second alternative is correct, the question arises how
it came about that Dan. 10.6 was combined with this particular
aspect of the description of the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7.9. Two
possible explanations suggest themselves:
(i) From a very early stage the connections between Dan. 10.6f.
and descriptions of theophanies were recognized, and as a result
items from these theophanies contributed to the later use of Dan.
10.6f. In the light of the close connections which exist between Dan.
10.3ff. and Ezek. 1 it should not surprise us to find that Dan. 10 was
linked with theophanic passages, and that it attracted material from
(ii) A rather more complicated process seems possible, which
deserves consideration.
If in the tradition there had been identification of the angel in Dan.
10.6 with w>x 123 of Dan. 7.13,26 then it becomes possible to see why
the angel should have white hair, an attribute of the Ancient of Days.
It can be explained by the LXX reading of Dan. 7.13, c~5 naÀatàç
i1)Liepd)v (cf. e Ëwç naA(uou tiJ..lEPWV), a reading of some antiquity
The significance of this variant, whatever the reason for its origin, is
that an identification is made between the man-like figure and the
Ancient of Days.

It is suggested that AA, JA and Rev. all reflect an exegetical

tradition which (a) knew of the identification of the man-like figure
with the Ancient of Days implied by the LXX variant, (b) identified
the human figure of 7.13 as an angelic being, and (c) as a result linked
this verse with the parallel angelophany in Dan. 10.6f
Evidence for such a process is not entirely lacking in the passages
we have been considering. After all Rev. 1.13ff shows that Dan. 7.13
has been linked with the angelophany in Dan. 10, as has already been
suggested. Such a link between angelic beings may well have been
prompted by the similarity between W38 &dquo;D3 and 7nx t~~ct, not to
mention the links with Ezek. 1 which are to be found in both
passages. In the later development of theophanic passages in
apocalyptic texts there is evidence of a tendency to combine features
from several related passages.&dquo; It is suggested that Dan. 10.6f. also
attracted material from related passages. Certainly Rev. 1.13ff offers
evidence of this process, for, in addition to Dan. 10, Ezek. 4.2 may
have contributed 1.13 (line 9) (£v6E6vK&g no6fi pq Kai ~6)VYJ 6arr~Eipou
Ent t~j5 6J~$Jog aJ<06; cf Rev. 1.13 EVÕ£ÕU¡1EVOV no6fipq Kai
T!£pt£ÇW&eth;¡1EVOV np6g zoiS ¡1a&eth;&dquo;(oïç ~6ov-qv Xpoadv), and in Rev. 2.16
Ezek. 1.24 is used (line 37) (WS ~cw~iw v8aicw nOMwv). Evidence of
the expansion of Dan. 10 in JA and AA is not so easy to find, with the
exception of the reference to the hair of the angel, though it is
possible that the words ’the appearance of his body was like sapphire’
(lines 13f) and ‘countenance of chrysolite’ (line 16) may reflect Ezek.
9.2 and 28.13 respectively.
Thus the second explanation deserves consideration, namely, that
JA, AA and Rev. all depend on an interpretation of Dan. 10.6f which
had linked the latter with Dan. 7.13 in the form known to us in the
Whatever may be thought of the second explanation of the
development of Dan. 10, there is evidence to suggest that we have in
AA, JA and Rev. evidence of an interpretative tradition of significance
not only for Jewish angelology but also for early christology. That the
latter is true is confirmed by evidence of the persistence of this
tradition in the christophanies in works like the Passio Perpetuae et
Felicitatis (chs. 4, 11). But this is just a small part of the developing
angelology which is of considerable importance for the study of
Judaism and early Christianity alike.29


1. Particular mention should be made of J. Barbel’s important study

Christos Angelos (Bonn, 1964), and more recently R. Lorenz, Arius
judaizans (Gottingen, 1980), A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden,
1978), K. Berger, Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die Erhohung des
Menschensohnes (Gottingen, 1976), J.A. B&uuml;hner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg
im vierten Evangelium (Tubingen, 1977); cf. J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the
Making (London, 1980), pp. 149ff.
2. On this see my article, ’The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. 1.13ff.’,
JTS 31 (1980), pp. 1-11, and T. Holtz, Die Chri’stologie der Apokalypse des
Johannes (Berlin, 1962), p. 116.
3. On the importance of this passage and its relationship to Jewish
apocalyptic tradition see N.A. Dahl, ’The Johannine Church and History’, in
W. Klassen and W. Snyder (eds.), Current Issues in New Testament
Interpretation (New York, 1962), pp. 124ff.; A.F. Segal, Two Powers in
Heaven (Leiden, 1978); K. Berger, Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die
Erhohung des Menschensohnes (Gottingen, 1976); J.A. Buhner, Der Gesandte
und sein Weg im vierten Evangelium (T&uuml;bingen, 1977); and C. Rowland,
’John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and the Targumic Tradition’, NTS 30 (1984),
pp. 498-507.
4. See further M. Black, ’The Throne-Theophany Prophetic Commission
and the "Son of Man": A Study in Tradition-History’, in R. Hamerton-Kelly
and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians (Leiden, 1976), pp. 56-73;
C.C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and
Early Christianity (London, 1982), pp. 94-112; and S. Kim, The Origin of
Paul’s Gospel (Tubingen, 1981), pp. 239-52. There is a comprehensive survey
of Jewish angelology in J.E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the
Lord (Utrecht, 1982).
5. TWAT, I, col. 688, ’ ’ (Stuttgart, 1973; Eng. Tr., II, p. 165).
6. Op. cit., pp. 3f.
7. The translation of the Apocalypse of Abraham is that by G.H. Box
(London, 1918) and the edition of Joseph and Asenath is that by M.
Philonenko (Leiden, 1968). There are only minor variations between the
shorter and longer Greek recensions in this passage.
8. The description of the robe shows some differences. &Theta; has &beta;&alpha;&delta;&delta;&igr;&nu;, a
transliteration of MT . One variant in &Theta; has &delta;&oacgr;&xi;&alpha;&nu;, an indication of the
celestial appearance of the angel, as also is &eacgr;&xi;&alpha;&iacgr;&rho;&epsiv;&tau;&alpha; in LXX 36 (cf. syh) (see
further J. Montgomery, Daniel [Edinburgh, 1927], p. 409).
9. The Hebrew is variously interpreted by the versions. &Theta; has
&eacgr;&nu; &chi;&rho;&upsi;&sigma;&iacgr;&OHacgr; &Omega;&phis;&a cgr;&zeta;, whereas LXX has &eacgr;&kap a; &mu;&eacgr;&sigma;&ogr;&upsi; &alpha;&uacgr;&tau;&ogr;&uacgr; &phis;&OHacgr;&sfgr;. The latter surely
reflects Hebrew .
10. The Peshitta has an interesting variant here: ’And behold, a man who

was clothed with clothes of honour, and his loins girt with honour of glory.
And his look was changed and he had no form.’ A.G. Kallarakal, The
Peshitto Version of Daniel (Diss. Hamburg, 1973), p. 119, fails to note the
significance of this variant.
11. Some MSS of the LXX compare the body of the angel to the sea
(&thetas;&alpha;&lambda;&a cgr;&sigma;&sigma;&eta;&sfgr; is read for ). The most notable example of this reading is
to be found in P. 967. See A. Giessen, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches
Daniel, Kap. 5-12, nach dem Kolner Teil des Papyrus 967 (Bonn, 1968), and
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 409. Attempts to explain this variant have usually
resorted to theories of textual corruption. The possibility of a deliberate
theologically motivated change deserves consideration, however. In pursuit
of this possibility I would like to mention three other passages which may
point in this direction: (a) the replacement in Sym Ez. 1.16 of &thetas;&alpha;&rho;&sigma;&igr;&sfgr; by
&uacgr;&alpha;&kap a;&iacgr;&nu;&thetas;&ogr;&upsi; (b) the description of the body of the angel in AA: ’the appearance
of his body was like sapphire’ (though this may derive from Ez. 9.2 &zeta;&omega;&nu;&e acgr;
&sigma;&alpha;&pi;&phis;&iacgr;&rho;&ogr;&upsi;); and (c) a saying of R. Meir in b. Menahoth 43b which compares
the colour of the throne of glory with the colour of the thread of blue
( ): ’It is not said here "that you may look
upon them", but "that you may look upon Him". Thus scripture teaches
that whoever observes the commandment of the fringes is deemed as though
he had received the Divine Presence, for nbDn resembles the colour of the
sea, and the sea resembles the colour of the sky, and the colour of the sky
resembles the colour of the throne of glory’ (on this see further B.Z. Bokser,
’Thread of Blue’, PAAJR 31, pp. 1ff.). What is more, it may be pointed out
that the word used to translate in the LXX of Num. 15.38 is &uacgr;&a cgr;&kap a;&iota;&nu;&thetas;&ogr;&sigmav;.
Three points may be made about these passages: (a) there is a link between
the colour of the sea and the throne of glory in b. Men. 43b; (b) as we have
seen, the angelophany in Dan. 10 has many affinities with the vision of the
throne-chariot in Ezek. 1; and (c) there is a link between and
&uacgr;&a cgr;&kap a;&igr;&nu;&thetas;&ogr;&sigmav; in Sym. Ezek. 1.16. The possibility must be put forward, therefore,
that the reading &thetas;&alpha;&lambda;&a cgr;&sigma;&sigma;&eta;&sfgr; could reflect some of the discussions concerned
with the colour of the divine throne in these texts.
12. On this subject particular mention should be made of P. Battifol, Le
Livre de la Pri&egrave;re d’As&eacute;nath (Paris, 1889-90) and C. Burchard, Untersuchungen
zu Joseph und Aseneth (Tubingen, 1965), and id., Der dreizehnte Zeuge

(Gottingen, 1970).
13. See further J.Z. Smith, ’The Prayer of Joseph’, in J. Neusner (ed.),
Religions in Antiquity (Supp. to Numen, 14; Leiden, 1968), pp. 253ff.
14. The Son of Man (London, 1979), p. 144.
15. The Words of Jesus (E.Tr.; Edinburgh, 1902), pp. 251f.; cf. G.K. Beale,
The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of
St. John (Diss. Cambridge, 1980), p. 142.
16. Revelation (Edinburgh, 1920), I, p. 35.

17. See further on this, Holtz, op. cit., p. 118.

18. Op. cit., p. 117.
19. On this reading see Kallarakal, loc. cit., p. 118.
20. See also Tg. Ezek. 1.27 (also 8.2).
21. On this feature of Jewish-Christian angelology see J. Dani&eacute;lou, The
Theology of Jewish Christianity (E. Tr.; London, 1964), p. 121.
22. Op. cit., p. 121.
23. Holtz (op. cit., p. 122 n.1) wrongly asserts that such an attribution is
24. There may well be evidence of it elsewhere also. Reference should be
made in particular to j. Yoma 42c, a story of Simeon the Just:

There are two features here which seem to point to some connection with
the angelic tradition manifested in JA, AA and Rev.: (a) the fact that the
being is described as an old man, like the in Dan. 7.9; and (b) his
white raiment like Dan. 10 ( ) and Rev. (&pi;&ogr;&delta;&e acgr;&rho;&eta;). That we are dealing
with a theophany here is stressed by A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic
Doctrine of God (Oxford, 1927), II, p. 49: ’In the circle of R. Abbahu this
report roused some surprise, for it is written that no one shall be in the tent
of appointment during the time when the High Priest is atoning in the
sanctuary (Lev. 16.17). Not even one of the angels was permitted to stay
there at that moment. R. Abbahu says that surely the venerable old man was
not a human being but God himself.’
25. See my article referred to in n. 2 above and the literature cited there;
and also Beale, op. cit., especially pp. 138ff.
26. On the angelic character of the Son of Man see J.J. Collins, The
Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (Missoula, 1977); but cf. Casey, op.
cit., pp. 31ff.
27. So J. Lust, ’Dan. vii.13 and the Septuagint’, Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 54 (1978), pp. 62ff.
28. See further I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism
(Leiden, 1978), pp. 32ff., and my article, ’The Visions of God in Apocalyptic
JSJ 10 (1979), pp. 138-52.
29. Further exploration of the significance of this material, with particular
reference to the ascension of Isaiah, is being carried out by J.M. Knight of
Jesus College, Cambridge.