SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

FOURTH EZRA AND HEKHALOT LITERATURE

Michael Schneider
Bar-Ilan University

1 . I n t ro d u c t i o n
The name of Rabbi Abbahu appears twice in the corpus of Hekhalot literature,
as it is presented in P. Schäfer’s Synopse, in paragraphs 80 and 397. The first
reference is contained in the last passage of the Book of Hekhalot (3 Enoch):

And Metatron may take them out of My storehouse. And he handed them
to Moses, and Moses to Joshua, and from Joshua to the Elders, and from
the Elders to the prophets, and from the prophets to the men of the Great
Assembly and from the men of the Great Assembly to Ezra and from
Ezra to Hillel the Elder, and [from] Hillel to R. Abbahu to R. Zeira, and
from R. Zeira to the Men of Faith, and from the Men of Faith to the
Possessors of Faith, to be circumspect with it and to heal all the diseases
that are widespread in the world.1

Paragraphs 76–80 of the Synopse belong to a distinctive unit, the content of

which can be summarized as follows: §76: a list of seventy (or ninety-two)

1 Peter Schäfer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Tübingen, 1981), §80; Hugo Odeberg,
3 Enoch or The Hebrew Book of Enoch (Cambridge, 1928), ch. 48D, 74 (Hebrew
pagination), 178–79; translation from Michael Swartz, Scholastic Magic: Ritual and
Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, 1996), 179. Cf. Philip Alexander’s
translation, Philip Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, 1983–1985),
1:315. Numbers with a section marker (§) refer to Schäfer’s Synopse. I will refer to
the following manuscripts from that volume: N8128=MS New York 8128, O1531=MS
Oxford 1531, M40=MS München 40, M22=MS München 22, V228=MS Vatican 228.

]1*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

divine names bestowed upon Metatron; §77: Metatron as a teacher of Moses at

Sinai; §78: ninety-two names, including seventy names of angels and twenty-
two seals2 taken from the Shem ha-meforash (the “explicit name” of God);3
§79: Metatron’s intention to transfer these names to Moses, angelic opposition
to this transfer which is overcome by God’s intervention; §80 Metatron’s
transfer of the names to Moses, who starts the chain of tradition. The concluding
paragraphs of the Book of Hekhalot (§§72–80 in the Synopse, chapters 48B–D
in the Odeberg edition) are taken from the Alphabet of R. Aqiba.4 But while
§§72–75 seems to belong to the core of the latter composition, §§76–80 seem
only secondary attached to it.5
The second mention of R. Abbahu belongs to the so called “Metatron
fragment,”6 which is sometimes considered a part of a longer composition of
the Shiʿur Qomah type:7

This is His great name, which was handed down to Moses at Sinai by
God, faithful and humble, and from the mouth of Moses it was handed
down to Joshua, and from Joshua to the Elders, and from the Elders to the
prophets, and from the prophets to the men of the Great Assembly and
from the men of the Great Assembly to Ezra and from Ezra to Hillel and

2 Cited below, p. 19.

3 See section 4 infra.
4 Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 310, n. a to 48B. See also Eliane Ketterer, “Alphabet of Rabbi
Aqiba (Version A-B)” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005), 1:22,
30, 53, 90–91, 93–94, 98, 132–33.
5 Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 311, n. a to 48C. Alexander’s statement needs one qualification:
§§76–80 are not “secondary extensions of the acrostic section” (sc. §§72–75), but an
independent fragment added to it.
6 This textual unit is referred as “Metatron-Stück” by Schäfer, Synopse, and as “Praises
of Metatron” by Rachel Elior (“From Earthly Temple to Heavenly Shrines: Prayer and
Sacred Liturgy in Hekhalot Literature and its Relation to Temple Traditions,” Tarbiẓ 64
(1995): 341–80 [in Hebrew]).
7 The Metatron fragment is adjacent to Shiʿur Qomah in MS N8128, and the border
between the two is somewhat unclear; in the synoptic overview of the manuscripts
(Synopse, p. xxiv), Schäfer designates §§375–386 together as “Shiʿur Qomah/
Metatron.” Swartz, Scholastic Magic, 181, presents §397 (734) as “a passage found
with Shiʿur Qomah materials” and further refers to it as “Shiʿur Qomah.”

]2*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

from Hillel it was concealed until R. Abbahu came along and said, “This
is My name forever.” (Exod 3:15)8

The boundaries of the “Metatron fragment” are somewhat less clear than
those of the text cited above; it contains some repetitions, and the order of
the paragraphs is distorted in several places. Nevertheless it seems that
most of the material in §§384–402 belongs to one distinctive unit. Its main
themes are: Metatron the Youth, the heavenly high priest, leading the celestial
liturgy (§§384–385), which includes the utterance of the Shem ha-meforash
(§§390/399); praises of Metatron (§§389/398); the account of the seventy (or
ninety-two) names bestowed upon Metatron (§387, parallel to §76); Metatron
teaching Moses at Sinai (§388 parallel to §77); the transmitting of the names
to Moses and the chain of tradition (§397 parallel to §80); prayers and
benedictions for one who invokes the Shem ha-meforash (§§391-3).
It is clear that the two passages discussed here are two versions of the
same tradition of seventy names that belong to the Shem ha-meforash, handed
by Metatron to Moses at Sinai. The expression “(seventy) names of Metatron”
here is inherently polysemic. It designates 1) the names of God handed
down by Metatron (to Moses); 2) the names of God that God bestowed upon
Metatron, so they became 3) the names of Metatron, “whose name as the name
of his Master” (b. Sanh. 38a); moreover, these names are 4) Metatron himself.9
All these names together comprise or “reflect” the Shem ha-meforash. I use
the formula “seventy names of Metatron” to designate the specific tradition
implying all these meanings.

8 Schäfer, Synopse, §397 (N8128), §734 (M40). Translation: Swartz, Scholastic Magic,
182.
9 In §396 we are told that Metatron’s name, Youth, “is written with seven voices, seven
letters, seventy names” and “was given not to the first Adam nor to Shem nor to
Abraham, nor to Isaac, nor to Jacob, but rather to Moses alone.” The plain meaning of
these statements is that Metatron himself is thought of as a hypostasis of the Shem ha-
meforash. See Michael Schneider, The Appearance of the High Priest (Los Angeles,
2012), 135–43; idem, God, the Great Angel, and Satan: Studies in Jewish Angelology
and Demonology (Los Angeles, 2017), 236–37 (forthcoming). For the Angel of the
Lord as the hypostatized Name see also Jarl Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel
of the Lord (Tübingen, 1985), 106–12.

]3*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

The tradition of the seventy names of Metatron has some peculiar features. In
addition to Rabbi Abbahu, only in this tradition from all Hekhalot literature do
we find, in the middle of the chain of tradition, Ezra the Scribe.10 The figure of
Ezra connects the tradition of the seventy names of Metatron to the wider body
of Ezraic lore. This article explores the connections between the tradition of
the seventy names, on the one hand, and Ezra traditions preserved in rabbinic
literature and in the first century apocalyptic text, 4 Ezra, on the other.

The dating of the Hekhalot literature is the subject of serious scholarly debate.
Suggestions range from the early centuries of the Common Era, that is, the
tannaitic period, to the time of the Geonim in the early Middle Ages (seventh
to ninth centuries CE). It is evident that the longer compositions—macroforms
in Peter Schäfer’s terminology11—are the result of lengthy periods of
compilation and editing, while the microforms and single textual units might
be dated significantly earlier. Scholem and other scholars connect the dating
of Hekhalot texts with the general framework of the origin, nature, and
development of Jewish mysticism.12 Within this framework they distinguish
several strata—exegesis, practical mysticism, and magic—for which relative
or absolute dates can be provided.13 As can be easily imagined, this approach
relies on assumptions that are far from uncontested.14

10 Even in the Sar-Torah narrative (Synopse §§281–307), which takes place in the same
setting as the talmudic Ezra narrative (b. Yoma 69b, b. Sanh. 64a), Ezra is absent.
11 Peter Schäfer, Hekhalot Studien (Tübingen, 1988), 8–16, 63–74, 199–201.
12 See Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1941), 7–9.
13 Scholem, Major Trends, 41–54, esp. p. 51; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah
Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1965), 7–8; I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic
and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden, 1980), 134–46, 202–5.
14 E. E. Urbach, “The Traditions about Merkavah Mysticism,” in Studies in Mysticism
and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. E. E.
Urbach, R. J. Z. Werblowsky, and H. Wirshuvski (Jerusalem, 1967), 1–28 (in Hebrew);
D. J. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven, 1980); idem, The
Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tübingen, 1988),
359–63. Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen, 2009), 9–33;
Raʿanan S. Boustan, “Rabbinization and the Making of Early Jewish Mysticism,”
JQR 101 (2011): 482–501; Yaron Zini, “The Lexicon and Phraseology of Hekhalot
Rabbati,” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012). For a recent survey
of critical issues in Hekhalot scholarship, see James R. Davila, Hekhalot Literature

]4*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

To be sure, all such analyses contribute to our understanding of the

nature of early Jewish mysticism. However, even if scholars were to arrive
at a consensus on the question of dating overall, this still would not solve the
problem of understanding the history of a particular tradition or a particular
microform. This article will focus on a single tradition preserved in two
microforms: the tradition of the seventy names of Metatron, transmitted in the
name of Rabbi Abbahu.
In the last decades several scholars, working independently and using
different arguments, have concluded that the attribution of this tradition to
R. Abbahu has a historical basis.15 They disagree on the implications of this

in Translation: Major Texts of Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden, 2013), 8–18; and note
the many studies included in Hekhalot Literature in Context: Between Byzantium and
Babylonia, ed. R. Boustan, M. Himmelfarb, and P. Schäfer (Tübingen, 2013).
15 Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Chain of Tradition in Hekhalot Literature,” Daat 56 (2005): 5–37
(in Hebrew); Bar-Ilan cites numerous sayings of R. Abbahu in rabbinic literature that
demonstrate his interest in mystical and esoteric matters. In addition, in the Talmud
there are references to R. Zeira as a pupil of R. Abbahu, as in the chain of tradition.
According to Bar-Ilan, the information about the connection between R. Zeira and
R. Abbahu was not available to the authors of the later Hekhalot literature, who
possessed a poor knowledge of talmudic tradition. Therefore the composer of the chain
of tradents did not borrow this information from literary sources but knew it from
personal acquaintance with R, Abbahu and his pupils. For this reason this attribution
of the tradition to R. Abbahu and R. Zeira is trustworthy. I do not find this argument
especially convincing but I agree with the thesis it is called upon to prove. It is better to
start by noting that R. Abbahu was not a usual subject of pseudepigraphic attribution.
In D. Halperin’s words, “Abbahu did not become a legendary hero. We must therefore
look for the writer fairly close to Abbahu’s own place and time” (Halperin, Faces of
the Chariot, 259. A similar argument was used by Scholem in Jewish Gnosticism,
Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 44–45). But far more important in my
opinion is that the chain of tradition of seventy names of Metatron deliberately omits
the names of the usual Hekhalot authorities. Moreover, the textual units containing
it express views dissenting from the dominant opinions of Hekhalot literature, but
consistent with R. Abbahu’s views as attested in Palestinian Amoraic sources; see
further the discussion in section 2 below. Lee Levine accepts the attribution to R.
Abbahu as historical and as consistent with what we know about R. Abbahu’s interests
and the contemporary intellectual situation in Caesarea (Lee I. Levine, “R. Abbahu of
Caesarea,” in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Part 4: Judaism
after 70, ed. J. Neusner [Leiden, 1975], 65–66; idem, Caesarea under Roman Rule
[Leiden, 1975], 76–80). Andrei Orlov, “The Heirs of the Enochic Lore: ‘Men of
Faith’ in 2 Enoch 35:2 and Sefer Hekhalot 48D:10,” in Scrinium III, The Theophaneia

]5*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

fact for the dating of Hekhalot literature. David Halperin describes R. Abbahu
and other third-century Caesarean sages as a link between the synagogue
merkabah tradition and the Hekhalot.16 Meir Bar-Ilan takes the authenticity of
the last links of the chain of tradition as decisive for the dating of the whole
Hekhalot corpus to the early fourth century CE.17 In my study on the subject,
I argued that the attribution of the tradition to (the historical) R. Abbahu (d.
309) enables us to date the tradition of seventy names itself, along with the two
units containing it, to the end of the third century, but that there is no reason
to extend this dating beyond those microforms without additional evidence.18
This article will seek to trace the earlier roots of the tradition of seventy names.
To this end, we will focus on the image of Ezra the Scribe, who occupies
a prominent position in this chain of tradition. As in the Hekhalot tradition
of the seventy names of Metatron, Ezra in the talmudic tradition is a unique
figure who “magnified Him by the Shem ha-meforash.”19 Ezra is presented
as Moses redivivus,20 and the disclosure of God’s name is connected with the
second giving of the Torah, portrayed in Nehemiah 8. A similar role is ascribed
to Ezra in the apocryphal Fourth Book of Ezra, which dates from the late first
century CE. This text portrays Ezra as receiving seventy secret books in a

School: Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism, ed. B. Lourié and A. Orlov (St.
Petersburg, 2007), 451–64, links the “men of faith,” mentioned after R. Zeira in the
chain of tradition, with the similar expression in 2 Enoch. In his view, the passage
belongs to the Enochic tradition, dating from the end of the Second Temple period
(see below, n. 27). See also Michael D. Swartz, “Book and Tradition in Hekhalot
and Magical Literatures,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3 (1994): 189–
229; idem, Scholastic Magic, 173–207; and Raʿanan S. Boustan, “The Emergence
of Pseudonymous Attribution in Hekhalot Literature: Empirical Evidence from the
Jewish ‘Magical’ Corpora,” JSQ 14 (2007): 18–38.
16 Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 258–61, 346–52.
17 Bar-Ilan, “Chain of Tradition,” 26–37.
18 Michael Schneider, “The Appearance of the High Priest: Theophany, Apotheosis, and
Binitarian Theology—From Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through
Ancient Jewish Mysticism” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007),
257–68 (in Hebrew); idem, “Metatron and the Theophanic Name: R. Abbahu’s
Teaching in Hekhalot Literature?” in God, the Great Angel, and Satan, 221–71.
19 B. Yoma 69b. b. Sanh. 64a. See section 3 below.
20 See t. Sanh. 4:7; b. Sanh. 21b; y. Meg. 1:8, 71b.

]6*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

setting resembling Mount Sinai.21

The arguments advanced in this article are intended to show that the
similarity between these two traditions is neither a random coincidence nor
a general analogy, but is rather evidence of a deep connection between them.
I will argue that the motifs of the seventy names of Metatron in Hekhalot
literature and the seventy books in 4 Ezra go back to a common source that
antedates the end of the first century CE.
Establishing the relationship between these two traditions may be essential
for the interpretation of 4 Ezra, as well as the issue of dating the seventy
names of Metatron tradition and the question of its sources. A comparison of
Ezra’s miraculous means of obtaining superhuman vocal powers with some
magical prescriptions belonging to the Sar-Torah tradition will demonstrate
an additional link between 4 Ezra and Hekhalot literature. The observations
offered in this article are intended to serve as a contribution to the ongoing
and important scholarly discussion of the connections between apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical literature of the Second Temple period and first centuries
CE, and the Hekhalot literature, as well as other types of Jewish mysticism
attested in late antiquity and in early medieval sources.

2. Rabbi Abbahu and the Seventy Names of Metatron

The tradition of R. Abbahu cited above is an example of a widespread motif
of seventy or seventy-two divine names representing the Shem ha-meforash,
preserved in a number of late antique and medieval texts.22
The comparison of the chain of the tradition of the seventy names with
the chain contained in the first two chapters of tractate Pirkei Avot is very
instructive.

21 Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis, 1990), 410–42.

22 Schäfer, Synopse §§ 4, 46, 74, 76–78, 81, 362, 376, 387–389, 405, 490, 513, 696,
698, 728, 948, 949, 960; idem, Geniza-Fragmente Zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Tübingen,
1984), G9 6a.10, 21, 30; idem, Hekhalot Studien (Tübingen, 1988), 110, l.27. For
early allusions to the seventy/seventy-two divine names tradition outside of Hekhalot
literature see Midrash Gen. Rab. 44:19; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:11; Eccl. Rab. 3:7; Cant.
Rab. 2:5, etc; ʾAvot R. Nat. A, 13; Targ. Cant. 2:17; piyyutim:

]7*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

Pirkei Avot 1:1–12, 2:8:

Moses—Joshua—Elders—Prophets—Men of the Great Assembly—
Simeon the Righteous—Antigonus of Sokho—Yose b. Yoezer and Yose
b. Yohanan—Joshua b. Perahyah and Nittai the Arbelite—Judah b. Tabbai
and Simeon b. Shetah—Shemaiah and Avtalyon—Hillel and Shammai—
Yohanan b. Zakkai—Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Joshua b. Hananiah, Yose
the Priest, Simeon b. Nethanel, and Eleazar b. Arakh

Synopse, §80:
Metatron–Moses–Joshua–Elders–Prophets–Men of the Great Assembly–
Ezra–Hillel the Elder–Abbahu –Zeira–Men of Faith–Possessors of Faith.

Synopse, §397:
Metatron–Moses–Joshua–Elders–Prophets–Men of the Great Assembly–
Ezra–Hillel the Elder–Abbahu.

The Hekhalot chain of tradition differs from the Avot chain in several aspects:
it makes Ezra the recipient from the “men of the great assembly,” and omits
all other tradents up to Hillel. This omission could be explained by a need for

‫ בשבעים שמות‬,‫ ולך תוקף שם המפורש‬,‫ ושם הגדול להם לא [פו]רש‬,‫לשלושת בעלי שם המפורש‬‎‫״‬
‫; [נ]ורא‬Yannai, before 550 — ‫ניתפרש״; ״שדי שומיע שמות שבעים נק[ראתה] וש[מך] ייי״‬
‫ בשבעים ושנים אותות‬,‫ למפורש [בשבעים] ושנים״; ״במסות באותות ובמופתים‬.‫ עיניים‬...]‫טה[ור‬
,‫; ״היות באמ[ת] בשם נשבעים‬Josef bi-Rabbi Nissan, before 600 — ‫אשר בשמו לפותים״‬
‫; ״אז בשבעים שמות‬Simon bar Megas, before 600 — ‫נסוכה שימות שבעים ואריאל שבעים״‬
‫ שבעים שמות בפצח״‬,‫; ״תנו תושבחות נצח‬anonymous, before 600— ‫י צבאות״‬‎‫מפורש שם יי׳‬
‫ וגם בשם המ<פו>רש בשבעים‬,‫; ״כתובה באותיות עשרים ושתים‬anonymous, before 600 —
Eleazar — ‫י״‬‎‫; ״גודל שבעים שמות נתפרש שמך יי׳‬anonymous, before 600 — ‫ושנים״‬
(texts and provisional dates from the Online Database; bi-rabbi Qillir, before 640
of the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, http://hebrew-treasures.huji.
.ac.il)
All these examples are sufficient to show that the tradition that the Divine Name
consists of seventy or seventy-two names or letters was well established already in
the third to fifth centuries CE. The thesis of the article, that the tradition of seventy
names was known to R. Abbahu and moreover has some connection to the traditions
of 4 Ezra, suggests that it goes back even further, to the first centuries of the era.
Gershom Scholem’s assumption (Major Trends, 68) that the lists of seventy names
were composed during the Geonic period (seventh to eleventh centuries), can be
maintained only if we take his assertion to refer to a concrete list of names and not to
the tradition of seventy names as a whole.

]8*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

brevity, and/or by a need to emphasize the connection between Ezra, Hillel,

and Abbahu. But the leap from Hillel to Abbahu cannot be explained in this
way. The statement found in the second variant of the tradition (§397), “and
from Hillel it was concealed until R. Abbahu,” is especially significant in
this regard: it deliberately excludes all the authorities usually cited in chains
of tradition in Hekhalot literature.23 Thus the chain of tradents presented
in these passages is clearly set in opposition to the majority of the esoteric
traditions found in this literature. This opposition is correlated with the
categorical denial of the pre-Mosaic or Enochic roots of the Metatronic lore
in the passage immediately preceding the one in which the chain of tradition
is described:

This Prince . . . was given24 not to the first Adam nor to Shem nor to
Abraham, neither to the first Adam nor to Shem,25 nor to Abraham, nor
to Isaac, nor to Jacob, but rather to Moses alone, as it is stated: “Behold,
I am sending an angel before you, etc.” (Exod 23:20)26

This passage in particular suggests an estrangement from the Enochic

tradition; the same thing is evident from the omission of the name of R.
Ishmael, the chief proponent of Enochic tradition in the Hekhalot corpus.27

23 Such as R. Neḥuniah b. Ha-Qannah, R. Akiba, and R. Ishmael in Hekhalot literature;

R. Yohanan b. Zakkai and R. Eleazar b. Arach in the talmudic Merkabah tradition; and
so on. M. Swartz aptly designated this as the “negative chain of tradition,” Scholastic
Magic, 183.
24 See above, n. 9.
25 In some variants: “Shem the Great.” This may be a hint that the text is identifying
Shem with Melchizedek the High Priest (see Targum Neofiti and the Fragmentary
Targum to Gen 14:18). If so, this list of names is intended to dismiss not only Enochic,
but also Melchizedekian traditions.
26 Schäfer, Synopse, §§396, 733; according to O1531 and M40. Some parallel passages
have a smoother reading, for example Ox. Heb. c.65.6 (idem, Geniza-Fragmente, G9,
6b.31–33): “The Holy One, blessed be He, gave permission to make use of it, not
to Adam, not to Shem, etc.” See also Martin Cohen, The Shiʿur Qomah: Texts and
Recensions (Tübingen 1985), 106, 162; idem, The Shiʿur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy
in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham, MD, 1983), 235–37.
27 Andrei Orlov ascribes pro-Enochic and anti-Mosaic tendencies to the 3 Enoch passage
(§80): “An important detail of 3 Enoch’s account is its anti-Mosaic flavor: the authors
of the passage from Sefer Hekhalot try to diminish the importance of Moses and the

]9*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

The opinions of Rabbi Abbahu recorded in Palestinian rabbinic sources

correspond to this anti-Enochic viewpoint; they include the denial of Enoch’s
ascent to heaven:

The minim asked R. Abbahu and said to him, “We do not find death in the
case of Enoch.” “Why?” he replied. They said to him, “There is mention
here (Gen 5:24) of ‘taking’ and there is mention of ‘taking’ in the case
of Elijah.” He answered them, “If you are expounding ‘taking,’ there
is mention here of ‘taking,’ and there is mention of ‘taking’ elsewhere
[Ezek 14:16, in relation to the death of the wife of Ezekiel]: ‘Behold, I
take away from thee the desire of thine eyes.’”28

Rabbi Abbahu furthermore denies the possibility of ascent to heaven, mystical

transformation, and apotheosis:

transmitters of the Mosaic Torah by depicting the son of Amram in a role inferior
to Enoch–Metatron, from whom Moses receives his revelation” (Orlov, “Heirs of
the Enochic Lore,” 455). This assertion is based on the assumption that Enoch and
Metatron are essentially identical. Indeed, such is the main idea of Sefer Hekhalot
(3 Enoch). It is clear, however, that there existed another, quite developed ancient
tradition about the supreme angel or divine hypostasis that embodies the Name of
God—whether called Yehoel, Metatron, Youth, Angel/Prince of the Face, etc.—who
is not identified with any earthly person. The passages containing the seventy names
(§§76–80) belong to this latter tradition, which apparently antedates the composition
of Sefer Hekhalot, and was attached to it by later editors (see above, nn. 4 and 5).
Therefore, there is no reason to assume that Enoch should be identified with Metatron
in the analysis of our target passages. The question of the superiority or inferiority of
Moses or other exalted human beings vis-à-vis supreme angels such as Metatron is a
quite different matter. In various sources—Enochic, Mosaic, and others—there are
a variety of opinions on this topic: some imply the superiority of angels, especially
of hypostatic angels, to all human beings; while others claim the superiority of some
exalted figures, such as Adam, Enoch, Jacob, and Moses, to the angels. In addition,
in the passages quoted above, one cannot find an univocal statement concerning the
superiority of Metatron over Moses; on the contrary, one can understand from the texts
that Metatron, the Name that he bears, and the Torah that he represents as Prince of the
Torah (cf. §77; cited below, n. 57), were “given” to Moses at Sinai (see above, n. 9).
28 Gen. Rab. 25:1; Midrash Genesis Rabbah, ed. J. Theodor and C. Albeck (Jerusalem,
1965), 1:238; the translation is that of Samuel Lachs, “Rabbi Abbahu and the Minim,”
JQR 60 (1970): 202–3.

]10*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

R. Abbahu said, “If a man says to you, ‘I am god,’ he is a liar; if he says,

‘I am the Son of Man,’29 in the end he will regret it; if he says, ‘I will go
up to heaven,’ he says but will not perform.30

Rabbi Abbahu’s positive mystical doctrine may be summarized as follows: He

emphasizes the parallelism between the upper world and the earthly realm, the
presence of the highest within the lowest, and the relative importance of the
physical, human world before the Creator:

R. Joshua opened [his discourse with the text], “Happy is the people
that know the sound of the blast; they walk, O Lord, in the light of Your
countenance” (Ps 89:16). R. Abbahu interpreted the verse as referring to
the five elders who enter for the purpose of prolonging the year. What
does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He leaves His senate (synklētos)
on high and, descending, confines His Presence to a narrow space among

29 One may take this as an allusion to the mystical transformation of Enoch into the Son
of Man in the epilogue of Similitudes of Enoch (ch. 71). See Philip S. Alexander,
“From the Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformation of the Biblical Enoch,”
in Biblical Figures outside the Bible, ed. M. Stone et al. (Harrisburg, 1998), 87–122,
esp. 103–4. Lachs believes that the passage was directed against Christians (“Rabbi
Abbahu,” 199–200). One of his arguments is the use of the expression “‘Son of Man,’
which is one of the most frequently found sobriquets for Jesus in the New Testament.”
This expression has been the object of extensive studies for centuries; however one
may wonder which of the meanings of the “Son of Man” can be relevant to the Jewish–
Christian debate in the third century CE. The nontitular “Son of Man,” preferred by
many interpreters of the gospels, can be excluded from consideration. In many patristic
writings, Son of Man expresses the humanity of Jesus as a counterpoint to the title,
Son of God. This is the way this term is used by Origen and Eusebius, both neighbors
and near contemporaries of R. Abbahu; see Mogens Müller, The Expression “Son of
Man” and the Development of Christology (London, 2008), 27–30. It is obvious that R
Abbahu has no reason to protest against the humanity of Jesus. The next option would
be the Danielic Son of Man (see Müller, “Son of Man”, 13–22). It is unlikely that R
Abbahu would totally dismiss the eschatological figure of Dan 7:13; rather, he would
here deny messianic claims put forward by a specific person. The possibility that R
Abbahu would be referring to the Gnostic Son of Man also seems unlikely (see Müller,
“Son of Man”, 35–50). Hence, it is most likely that the Enochic Son of Man is here in
view. And it makes no difference for this argument whether R. Abbahu was targeting
“pure Enochians” or Christians who had adopted this concept.
30 Y. Taʿan. 2:1, 65b, tr. Lachs, “Rabbi Abbahu,” 199–200.

]11*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

those below. The Ministering Angels exclaim: “This Mighty One, this
Mighty One! This God, this God! He of whom it is written, ‘A God in
the great council of the holy ones’ (Psalm 89:8), leaves His senators and
confines His Presence to a narrow space among those below!” Why all
this? So that if they err in a matter of law, the Holy One, blessed be He,
enlightens their countenance. Hence it is written, “They walk, O Lord, in
the light of Thy countenance.”31

In other words, R. Abbahu decisively prefers the mysticism of (divine) descent

to the mysticism of (human) ascent.32 This position is in harmony with the
tendency reflected in the Metatron unit.33 The similarity between the views
of R. Abbahu reflected in the major sources of the Palestinian Amoraim (the
Jerusalem Talmud, Genesis Rabbah, and Leviticus Rabbah), and the views
attributed to him in the seventy names tradition, provide further proof of the
historicity of this attribution.

3. Ezra and the Shem ha-Meforash

Ezra has a special place in the chain of tradents of the seventy names. While
his name is absent from tractate Avot, the tradition regarding the revelation of
the Shem ha-meforash emphasizes his prominent role. Ezra is given the same
significant role in the Jerusalem34 and Babylonian Talmuds:

And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great (gadol) God. What does “great”
imply?—R. Joseph said in the name of Rab: “He magnified Him by the
Shem ha-meforash.” R. Giddal said: “[He recited], ‘Blessed be the Lord,
the God of Israel, from everlasting even to everlasting.’” Said Abaye to

31 Lev. Rab. ʾEmor 29:4; translation by J. J. Slotki, Midrash Rabbah (London, 1983),
4:372.
32 See Moshe Idel, “Metatron: Comments on the Development of Jewish Myth,” in Myth
in Jewish Thought, ed. H. Pedayah = Eshel Beer Sheva 4 (Beer Sheva, 1996), 29–44
(in Hebrew).
33 I rely here on the analysis of the theological background of the text in my study,
“Metatron and the Theophanic Name.”
34 Y. Ber. 7:3, 11c; y. Meg. 3:6, 74c. See Jacob N. Epstein, “Some Variae Lectiones in the
Yerushalmi: I. The Leiden Ms.,” Tarbiẓ 6 (1935): 43–44 (in Hebrew).

]12*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

R. Dimi: “But perhaps it means that he magnified Him by [pronouncing]

the Shem ha-meforash?”—He answered: “One does not pronounce the
Shem ha-meforash outside [the limits of the Temple].” But35 may one
not? Is it not written: “And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit (migdal)
of wood, which they had made for the purpose” (Neh 8:4)? And R. Giddal
[commenting thereupon] said: “He magnified Him by [pronouncing] the
Shem ha-meforash?—That was a decision in an emergency: ‘And [they]
cried with a great [loud] voice (be-qol gadol) unto the Lord, their God’
(Neh 9:4).”36

The Talmud sees an allusion to the Shem ha-meforash in different words

stemming from the lexical root gdl, meaning “large,” or “great.” Understood
in its simplest sense, the word “great” in itself does not contain any allusion
to the Shem ha-meforash.37 However, the basis of the talmudic interpretation
will become clear when we turn to the biblical text the Talmud cites. This is the
eighth chapter of Nehemiah, which describes a ceremony of reading the Torah,
led by Ezra. This ceremony, a reenactment of the giving of the Torah on Mount
Sinai, marks a turning point in the history of Judaism. In the description of the
Torah reading the repeatedly discussed word meporaš appears:

So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation
(meporaš). They gave the sense, so that the people understood the
reading. (Neh 8:8 NRSV)

This very word is what enables the Talmud to conclude that in this ceremony
Ezra magnified God through the Shem ha-meforash.

35 From here to the end of the quotation runs the stammaitic discussion, citing the
statement of R. Giddal.
36 B. Yoma 69b; translation: Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, ed. I. Epstein, trans. L. Jung
(London, 1938), 327. I have changed the phrase, “the Ineffable Name,” used by the
translator to “the Shem ha-meforash.” See n. 45 below.
37 In the early mystical tradition, gadol/gedulah is a key term in the theory of the Shiʿur
Qomah. This usage of the word is based on the verse, “Great is our Lord, and abundant
in power; his understanding is beyond measure” (Ps 147:5 NRSV). See Moshe Idel,
Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven, 1988), 157. The Shiʿur Qomah, in turn, is
closely connected with the Shem ha-meforash in Hekhalot traditions.

]13*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

4 . To r a h a n d t h e S h e m h a - M e f o r a s h
The appearance of the same word in two different settings can be a sufficient
impetus for talmudic exegesis (derasha). However, in this case, there is an
inner connection between the word meporaš that describes the reading of
the Torah and the expression Shem ha-meforash. In order to explicate this
connection, we must turn to the scriptural context in which this word appears.
The Torah reading described in Nehemiah 8:8 marks a profound change
in the status of the Torah in the era of the Second Temple.38 According to the
earlier concept, the Torah is a prophetic message, commandment, delivered
directly to its addressees. Even if its transfer involves mediators, it is mainly
intended for instant fulfillment by its recipients. It is primarily an instrument
of divine governance.39
In the Second Temple period, the Torah becomes a medium that embodies
the presence of the divine revelation itself in the world. In order for the Torah,
as the reified revelation, to reach its intended audience, the people, an additional
act of revelation is required. The reading of the Torah, its interpretation, and
its study are understood as recalling and reproducing the Sinaitic revelation.40

38 See Sara Japhet, “Law and ‘the Law’ in Ezra–Nehemiah,” in idem, From the Rivers
of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period
(Winona Lake, 2006), 137–51. On the transition from orality to textuality, see,
for example, Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–
Nehemiah (Atlanta, 1988); Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient
Israelite Literature (Louisville, 1996); William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible
Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge, 2003); David M.
Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford,
2005); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
(Cambridge, MA, 2007). For the different meanings of torah in the Bible, see Michael
Fishbane, ",‫ "תורה‬Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem, 1982), 8:469–83; Félix García
López and Heinz-Josef Fabry, “tôrâ,” TDOT, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren,
trans. D. Green (Grand Rapids, 1978), 15:609–46.
39 Similarly, in classical prophecy, the concrete message addressed to the people is more
significant than the vision as such; cf. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol.
II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (Louisville, 1965), 59.
40 Cf. the locus classicus in y. Ḥag. 2:1 (77b). A similar idea is expressed by Michael
Fishbane, utilizing the Saussurean dichotomy between langue and parole. Originally,
Torah appears as parole, the realization of divine langue. But with the closure of
the canon, Scripture turns into langue, while the midrash takes place of parole. See

]14*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

This new status of the Torah is evident in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah.41
The place of the visible and audible signs of the divine presence, a crucial
part of the revelation at Mount Sinai as described in Exodus 19 and 20, is
here occupied by the Torah scroll: raising it, opening it, and reading it. The
expression “So they read in the book in the law of God meporaš” (Neh 8:8)
should be understood in this revelatory context.
Meporaš is a participle of the verbal root prš, which is found twice in the
Pentateuch, at Lev 24:12 and Num 15:34. Both passages describe the direct
revelation of the divine will by means of an oracle.42 Similarly, the word
meporaš as used in Neh 8:8 emphasizes the theophanic aspect of the Torah
reading, which makes manifest the revelation enclosed in the written text.43
Various technical details of how this manifestation was achieved in reading
may also be implied in this term,44 but its main meaning points precisely to

Michael Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology

(Cambridge, MA, 1998), 9–13.
41 While there are some doubts about extent and content of the composition referred to
as the Mosaic Torah in Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. Jacob Licht, Encyclopaedia Biblica,
8:490–91), the scriptural ideology is already clearly pronounced (see Fishbane,
Encyclopaedia Biblica, 8:478). In any case, what is significant for us is not so much
the historical Ezra as the iconic representative of Torah ideology that he later became.
42 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985), 99–
102, 108–9; Simeon Chavel, Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah
(Tübingen, 2014), 23–92, 165–95.
43 Fishbane wrote (Biblical Interpretation, 245): “the verb ‫ פרש‬is first found in connection
with the oracular inquiries of Lev. 24:12 and Num. 15:34, but is used in postexilic
sources as an entirely rational mode of explanation or exposition of the Torah of Moses
(Neh. 8:8).” It seems somewhat premature to look for a rabbinic, “purely rational mode”
at the beginning of the Second Temple era, and even more so in the context of a gathering
modeled on the Sinaitic prototype. See also Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest,
108–113, 115–16; Chavel, Oracular Law, 172, 182–85. Too narrow an understanding of
prš has forced interpreters to postulate a different meaning for each occurrence, but in my
opinion the general meaning of the disclosure of the hidden divine will fits all the cases.
Compare with the initially oracular, divinatory meaning of such exegetical and legal
terms as drš and halakhah; see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 245; Siegfried Wagner,
“darash,” TDOT 3:302–4; I. Tzvi Abusch, “‘Alaktu’ and ‘Halakhah’: Oracular Decision,
Divine Revelation,” HTR 80 (1987): 15–42.
44 Three main interpretations of meporaš in Neh 8:8 have been suggested in modern
translations and commentaries: “clearly, distinctly”; “paragraph by paragraph”; and
“with (extempore) translation.” See Arie van der Kooij, “Nehemiah 8:8 and the

]15*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

the theophanic significance of the public reading of the Torah. Later tradition
established the understanding of prš as interpretation or exegesis, usually of
a written text. The theophanic connotation of the term was retained in this
further stage of development, and the phenomenon of inspired, prophetic
exegesis became a characteristic feature of Second Temple literature.
Scholars have faced difficulties in understanding the precise meaning of the
term Shem ha-meforash. Suffice it to say that the two most popular translations
of the expression—“the ineffable name”45 and “the explicit name”—reflect
two diametrically opposed concepts.46 According to the understanding of the
term meporaš advanced above, Shem ha-meforash means the revelatory name
that brings forth the theophany by its very utterance or visualization/display.47
This name was revealed to Moses, but it remains hidden until the moment
of its second revelation: the ritual utterance. An excellent illustration of this

Question of the ‘Targum’–Tradition,” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to

Dominique Barthélemy, ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano (Göttingen, 1991), 79–90.
45 The concept behind this translation is clearly of Greek origin; see, for example,
(κρυπτὸν καὶ) ἄρρητον ὄνομα: PGM 12.237, 240, 13.763, 21.1; ἀπόρρητον ὄνομα:
Thessalus, De virtutibus herbarum, Prol., 23; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 18; Irenaeus, Adv. haer.
1.15.1; ἄφραστον ὄνομα: Ascl. 41, p. 353; I; PGM 3.591; Apocalypse of Abraham 10:3,
8 (also ἄφθεγκτον, Iamb. Myst. 7.4). The notion of the “ineffable name” also appears in
Gnostic literature (e.g., Gos. Eg. NHC IV.53.18), Hermeticism, and late Neoplatonism.
The usage of this English expression to translate the Hebrew seems to me problematic.
The expression “hidden name” as a translation of Shem ha-Meforash is slightly more
justifiable. See Max Grünbaum, “Ueber Schem hammephorasch als Nachbildung eines
aramäischen Ausdrucks und über sprachliche Nachbildungen überhaupt,” ZDMG 39
(1885): 543–616.
46 Gershom G. Scholem, “The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala,”
Diogenes 79 (1972): 68.
47 There is a thesis that the theophanic significance of the name is connected primarily
with the display of the written name and not with its enunciation. I am not completely
convinced that this thesis holds in most cases, but it deserves attention. See Tzahi
Weiss, “‘Letters by which Heaven and Earth were Created’: A Conceptual Examination
of Attitudes toward Alphabetical Letters as Independent Units in Jewish and Culturally
Affiliated Sources of Late Antiquity: Midrash, Mysticism, and Magic” (PhD diss.,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008), 97–161 (in Hebrew); Shraga Bar-On,
“Casting Lots, God, and Man: From the Bible to the End of Renaissance” (PhD diss.,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 291–95 (in Hebrew); Meir Bar-Ilan, “So
Shall They Put My Name upon the People of Israel (Num 6:27),” HUCA 60 (1990):
19–31 (in Hebrew).

]16*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

understanding of the Shem ha-meforash as a theophanic name can be found in

Philo, who identifies the name of God and the Logos (word) as the interpreters
of the transcendent God:

ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπητόν, ἐὰν <κατὰ> τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ δυνηθῶμεν, ὅπερ ἦν

τοῦ ἑρμηνέως λόγου
No, we may be content if we are able to swear by His Name, which
means (as we have seen) the interpreting word.48

There are many parallels to this idea of a two-stage revelation. In particular, in

the classical Greek context, the unintelligible speeches of the ecstatic prophet
(mantis) were made comprehensible for the audience by the prophētēs—
the interpreter.49 Hermes himself, who lent his name to hermeneutics, is the
messenger and herald of the gods.
The close relationship between God’s Name and God’s Book is also
reflected in rabbinic literature. The verse “how majestic is your name in all the
earth” (Ps 8:10) describes, according to the Talmud (b. Shab. 88b), the Torah’s
descent to earth. The saying “the Torah is the name of God” became widely
known through the medieval Kabbalists, but undoubtedly is of much earlier
origins.50 The motifs of the sacred books and the sacred name, both of which
originate from a divine source and are transmitted by chains of tradents, are
intertwined in various esoteric traditions.51

48 Leg. 3:207.7; translation from F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo, with an English
Translation, 10 vols., LCL, (London, 1929–1962), 1:442–43.
49 Gregory Nagy, “Ancient Greek Poetry, Prophecy, and Concepts of Theory,” in Poetry
and Prophecy: The Beginnings of a Literary Tradition, ed. J. L. Kugel (Ithaca, 1990),
59–62. Cf. Philo, De Migr. 84.
50 See Moshe Idel, “The Concept of the Torah in Heikhalot Literature and Its
Metamorphoses in Kabbalah,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 23–84
(in Hebrew); Israel M. Ta-Shma, Ha-Nigle She-Banistar: The Halachic Residue in the
Zohar, A Contribution to the Study of the Zohar (Tel Aviv, 2001), 41–43 (in Hebrew).
See also Elliot R. Wolfson, “The Mystical Significance of Torah Study in German
Pietism,” JQR 84 (1993): 43–78. Wolfson deals mostly with the medieval material,
but also provides important early parallels. R. Eleazar of Worms’s statement, cited by
Wolfson at the end of the article, is worth noting: “The one who studies Torah has the
effect of mentioning the name.”
51 See Swartz, Scholastic Magic, 173–207; Albert Henrichs “Hieroi Logoi and Hierai

]17*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

5. The Seventy Books of Ezra and the Seventy Names

Tr a d i t i o n .
The foregoing discussion of the relation between Ezra, the theophanic name,
and theophanic books allows us to raise the question of the connection between
the seventy secret names of God or Metatron and the seventy secret books in
4 Ezra.
In the final, fourteenth chapter of 4 Ezra, God speaks to Ezra from a bush.
He begins with an overview of sacred history from the moment when Moses
heard God’s voice from the burning bush on Mount Sinai:
1
And it came to pass, on the third day, while I was sitting under an oak,
behold, a voice came out of a bush opposite me and said, “Ezra, Ezra.” 2
And I said, “Here I am, Lord,” and I rose to my feet. 3 Then he said to me,
“I revealed myself in a bush and spoke to Moses, when my people were in
bondage in Egypt; 4 and I sent him and led my people out of Egypt; and
I led him up to Mount Sinai. And I kept him with me many days; 5 and I
told him many wondrous things, and showed him the secrets of the times
and declared to him the end of the times. Then I commanded him, saying,
6
 ‘These words you shall publish openly, and these you shall keep secret.’” 52

Following this historical overview, Ezra is told about the end of times, and
also told that he, Ezra, is soon to leave the world. Ezra asks God to send down
the Holy Spirit (spiritus sanctus), so that he might dictate the books that will
instruct people after his death. God agrees and gives the relevant prescriptions:
23
He answered me and said, “Go and gather the people, and tell them
not to seek you for forty days. 24 But prepare for yourself many writing
tablets, and take with you Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Elkana, and Asiel—
these five, because they are trained to write rapidly; 25 and you shall
come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of understanding,
which shall not be put out until you finish what you are about to write.

Bibloi: The (Un)Written Margins of the Sacred in Ancient Greece,” Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 101 (2003): 207–66.
52 Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis, 1990), 413.

]18*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

26
And when you have finished, some things you shall make public, and
some you shall deliver in secret to the wise; tomorrow, at this hour, you
shall begin to write.” 53

When the day of revelation comes, a bowl filled with a fiery liquid appears
before Ezra. After drinking it, he acquires superhuman powers of understanding
and speech:
37
So I took the five men, as he commanded me, and we proceeded to
the field, and remained there. 38 And it came to pass, on the next day,
behold, a voice called me, saying, “Ezra, open your mouth and drink
what I give you to drink.” 39 Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full
cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color
was like fire. 40 And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my
heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast,
and my spirit retained its memory; 41 and my mouth was opened, and
was no longer closed. 42 And the Most High gave understanding to those
five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which
they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime,
and ate their bread at night. 43 As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was
not silent at night. 44 So during the forty days ninety-four books were
written. 45 And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to
me, saying, “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and
let the worthy and the unworthy read them; 46 but keep the seventy that
were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. 47
For in them are the springs54 of understanding, the fountains of wisdom,
and the river55 of knowledge.”56

53 Ibid., 426.
54 Lat. “spring”; Eth., Georg. “lamp,” “fire”; Ar1. “leaven”; Arm. “proverbs.” Clearly the
Greek was problematic; we follow the Syr., Syro-Arabic with the support of Latin; Eth.
and Georg. go back to a common Greek reading (Stone, Fourth Ezra, n. xx ad loc.).
55 Syr., Syro-Arabic “light”; Ceriani suggests nwhr˒, going back to nhr˒ (Antonio
Maria Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae
Ambrosianae, vol. V (Milan, 1868), 107; Stone, Fourth Ezra, n. xx ad loc.).
56 Ibid., 437.

]19*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

The seventy names in the tradition associated with Rabbi Abbahu correspond
to these seventy books in 4 Ezra. In both cases, the seventy items are
connected with secret knowledge revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, along
with the exoteric knowledge contained in the Torah.57 Furthermore, in both
cases, Ezra, as Moses redivivus, plays a central role in transmitting the
esoteric tradition.
We can add a further point to these comparisons. The total number of books
dictated by Ezra in 4 Ezra is ninety-four: seventy esoteric and twenty-four
exoteric books. The twenty-four exoteric books are unanimously identified
with the books of Scripture, and this passage is considered the earliest source
that specifies this number, which is also found in rabbinic and early Christian
literature. An alternative numbering of biblical books, twenty-two as opposed
to twenty-four, is mentioned in other contexts, by Josephus and many other
Jewish and Christian authors. Apparently, both numbers are associated with
the alphabet: the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet in the one case,
and the twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet in the other.58
Despite the formulaic designation “seventy names of Metatron,” the actual
list of the names is more extensive.59 The Alphabet of R Aqiva unit (§§76-80)

57 The seventy names of Metatron are associated with the structure of the Torah, namely
to the “seventy faces of the Torah”: “All of them (the storehouses) were opened for
Moses on Sinai, until he had learned, in the forty days that he stood on the mount,
Torah in the seventy faces of the seventy languages; the Prophets in the seventy faces
of the seventy languages; the Writings in the seventy faces of the seventy languages”
(§77=3 Enoch 48D). In another version of the Metatron account, preserved in the
medieval sources, the seventy faces of Torah are connected with seventy thousand
parasangs added to the stature of Metatron; see Idel, “The Concept of the Torah in
Heikhalot Literature,” 39–40.
58 See Yehudah Liebes, “Helen’s Porphyry and Kiddush Ha-Shem,” Daat 57/59 (2006):
85 and n. 17; Guy Darshan, “Twenty-Four or Twenty-Two Books of the Bible and
the Homeric Corpus,” Tarbiẓ 77 (2007): 1–22 (in Hebrew); idem, “The Twenty-Four
Books of the Hebrew Bible and Alexandrian Scribal Methods,” in Homer and the Bible
in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. M. Niehoff (Leiden, 2012), 219–44; Lee Martin
McDonald, “Hellenism and the Biblical Canons: Is There a Connection?” in Christian
Origins and Hellenistic Judaism; Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament,
ed. S. E. Porter, A. W. Pitts (Leiden, 2013), 13–49.
59 This applies to the two units referred to in this article as well as to the mediaeval lists
of seventy names of Metatron.

]20*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

explicitly mentions ninety-two names, comprised of the seventy names plus

the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, which are also called names and seals:

These are the ninety-two names resembling the Shem ha-meforash in

the Chariot, which is engraved on the Throne of Glory—which the Holy
One, blessed be he, took from his Shem ha-meforash and put on the name
of Metatron. Seventy names by which the ministering angels address the
King of the kings of kings in heaven above and twenty-two seals which
were struck out by his finger, by which all the orders of the heaven of
ʿArabot were sealed.60

The similarity between the seventy names tradition and the passage in 4
Ezra is obvious. Moses received seventy plus twenty-two names, while Ezra
received seventy plus twenty-four books. The numbers twenty-two/twenty-
four correspond to the letters of Hebrew/Greek alphabet. The total of ninety-
two names is fixed only in some versions of the Metatron tradition. There
are some other Hebrew texts that mention twenty-four, and not twenty-two,
magic letters (names).61 The same applies to the designation of seventy names:

60 Synopse, §78 (V228) = 3 Enoch 48D; Alphabet of R. Akiba, A, Wert. II, 354; translation
according to P. Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 314, with changes. The number ninety-two
appears at the beginning of the list of the names (§76) in M22, but V228 reads here
“seventy names.” The motif of individual letters, or the alphabet as a whole, as magical
seals, is very widespread. See Dornseiff, Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie (Leipzig,
1925); Weiss, “Letters.” Jubilees 2:15 counts twenty-two works of creation; Jub. 2:23–
24 connects these twenty-two works with the twenty-two generations from Adam to
Jacob. Later authors (Epiphanius, Isidore of Seville, Syncellus, Cedrenus, Midrash
Tadshe) seem to have known a version of the Jubilees tradition that also incorporated
twenty-two books of the Bible and twenty-two letters of the alphabet, but these were
not part of the earliest form of the text. See R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the
Little Genesis (London, 1902), 11–18; and see the discussion of James C. VanderKam,
“Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in idem, From Revelation to
Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden, 2002),
1–30 (18–19), particularly in relation to the textual evidence of the Qumran copies of
Jubilees.
61 The number twenty-four appears in Jewish mysticism and magic; see the Appendix to
this article and also Michael Schneider, “The Ladder of Jacob and Twelve Supernal
Faces,” in idem, The Rainbow and the Ladder: Studies in Varieties of Jewish Mysticism
(Los Angeles, 2017 [forthcoming]); for mention of the twenty-two Hebrew letters in

]21*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

in many occasions “seventy” actually designates seventy-two.62 The actual

number of names in the list of the names of Metatron varies from manuscript
to manuscript.63 Therefore this difference in numbers should not present an
obstacle to comparison of the two traditions.

Greek magical texts, cf. the amulet published by Joseph Keil and dated, according
to Gershom G. Scholem (Origins of the Kabbalah [Philadelphia, 1987], 29 n. 48), to
the second to fourth centuries. See Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History
(Cambridge, 2008), 161–62; Clinton E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The
Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (Grand Rapids, 1996), 68.
In the Gospel of the Egyptians, NHC IV.53–54, “the ineffable name” consists of seven
vowels, ΙΗΟΥΕΑΩ, written twenty-two times each. In the commentary to the Gospel
(A. Böhlig and F. Wisse, Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2: The Gospel of the
Egyptians, [Leiden, 1975], 173), this name is interpreted as Ἰήου ἐ(στὶν) Α (καὶ) Ω. See
also Birger Pearson, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (New
York, 2004), 232–33.
62 Bruce M. Metzger, “Seventy or Seventy-two Disciples,” NTS 5 (1958–1959): 299–
306; Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 51; James Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity
(Cambridge, 2002), 19–20; Shemuel Ashkenazi, “Seventy–Seventy Two,” Tzfunot 4
(1989): 94–98 (in Hebrew).
For example, Azharat reshit, a very early “admonition” piyyut for Shavuot, says,
“the only [daughter, sc. Torah], given to the sixty myriads, to the people chosen
from seventy tongues, written by twenty-two letters and also by the Name revealed
by seventy-two (letters or names)”; see Jonah Fraenkel, Maḥzor Shavuot (Jerusalem,
2000), 646 (the Hebrew text is partially cited above in n. 22). Here the letters of the
alphabet plus the letters or names of the Shem ha-Meforash give a total of ninety-
four. There is a consensus that Azharat reshit is the earliest admonition piyyut; Ezra
Fleischer attributes it to the preclassical period of piyyut (fifth to sixth centuries CE)
(Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in the Middle Ages [Jerusalem, 1975], 71–73, 95; idem,
“The Admonitions of R. Binyamin (b. Shemuel) the payyetan,” Kobez al-Yad XI (XXI)
(Jerusalem, 1989), 42).
63 Joseph Dan, “The Seventy Names of Metatron,” Proceedings of the Eighth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem, 1982), 22–23. Dan believes that
the framing of the number ninety-two as the sum of seventy and twenty-two was
invented ad hoc, to explain the discrepancy between the actual number of names in the
list and the tradition of seventy names. However, seventy names and twenty-two letters
are mentioned in the description of Metatron in a context where there is no attempt
to harmonize the different traditions (Schäfer, Synopse §389, §960, Schäfer, Geniza-
Fragmente, G9, 6b.29–30). In addition, the present comparison of this tradition with 4
Ezra provides further evidence for its antiquity.

]22*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

6 . E z r a ’s F i e r y D r a u g h t a n d t h e S a r To r a h
In giving guidance for the imminent revelation, God speaks of the lamp of
understanding (lucerna intellectus), which is to be lit in Ezra’s heart and
remain alight until he completes his dictation of the books:

And you shall come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of
understanding, which shall not be put out until you finish what you are
about to write. (4 Ezra 14:25)

The fulfillment of that promise is described later in the same chapter, when
Ezra is offered the mysterious fiery drink, which fills him with understanding,
wisdom, memory, and the ability to speak unceasingly.
This scene may be viewed as a description of the receiving of the Holy
Spirit, which Ezra requested at 14:22. The image of drinking is naturally
associated with the reception of the spirit, along with the motifs of filling the
heart (14:42), the flow of understanding, the comparison of books with springs
and fountains (14:47), and so on. Michael E. Stone comments:

Ezra’s receipt of the spirit is described in terms of drinking. This is

reminiscent of: (a) Ezekiel’s consumption of a scroll (Ezek 2:8–3:3; [cf.]
Rev 10:9–10); (b) the Hellenistic theme of “divine drunkenness” as a
way of describing inspiration, which is particularly striking in Philo’s De
ebr. 146–148.64

The receiving of the spirit is thus a common theme, especially characteristic of

wisdom literature.65 The motif of fire, however, is more specific. It combines
the image of the inextinguishable lamp, and the image of the fiery liquid.66
After drinking his cup of liquid fire, Ezra acquires supernatural cognition and
memory and the ability to talk without pause for forty days. The drink also
frees him from the human need for sleep and food.

64 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 120.

65 See for example, Sir 24:25–36.
66 According to some versions of the text cited by Stone, the image of fire reappears in
14:47; see above nn. 54 and 55.

]23*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

April DeConick discusses this passage as an example of mystical

transformation by fire: 67

It seems that the ascent imagery of drink and the acquisition of secret
knowledge is bound up intimately with fire and transformational
language as well.

The other examples she gives, while interesting, do not bear significant
resemblances to the specific context of the revelation to Ezra. In addition,
the abilities which Ezra acquires do not constitute a fiery transformation
of the whole person, as in other examples cited by DeConick.68 Therefore,
while I accept DeConick’s thesis on the whole, I will try to offer an additional
perspective on the interpretation of the motif of fire.
In the case of Ezra we have in view the fiery transformation, not of the
whole person, but of his capacity for speech. It seems that the main source of
the fire motif in the situation described in chapter fourteen is the fire of the
Torah. The word of God and the name of God are fire, and the Torah is given
in the fire from the fire;69 it is the “fire of the law,”70 ignea lex,71 lex quae
igni adsimilata est.72 In rabbinic literature the theme of the Torah as fire is
elaborated further.73 The Torah’s fiery quality is transferred to those who study
it.74 Fire is a necessary condition for the inspired interpretation75 and teaching
of the Torah:

67 April D. DeConick, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of
Thomas (Leiden, 1996), 110. See Ira Chernus, Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism: Studies
in the History of Midrash (Berlin, 1982), 108–125.
68 Compare to DeConick, Seek to See Him, 105–9.
69 Exod 19:8; Deut 4:11–15; etc.
70 Deut 33:2, according to the Masoretic text.
71 Deut 33:2, Vulgate.
72 4 Ezra 13:38.
73 See Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations
(New York, 2005), 333–34; Dalia Hoshen, “The Fire Symbol in Talmudic-Aggadic
Exegesis (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 1989; in Hebrew).
74 Mark Verman, “The Torah as Divine Fire,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 35 (2007): 94–102.
75 Naphtali Wieder, “The ‘Law-Interpreter’ of the Sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The
Second Moses,” JJS 4 (1953): 158–75.

]24*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

When the Holy Spirit rested upon Phineas, his face flamed like torches
about him. Hence it is written: the Priest’s lips should keep knowledge,
and they should seek the law at his mouth for he is the angel of the Lord
of hosts.76

The reception of the fiery Torah at Sinai, out of the midst of the fire (Deut 5:4),
is connected with the fiery transformation of Moses (Exod 34:29). This theme
of fiery transformation is common in rabbinic and Enochic traditions, as well
as apocalyptic and Hekhalot literature.77 The Talmud, Midrash, and Hekhalot
literature develop a parallel theme of confrontation between Moses and the
fiery angels. Many midrashim and piyyutim assert that Moses inherited Jacob’s
fiery nature:78

Says the Holy One, blessed be he, to Moses: “Come up to me by whatever

gate you wish, for you are of the families of Jacob, who is of fire, as
Scripture has it, ‘The house of Jacob shall be fire. . . .’” (Obad 1:18). The
Lord said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain (Exod 24:12) and
the angels will fear you, for the fire of your lightnings is stronger than
flames.”79

This brings us to the motif that directly links 4 Ezra with Hekhalot literature.
According to Rabbi Abbahu’s tradition, Moses was able to learn and memorize

76 Leviticus Rabbah 21:12, cf. 1:1. Translation by J. Israelstam and Judah Slotki, Midrash
Rabbah: Leviticus (London, 1951), 275. See Michael Schneider, Appearance of the
High Priest, 1–85.
77 It is reasonable to assume that the traditions of the fiery transformations of Enoch
and of Moses developed in the context of competition between Mosaic and Enochic
currents. See Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch–Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 (Tübingen,
2005), 255–303.
78 See Gen. Rab. 77:2 (on Gen 32:25): “Eventually he (the angel) said to himself: Shall
I not inform him with whom he is engaged? What did he do? He put his finger on the
earth, whereupon the earth began spouting fire. Jacob said to him: Do not think you can
terrify me with that! Why, I am altogether of that substance! Thus it is written: And the
house of Jacob shall be a house of fire (Obad 1.18).”
79 Rimon Kasher, “The Mythological Figure of Moses in Light of Some Unpublished
Midrashic Fragments,” JQR 88 (1997): 40, ll. 6–8; English translation: ibid., 33 (with
minor changes).

]25*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

the Torah on Mount Sinai because of the seventy (plus twenty-two) names that
were revealed to him.80 These names gave him power over the angel(s) of the
Torah, which contain the name(s) of God. The Sar-Torah tradition—of which
Rabbi Abbahu’s tradition can be considered one of the many branches—
includes a number of magical formulae for gaining supernatural abilities in
learning and memorizing the Torah.81 One of those formulae reads as follows:82

(§564): Rabbi Ishmael said: “I asked Rabbi Neḥuniah ben ha-Qannah:

How is the wisdom of the Sar-Torah [performed]?”83 He said to me:
“When you pray, pronounce the three names that the <Angels> of Glory
pronounce: ZṢ ṬYṢ ZRZYʾL84 TYT TWPYLṬY RBT YPʾ85 ʾRḤR ZYʿʾ
ʿYZWZ,86 in power.87 And when you pray, pronounce at the end [of your
prayer] the three letters (var.: names) that the Creatures pronounce when
they gaze at and see ʾRKS88 YWY God of Israel: GLY ʾYY ʾRDR YHʾL
ZK BBYBʾ. And when you say another prayer, pronounce the three
letters that the wheels of the Merkavah pronounce when they recite song
before the Throne of Glory: HṢ PZ YPʾ HPYʾW GHWʾ ŠBYBʾ.89 This
is the acquisition of wisdom; everyone who pronounces these acquires
wisdom forever. And can anyone endure it? Moses wrote three letters for
Joshua in the cup and he drank. If you cannot endure it, engrave them as
a mark and do not worry yourself with the words of the mighty ones.90

80 See Schäfer, Synopse, §77, §388, partially cited above, n. 57.

81 See Swartz, Scholastic Magic, 53–149; idem, Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An
Analysis of Maʿaseh Merkavah (Tübingen, 1992), 77–90.
82 In MS N8128 this recipe belongs to Maʻaseh Merkavah. See Swartz, Mystical Prayer,
237.
83 Swartz, Mystical Prayer, 237: “[obtained].”
84 Angelic name from root ZRZ, see below, 28.
85 N8128: RB TQYPʾ: “Great mighty”
86 Ps 24:8: “Strong.”
87 N8128: RGBW, metathesis of GBWR—“mighty.”
88 ʾRKS metathesis of KRSʾ, “Throne.”
89 GHWʾ may be a metathesis of gōhʾ, “earthquake,” see b. Ber. 59a. ŠBYBʾ—“flame”:
Job 18:5; Dan 3:22; 7:9. For the combination of earthquake and fire in angelic song, cf.
Isa 6:4; in theophany in general, Exod 19:18, 1 Kgs 19:11.
90 Swartz, Mystical Prayer, 237: “heroes.” But this is a usual designation for angels,
based on Ps 103:20. The Midrash and piyyutim interpret the verse, “A wise man scaleth

]26*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

ZPQ QNYDR HWWWʾ HBʾ ŠBWN QN ṢBW HṢ HR YṬ HRDW

HDR HWZH ŠBWN; and do not forget: ʾZQMP ʾWPWPY YDDR91—
light,92 fire, Father of fire;93 for swiftness94 of wisdom and for might of
understanding.”95

To acquire swiftness of wisdom and might of understanding, the person has to

utter three names or three letters that are also pronounced by the angels, the
beasts, and the wheels of the Chariot. This formula, however, turns out to be
difficult to complete. It seems that only Moses himself could utter these letters/
names; even his pupil Joshua had to drink them dissolved in a cup of water.96
The difficulty of pronouncing the letters of the wheels apparently stems from
their fiery nature.97 The purpose of this formula is to give the adept the ability
to speak in a way similar to the angelic “living creatures.” That angelic beings
have a fiery nature is well known, but here we must pay special attention to the

the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof” (Prov
21:22 KJV), as an account of Moses’s receiving the Torah. The city of the mighty
(ones) is read as heaven, the stronghold of the angels, and the strength of its confidence
is read as the Torah. In a piyyut of Yannai (sixth century CE) Moses’s ascent to receive
the Torah is described as follows: “The faithful one was hurried to ascend to the city
of the mighty ones "(‫( ")זורז נאמן עלות עיר גבורים‬Zvi Meir Rabinovitz, The Liturgical
Poems of Rabbi Yannai according to the Triennial Cycle of the Pentateuch and the
Holidays [Jerusalem, 1985], 1:354). It is remarkable that here we meet the epithet “the
mighty ones” as referring to angels and the word zūraz (hurried) from the same root as
zerizūt (swiftness) in our incantation.
91 Swartz (Mystical Prayer, 237), following O1531, reads here an additional nomen
barbarum, ʾWRNWD; I prefer the reading of N8128, M22, M40: ʾWR NWR—“light,
fire,” reflected in the translation.
92 ʾōr, or it may be ʾūr—fire.
93 Swartz, Mystical Prayer, 237: “awesome Father.” Indeed, “Father of fire” sounds
strange, but the context strongly suggests the meaning of fire; it may be better to take
the phrase as a nomen barbarum.
94 zerizūt; Swartz, Mystical Prayer, 237: “fortification”; see below, p. 28
95 My translation, based on Swartz, Mystical Prayer, 237.
96 The magic practice of drinking names dissolved in water or wine is well known in
Jewish tradition, rooted in the pentateuchal account of the sotah (Num 5:23–24); cf.
Josephus, Ant. 3.270–272.
97 The verse from Dan 7:9, “His throne was fiery flames (šbybyn dy-nwr), and its wheels
were burning fire,” forms a background for this spell. In addition, the words šbybʾ
(“flame”) and nwrʾ (“fire”) appear in the spell as voces magicae.

]27*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

fiery nature of their speech and singing. There are numerous examples of this
aspect, beginning with Isa 6:4. To understand fiery speech, to communicate
with higher beings, and even to compete with them, the mystic must acquire
the ability to speak like fire. This idea can be seen as an iteration of the general
concept of mystical transformation, adapted to the context of receiving the
Torah. The burning coal that touches Isaiah’s mouth (Isa 6:6–7), as well as
Elijah’s “cake baked on the coals”98 can be viewed in this context.
The fire motif is associated with the speed and constancy of the celestial
beings’ speech. The term ḥašmal is interpreted as ḥayyot ʾeš memalelōt “fiery
creatures uttering” (or “living creatures speaking fire”) and also as ḥašōt
memalelōt—“hurrying and speaking.”99 A vivid description of the angels’
rapid, unceasing, fiery speech is found in the Sefer Ha-Razim:

These are they who stand on the fifth step. They grasp shield and spear,
and brass helmets are on their heads, and their garments are coats of
mail. To their right and left are (storms) as of hailstones. Trembling
(accompanies) their running and they stride upon rivers of fire, grasping
torches, and hurrying to return an answer, and their mouths never silent
from roaring, and their breath is like flaming fire, and their fire is blazing
(so that) the breath of their mouths kindles fire, for all their actions
concern the treasuries of fire, for from fire they emerged and they are
stationed in fire.100

98 1 Kgs 19:6 KJV. See Cant. Rab 1:37, which links this verse to Isa 6:6–7.
99 In extant versions of b. Ḥag. 13a, there are only two interpretations of ḥašmal: ḥayyot
ʾeš memalelōt, “Living creatures speaking fire”; and (in a baraita): “At times they
are silent (ḥašōt), at times they speak (memalelōt).” However, in the version quoted
by Maimonides the Talmud explains ḥaš as referring to rapidity; see Guide for the
Perplexed 3.7. This understanding of the element ḥaš of ḥašmal is also attested in the
piyyutim of Qallir (seventh century). Cf. The Book of Contemplation (mid-thirteenth
century): “Ḥashmal means the fiery creatures that talk. Another explanation: haḥīš mal,
hurry in regard to the mal, that is, the seventy names [the gematria (numeric value) of
mal=70]. This is, ‘God’s secret is for those who fear Him’ ”; see Mark Verman, The
Book of Contemplation (Albany, 1992), text p. 81, translation, 86–87 (modified).
100 Sepher Ha-Razim: The Book of Mysteries, tr. Michael A. Morgan (Chico, CA, 1983),
50.

]28*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

The motif of the holy animals’ rapidity derives directly from Scripture: “The
living creatures darted to and fro, like a flash of lightning” (Ezek 1:14 NRSV).
Accordingly, one who seeks to be worthy of heavenly revelation must imitate
the rapid speech of the heavenly beings. In discussing the tradition of testing
the descenders to the Chariot by means of ḥašmal,101 the thirteenth-century
Kabbalist Joseph Gikatilla writes: 102

And the living creatures that are called ḥashmal inspect the prophets when
they reach the gate through which one enters to behold the mirror, which
is not a clear crystal, and the ḥashmal rushes in its swift manner and ease
of speech to talk with the prophet who enters in order to behold. And if
the prophet is able to comprehend the words of the ḥashmal instantly and
to give answers to each and every discourse, then it is established that
he is worthy of entering and beholding the glory of the king. . . . Now,
the ḥashmal inspects all those who have reached the rung of prophecy.
If they answer to the point and ask properly, promptly, and instantly like
the ḥashmal, they are allowed to enter. Otherwise, they are rejected and
pushed outside.103

Here we can return to the magical formula of the Sar-Torah, discussed above.
One of the first angelic names mentioned there is Zarzīel, and at the end of the
text its purpose is defined as “for zerizūt of wisdom.” The root zrz has a wide
semantic field in Hebrew and Aramaic; even if we restrict ourselves to Hekhalot

101 See Schäfer, Synopse, §258; David Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 200–201; Annelies
Kuyt, The ‘Descent’ to the Chariot: Towards a Description of the Terminology, Place,
Function, and Nature of the Yeridah in Hekhalot Literature (Tübingen, 1995), 110–11.
102 See Schäfer, Synopse, §407.
103 R. Joseph Gikatilla, “Sod ha-Ḥashmal,” Arzey Levanon (Venice, 1601), 40b. English
translation from Moshe Hallamish, An Introduction to the Kabbalah, tr. Ruth Bar-
Ilan and Ora Wiskind-Elper (Albany, 1999), 66. The connection between mystical
experience, rapid speech, and fire is prominent in Abulafia’s school. See Moshe Idel,
The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, 1988), 39; Jonathan Garb,
Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah (Chicago, 2011), 36–44; and especially, Amos
Goldreich, Automatic Writing in Zoharic Literature and Modernism (Los Angeles,
2010), 125–35 (in Hebrew). See also Vicente Dobroruka, “Chemically-induced
Visions in the Fourth Book of Ezra in Light of Comparative Persian material,” Jewish
Studies Quarterly 13 (2006): 1–26.

]29*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

literature, where the root occurs relatively frequently, it is impossible to reach

an unambiguous interpretation for this phrase. However, the considerations
outlined above lend support to the meaning of quickness or agility.
The equally important property of fire, transferred as well to mystical
speech, is its constancy. Fire is never quenched, and, like it, the song of
supernatural beings is unceasing.104 Jacob, to prove his superiority in his
struggle with the angel proclaims “Am I not Israel, the first minister before the
face of God? And I called upon my God by the inextinguishable name (ὄνομα
ἄσβεστον).”105 Applying the epithet “inextinguishable,” a usual designation
of fire, to the Shem ha-meforash is consistent with the depiction of the name
in Hekhalot literature.
As we have seen, Ezra gained the ability to talk unceasingly for forty days
after drinking the heavenly liquid fire. Similarly, in the magic formula quoted
above, the adept is told to drink three letters of fire dissolved in water in order
to achieve the same end. Thus Ezra’s method of obtaining ninety-four books
is an additional example of the similarities between 4 Ezra and the Hekhalot
literature (more specifically, Sar-Torah traditions).

7. Conclusion
There is a connection between, perhaps a common background to, R. Abbahu’s
tradition of seventy plus twenty-two or so names of Metatron and the passage

104 For instance, compare the following passage from Apocalypse of Abraham, 18:1–3
(translated by Alexander Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the
Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham [Leiden, 2005], 23–24):
<And> while I was still reciting the song, the edge of the fire which was on the expanse
rose up on high. And I heard a voice like the roaring of the sea, and it did not cease
because of the fire. And as the fire rose up, soaring higher, I saw under the fire a throne
[made] of fire and the many-eyed Wheels, and they are reciting the song. And under
the throne [I saw] four singing fiery Living Creatures.
A similar idea is found in the passage quoted above from Sefer Ha-Razim: “and
their mouths are never silent from roaring, and their breath is like flaming fire.” For
additional examples see Schneider, “Ladder of Jacob,” 252.
105 Text: Origène, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, tome 1 (Livres I-V) ed. C. Blanc, SC
120 (Paris, 1966), 335. Translation: Jonathan Z. Smith, “The Prayer of Joseph,” in
Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J.
Neusner, Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden, 1970), 253–54.

]30*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

in 4 Ezra about the seventy plus twenty-four revealed books. This connection
has its roots in the concept meforash, which is linked both to the name of God
and to revealed books. An additional support for this conclusion is provided
by the similarity between the preparations for receiving revelation related in
4 Ezra and certain Sar ha-Torah practices described in Hekhalot texts. If one
accepts these arguments, the first century CE may be taken as a terminus ante
quem for the sources of R. Abbahu’s tradition; moreover, these connections
open up new possibilities for interpreting the mystical and visionary motifs
in 4 Ezra.

Appendix
T h e “ B o d y o f Tr u t h ” a n d t h e Tw e n t y - f o u r B o o k s
In the preceding discussion it was presumed that the traditional number of
books of the Bible corresponds to the number of letters of the Hebrew or Greek
alphabet. This correspondence is easily explained by the technical reasons of
mnemonics and the practice of notation.106 However, in the context of the
tradition of the divine names associated with the concept of Shiʿur Qomah,
these correspondences acquire a different meaning.
The starting point here is the observation of Gedaliah Stroumsa, that
Scripture is called a body, i.e., a body of truth; and that “canon” means “a
measuring rod, measure.” Thus, the notion of a canon of Scripture is very
similar to the concept of Shiʿur Qomah; that is, the measure of the divine
body.107 In this regard, one of the clearest and earliest parallels to the Shiʿur
Qomah, the doctrine of Marcos the Gnostic, is particularly interesting. Marcos
speaks about the Body of Truth, so his notion is particularly close to the idea of
the scriptural corpus as a body of truth.108 As is well known, the challenge of

106 See Guy Darshan, “The Twenty-Four Books of the Hebrew Bible and Alexandrian
Scribal Methods,” in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. M.
Niehoff (Leiden, 2012), 219–44.
107 Guy G. Stroumsa, “The Body of Truth and its Measures,” in Gnosisforschung und
Religionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Kurt Rudolph zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. H. Preißler,
H. Seiwert, (Marburg, 1994), 309–11. On the Torah as Shiʿur Qomah in Jewish sources,
see Moshe Idel, “The Concept of the Torah in Heikhalot Literature.”
108 G. G. Stroumsa, “Body of Truth,” 309–11.

]31*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

Gnosticism had a significant influence on the formation of the biblical canon

in early Christianity, and therefore such comparisons are of particular interest.
The main passage in Irenaeus’s outline of Marcos’s Shiʿur Qomah-like
concept is a description of the divine Body of Truth, marked (inscribed) with
twenty-four letters. Thus, the correspondence between the books of Scripture
and the letters of the Greek alphabet may be associated with this Shiʿur Qomah-
like notion. It seems that the traces of the concept of the divine body marked
(inscribed) with twenty-four letters can also be discerned in some Jewish texts
related to the tradition of Shiʿur Qomah and the Shem ha-meforash: 109

His characters (qelasteraw) are twenty-four. These are written on His

forehead: YH YHH HHH HHH HWʾ HYH WYHYH110 ʾHH YHW
WHH QB ʾHYH ʾŠR ʾHYH111 ʾH Hʾ WʾH ṢBʾ HHW HHW HW LYH
WSM HHW112

The word qelaster used here has two meanings. The first meaning, “radiance,”
is primarily found in the phrase qelaster panim (a “radiant countenance”), and
used metonymically to indicate “facial expression,” “the appearance of the
face.” Secondly, the term figures as a magical glyph, usually taken to indicate
a personified angelic being. Both meanings fit the semantic field of the Greek
χαρακτήρ,113 especially in view of the use of the latter term by Marcos:

Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμα τῆς κατὰ τὸν μάγον Ἀληθείας, τοῦτο τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ
στοιχείου, οὗτος ὁ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ γράμματος.

109 Sefer Merkabah Shelemah, ed. A. Porush and S. Musayof (Jerusalem, 1921), 31b.
Cf. Hekhalot Zutarti, §357, where this statement follows the string of nomina
barbara: “This is the Shem ha-meforash [the ineffable Name] and its interpretations,
its explorations and its pronunciations, and its interpretation is Greek”; cited by
Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 81. On
the “characters,” see also Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 270–74.
110 “He was, and (he) will be.”
111 Exod 3:14.
112 The total number of letters is seventy-one.
113 The first meaning was influenced also by Greek κρύσταλλος, Latin crystallum, see
Schneider, “Ladder of Jacob,” in idem, The Rainbow and the Ladder (Los Angeles,
2017) 154–64 (forthcoming).

]32*[
 MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

This, according to the magician, is the Body of Truth; this is the shape of
the element; this is the character of the letter.114

In Hebrew and Aramaic magical texts the words character and qelaster, as
well their various distorted forms,115 are used quite often in the second of
the above meanings. The Shiʿur Qomah texts actualize both meanings of the
word, bodily and textually.116 Of particular interest is the following passage,
which is associated with the passage quoted above:117

Three hundred are His chariot, seventy-two His names, one thousand
two hundred His appellations, ninety-six His characters, twenty-four the
holies of His Glory, forty-two the splendors of His myriads. Therefore
He is called “the great God, mighty and awesome.”118

In this passage, the number of characters is ninety-six = 24 x 4=72 + 24. The

same numbers, twenty-four and ninety-six, play a central role in another Shiʿur
Qomah-like fragment, the vision of the prophet Elchasai:

It had been revealed by an angel whose height was twenty-four

schoeni—that is, ninety-six miles—and whose girth was four schoeni;
from shoulder to shoulder he was six schoeni; his footprints were three-
and-a-half schoeni long—that is, fourteen miles—the breadth being one-
and-a-half and the height half a schoenus. With him was a female whose
dimensions, he said, accorded with those mentioned, the male being the
Son of God and the female called “Holy Spirit.”119

114 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.14.3.17–20. Niclas Förster, Marcus Magus: Kult, Lehre und
Gemeindeleben einer valentinianischen Gnostikergruppe; Sammlung der Quellen und
Kommentar (Tübingen, 1999), 120.
115 See M. Schneider, “Metatron in Syriac Incantation Bowl,” forthcoming.
116 Cf. Gershom G. Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead (New York, 1991), 28.
117 See p. 30.
118 Schäfer, Synopse, §376; cf. §§468, 490, 728.
119 Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations Into the Evidence
for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception
by Judeo-Christian Propagandists (Tübingen, 1985); Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The
Book of Elkesai and Merkabah Mysticism,” JSJ 17 (1986): 212–23. Compare, “From
His thighs to His neck is twenty-four thousands myriads parasangs; WMWTNY

]33*[
 SEVENTY NAMES AND SEVENTY BOOKS:

Elchasai uses schoenus, a length measure of Egyptian origin, which he equates

with four miles. In Hekhalot literature, especially in Shiʿur Qomah texts, the
term parasang (farsang), a Persian measure of length, which is also equal to
four miles, is used in a similar way.120
Finally, it is worth mentioning an alternative version of the tradition
in which the number of characters/qelasters is ninety-two, a figure that
corresponds to the number of names in the tradition of Rabbi Abbahu:

The Creator has ninety-two qelasters, as it is stated in the Book of Glory

and in the Book of Secrets.121

As noted by Moshe Idel, this passage, which appears in the book Sefer ha-
Hokhmah attributed to R. Eleazar of Worms (c. 1176–1238), in fact comes
from the circle of R. Neḥemiah ben Shlomo the Prophet (twelfth to thirteenth
century).122 Comments on the tradition of the seventy names of Metatron
occupy a significant place in the writings of this school. It is natural to assume
that the statement about ninety-two qelasters goes back to an earlier tradition,
to which a later comment typical of the school of R. Nehemiah was added.

MWTNYW ʿTSGHYDRYH its name, and on His heart are written seventy names”
(Schäfer, Geniza-Fragmente, G9, 6a.10, p. 115).
120 Cf. Baumgarten, “Book of Elkesai.”
121 Perush ha-Rokeach ʿal ha-Torah, ed. J. Klugman (Bnei Brak, 1980), 42.
122 Moshe Idel, “From Italy to Ashkenaz and Back: On the Circulation of Jewish Mystical
Traditions,” Kabbalah 14 (2006): 78 n. 113.

]34*[