This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
I accept this policy
Find out more here
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
I accept this policy
Find out more here
Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.
In view of the polemical interactions between Enochic and Mosaic traditions detected in the Slavonic apocalypse, one no longer needs to follow David Halperin’s advice by clarifying the relationships between Moses and Enoch-Metatron on the basis of the later rabbinic testimonies to the Shabu’ot circle. Already in the Second Temple materials, specifically in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, Enochic authors sought to portray the Mosaic hero as a junior replica of Enoch-Metatron and his revelation as the disclosure inferior to the one received by the seventh antediluvian patriarch. The passage from Sefer Hekhalot 48D:10 also attests to this long-lasting rivalry between Moses and Enoch. Yet in comparison with the author of 2Enoch, the task of the Hekhalot author seems more complex, he cannot simply overwrite the Mosaic Torah, keeping silence about its revealer, as did the Enochic authors of the Slavonic pseudepigraphon. He must reconcile the two revelations.
Keywords: Enoch-Metatron; Enochic Tradition; Garden of Eden; healing motif; Macarian Homilies; Mesopotamian traditions; Mosaic Torah