See More El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron Various at IGN.com

I’m not much into video gaming these days (more of a lack of time than lack of interest really), but this one looks pretty neat, especially since it involves a character named Enoch and his struggle with the Fallen Angels, led by none other than Lucifer himself.  At this point it is difficult to determine how closely the game will actually follow the themes of the Enochic literature, but from the short descriptions I have read it seems that they have at least remained faithful to the principal elements of the narrative.  From the title, it seems that “heavenly ascent” will be a theme in it somehow.

It seems a bit odd to have this very Jewish title and background fit into a very Japanese action-adventure video game, but just the idea of getting to play the role of Enoch/Metatron is enough to get me curious!  How cool is that?!? Unfortunately (for me) it will only be released on XBox 360 and Playstation 3, neither of which I own.

To read more about the game, check out this gaming website here or here.

This is the official “teaser” website, although it doesn’t have much on it yet: http://elshaddai.jp/index.html

Here are some screenshots from the game:

And here is the teaser trailer, although it really doesn’t show much at all.

Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity — Sunday 9am Session

Frances Flannery, James Madison University

Ascents, Apocalypses, and Neuroscience: Moshe Idel and the Study of Religious Experience

This unit/section is of an interdisciplinary nature. It was organized to provide a forum for scholars researching a wide variety of topics in biblical studies using diverse methods drawn not only from biblical studies but also various other fields, including anthropology, archaeology, sociology, neuro-biology, and neuro-psychology.  These diverse approaches are bound together in one endeavor: to take seriously the articulation of ancient authors’ experience of the divine [see Francis Flannery, et al., eds., Experientia, Vol. 1, SBL, 2008]

This endeavor has to be rooted in texts – but it doesn’t end there.  We must go beyond the text, but always be rooted in it. We are attempting to study the people who wrote these texts and had real religious experiences. Don’t be limited to just the text – these authors put ritual/experience into their texts. Why would they do this? Why preserve ritual in texts?

These experiences are not just obviously real but also powerful and transformative for those experiencing them.

Moshe Idel’s study of ascent (see Moshe Idel, Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism, Central European Univ. Press, 2005) helps contribute to this section’s goals.

The Goals of this Section:

1. Beyond fields – Idel traced ascents across many fields and traditions – using a broad ranging approach – he approaches Jewish kinds of mysticism
2. Beyond text (yet rooted in texts) – analyze using comparative materials – looks at individual accounts of ascent, then draws modest conclusions (ascent of soul/spiritual body) – allows accounts to stand for themselves, not commenting too much on, not judging – pays attention to technique and practice – study of Abilafia, esp. sensory experiences
3. Beyond a single methodology – use interdisciplinary methodologies (also employing sociology, anthropology, neuro-psychology, etc.) – Methodological eclecticism

• • Theological approach
  • Historical approach (anthropological, archaeological, sociological)
  • Psychological approach
  • Textual literary approach
  • Comparative religions approach (Eliade, Chicago group)
  • Ritualistic/ technical
  • Phenomenological approaches
  • Cognitive approaches (human creation in religion, structuralism, social memory)
  • Perspectivism – opposite of comparative religions (compare differences)

Idel has made great contribution to ritualistic studies. See his Ascensions on High. He talks of how rituals are related to cognitive aspects of religion or related to bodily experience — mind and body, tradition and rationality. The whole religious experience involves all of these.

When working towards this endeavor, there is a need for coherence among techniques

Idel used neuroscience to examine the kabbalah – especially the experience of seeing a second body or seeing one’s own body and a second body. TPJ (temporoparietal junction)– seems to be the part of the brain that is stimulated during these experiences. Brain stimulation is related to ritual, which is related to technique, which is related to mystical expression. There is a relationship between these.

It appears that a reduction in oxygen to brain can produce some of these feelings/perceptions described.

All this helps make a coherent case for mystical experiences as actual human experiences. We can know that humans produced these texts and that they shared the same physiology as we do.  Mysticism is not just symbolic language.

4. Beyond [Gershom] Scholem –- ecstatic kabbalah is not just “symbolic” –- The Myth and Ritual School should be called “Myth and Symbolic” school.  We can now see that its not all symbolic –- we emphasize connectivity between human and God, not a symbolic gap between mankind and Deity. Idel emphasized the experiential aspects of ritual – allegories, divine names, and experiences in Kabbalah.  He argues that the performative aspect of kabbalah has been virtually ignored  – its not just an abstract system. We have been looking in the wrong place to understand kabbalah.

We may conclude that mysticism is not an irrational enterprise.  Its  not really ineffable.

5. Beyond Semeia 14 – [SBL publication by John Collins] that gave definition of literary genre called apocalypse — but this is not sufficient definition for apocalypticism as the  performative aspect is often lost in analyses.  Daphna Arbel (Beholders of Divine Secrets: Mysticism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature, Albany NY: State University of New York Press 2003) emphasizes the experience of entering presence of God.

We can move beyond Semeia 14. Idel’s methods for mysticism should be applied to apocalypticism –- apocalyptic texts should be seen as having an experiential underpinning. The religious experience of the authors should be taken seriously. Social memory – what is author experiencing when he/she speaks as Enoch? Is eschatology really the central point?

Apocalypticism should be subset of the visionary genre –- it emphasizes connectivity to divine world and overcoming the gap between divine and mundane.

(As always, I am responsible for the contents of these notes. They should not be taken to represent exactly what the presenter said verbatim.)

[For more from this presenter, see Frances Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 90; Leiden\Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2004).

We now look at the Temple, the place where Heaven is represented on Earth. Eusebius knew that Moses had built the Tabernacle as an imitation of the visions he had be given on Sinai (Exod 25:8, 40):

And Moses himself, having first been thought worthy to view the divine realities in secret, and the mysteries concerning the first and only Anointed High Priest of God, which were celebrated before him in his theophanies, is ordered to establish figures and symbols on earth of what he had seen in his mind in visions (Proof IV:15)(p. 83).

Later, the Temple built by Solomon would follow the same pattern. What went on in the Tabernacle and Temple was to be an imitation of what went on in Heaven. This is an interesting insight for LDS attenders of the modern Temples. Barker has some great insight on the relationship between the earthly and heavenly:

Yahweh was represented in the temple by the high priest.  The temple itself represented the whole creation, visible and invisible, the great hall being the material world and the holy of holies the invisible creation. Philo explained: “The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its votive ornaments the stars, and for its priests the angels (Special Laws, 1:66). Since the angels were priests in the temple of creation, the priests in the Jerusalem temple represented the angels…The high priest was the chief of the priests and also the chief of the angels, the LORD of the hosts: “For there are, as is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Logos and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real man” (On Dreams1:215). The high priest was the only person permitted to enter the holy of holies, and so he was the link between the visible and invisible worlds, between earth and heaven (pp. 92-93).

The high priests and kings were anointed in ceremonies that involved the Temple in imitation of Christ’s anointing. Eusebius recalled:

Among the Hebrews [the high priests] were called Christs who long ago symbolically represented a copy of the first Christ (Proof IV.10).

 Philo also knew this tradition concerning the original Anointed One:

The [heavenly] High Priest is not a man but a Divine Logos…his father being God who is likewise Father of all, and his mother Wisdom, through whom the universe came into existence. Moreover, his head has been anointed with oil, and by this I mean that his ruling faculty is illumined with a brilliant light, in such wise that he is deemed worthy to “put on the garments” (On Flight 108-110).

 In the temple, the multi-colored veil represented the material creation. The same fabric was used for the outer vestment of the high priest, threaded through with gold (Exod 28:5-6). According to Barker, the high priest only wore this garment when he was in “the world”; when he was in heaven, the holy of holies, he wore a white linen robe in imitation of celestial beings. This was indicative of his two roles: divine and human (see p. 94).

The coloured vestment worn over the white linen indicated the angel robed in transformed matter: incarnation (p. 94).

In the Book of Revelation, John sees Jesus as a fiery high priestly figure, and Barker makes a connection between this description and the figure that Ezekiel saw atop the merkabah throne he saw.  According to Barker, it would seem that this is Christ’s usual mode of appearance, whether pre-mortal or post. He is wearing the vestments of the High Priest. She uses as a further example the Apocalypse of Abraham , a Jewish document believed to have been written towards the end of the first century AD. In this document, Abraham meets a Great Angel named Yahweh-el, who is described both as an angel and the True Prophet. This account is linked to Genesis 15, and we should probably understand that this angelic figure is meant to be Yahweh himself who met with Abraham. Again his appearance is that of a High Priest:

The text is not entirely clear, but it seems that the lower part of his body was like sapphire and his hair was white like snow. He wore the high priestly turban that looked like a rainbow (kidaris, Exod 39:28, Zech 3:5) and purple robes, and he carried a golden staff or sceptre. The heavenly figure had human form, and he came to consecrate and strengthen Abraham…Yahweh-el had been appointed as the guardian angel of Abraham and his descendants (Ap. Abr. 10:16), and he appeared as the High Priest…It was the Lord Yahweh who appeared to Abraham and became the high priestly angel in the Apocalypse of Abraham (pp. 96-97).

The Throne-Sharer

A couple of months ago, Dr. Bill Hamblin wrote a great post on his blog, Things Unutterable, about a model temple from biblical Moab, that demonstrates the synthronos, or dual throne.

 William Dever, archeologist, discussed the discovery of this model in Biblical Archaeology Review (34/2, Mar/Apr 2008). It is Dever’s opinion that the dual throne represented the joint rule of Yahweh and Asherah, God and Goddess, from the Temple. Although there is significant evidence for Asherah as an ancient Hebrew goddess, Dr. Hamblin did not agree that the dual throne was necessarily occupied by the divine Father and Mother. He notes that there are other possible combinations, including father (or mother) and son (or king or perhaps high priest as son).

I found an interesting picture on the internet that depicts a related scene:

I think this picture was supposed to depict an earthly representation of Father, Son and Holy Ghost in ancient Israel, but I think they possibly got the order wrong. It should probably be the King on the main throne, with the High Priest seated to his right. Anyways, this is an interesting depiction.  It is possibly based on Psalm 110:1, where, as Hamblin notes, the king is invited to sit down at the right hand of God. The high priest, however, should not be representing the Father.

The high priest did represent Yahweh (the Son) according to tradition. It would be correct to imagine the high priest as occupying the throne of or with God, as Yahweh the Great High Priest would share the throne of, and represent, God Most High.  We must note, however, that the Davidic king also represented Yahweh, as I explained in the first of this two-part post. I would argue that in ancient Israel, the King was likely more of a high priest than the Aaronic chief priest, but that argument will have to wait for another time. I cite again here, the remarkable verses from  1 Chron 29:23 and also 29:20:

23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king. 

So the image becomes one of the king sitting on the throne of/with Yahweh, which we can imagine is in imitation of Yahweh sitting on the throne of/with the Father.  Hamblin gives some great insight into how Jews and Christians saw the shared throne:

Later Jews likewise saw synthronos between God and his son, king, angel, or deified human (Dan 7:9–14), most prominently describing Christ (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Acts 7:55–56; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1, 12:2).  Metatron (the deified Enoch) is likewise a Jewish synthronos figure (3 Enoch).  Given this biblical context, Israelite synthronos is just as likely to be father-son/king as father-mother. 

Joseph Smith described his modern vision of the Heavenly Throne in an amazingly similar manner:

(I saw) Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.  

Margaret Barker sees this throne-sharing as a key to understanding Christian “monotheism” (see pp. 89-92). She explains that “there can be no division within the divine state” (p. 89). In Heaven, there exists a perfect divine unity–it is only on Earth that we are separate. This idea is expressed in Jesus’ intercessory prayer in John 17, where Jesus prays:

That they may be one even as we are one, I in them and Thou in me, so that they may become perfectly One, so that the world may know that Thou hast sent me… 

She notes the use in the book of Revelation of a singular verb for the two Gods–the pairing of God-and-the-Lamb or God-and-the-Christ (Rev 5:13; 7:10-11; 11:15; 20:6). In these scriptures it refers to two figures, God and Christ, but then seems to consider them as one, applying a singular verb.  For example the throne of God and the Lamb is seen (in Rev 22:3-4), and his servants shall worship him and see his face. But whose throne is it? God’s or the Lamb’s? Who will be worshipped, and whose face will be seen? According to Barker, this is not an issue.

In each case they are one, because in each case it is a human figure who has become divine…The Lamb is, therefore, a human being taken up to the throne and, as he is enthroned, he becomes divine, united with “him who sits upon the throne”. The Lamb is worshipped after he has stood in the midst of the throne (Rev 5:6). When Solomon was made king, there was an exactly similar sequence; it must have been the ancient temple ritual. Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king (1 Chron 29:23)…At his enthronement, the human king became the LORD.  Whether this was imagined as the incarnation of the LORD, or as the adoption of the king as the divine son is not known (p. 91).

Theosis (deification or becoming divine), according to Barker, is an essential part of understanding the temple worship of both ancient Israel and the early Christians. It is also essential to understanding how Christians could believe in a God who became human and a human who became God. This was standard fare in the religion of the First Temple.  In conclusion, I quote Barker:

Returned to its temple context, and interpreted within temple norms, early Christian worship was binitarian (they worshipped both Father and Son) because all temple worship was binitarian. The human king was the presence or face of the LORD, Immanuel, and so Christain devotion to Jesus the Anointed One as Yahweh the LORD was no innovation. Far from there being no parallel to this Clhristian practice in Hebrew tradition, it was in fact the restoration of the original temple cult.