Pázmány Péter Catholic University Facult y of Hum aniti es
Doctoral S chool of Histor y
Doctoral Program for the Histor y of Ideology
József Gátas
Throne Visi on on St age
The Political Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Exagog e
Theses of Doctoral (PhD) Di ss ert at i on
Supervi sors: Dr. Ida Fröhl ich DS c and Dr. Laut ner P ét er
2014
1. The preliminari es of t he res earch; raisi ng a probl em
The Exagoge is t he onl y existing drama of the Hell eni stic J ewish lit erature as wel l as the l ongest fragm ent of the co ntemporar y dram a. It is the work of Ezeki el the Tragedi an , who mi ght have lived in t he s econd centur y BC in Alexandri a as a J ewish poet, whi ch tells the st or y of t he Exodus from Egypt in the form of the dram a; the anal ys ed extract is t he fi rst fi fteen chap t ers of the Book of Exodus. The text was used b y Al exander Pol yhi stor in hi s lost work of Upon t he Jew s. Eus ebi us of Caesarea (Praep. Ev. 9.28.2 -4 and 9.29.5 -16) extract ed the i ambi c t rim est er of 269 lines from hi s work. Cl em ent of Al exandria (Str om. 1.23) also preserved an Exagoge fragm ent whi ch rel at es to Ez eki el , however, the beli ef, accordi ng to which Epiphaniu s of S al amis also quot ed from the Exagoge (Panarion 64.29.6-30.1), proved to be groundl es s.
As a cons equence, the sol e dram a of the Hel lenisti c J ewis h li terat ure survi ved b y the pen of a pagan and a Christi an poet . Simil arl y t o m an y J ewish t exts from t he Hell eni sti c Age, the Exagoge was also read as a Chri stian t ext. Som e two thous and years had to pass unt il the Germ an philologist s of the nineteenth centur y s tarted to handl e it as a part of the J ewis h literature. The view, accordi ng to which the readable fragm ents consti tut ed about one quart er of the ori ginal work, held for long, yet, in the mi rror of the lat es t research, whi ch anal ys es the text in term s of dram aturgy and his tory of theat re , it seems that t he majorit y of t he drama was rem ai ned.
Besides bei ng fragm ent ar y, it is a severe probl em t hat t here is no other dram a of the age with a due l engt h, with whi ch a parall el could be drawn. Not onl y does the work of art hold parti cul ar int erest for the res earchers of classi cal literature, but is also s erves certai n novelt y val ue for the experts of Hel lenisti c J udaism .
I consider the introduction of Ezekiel’s work important and very topical, since t he age, i n which the Exagoge was born raises sim il ar questions in cert ain respect to the men of the late second centur y BC and the ones of the
earl y t hird mill enni um AD. B y wa y of ill ustrati on, how coul d one keep their local i dentit y as opposed to a qui ck l y and cruell y spreading politi cal, social and economical s ys tem; how could an import ed world vi ew influence the rel ati on of t he indivi dual and t he communit y; what tools does one have living in their own t radition yet in a m ulti cult ural soci et y to represen t their worl d view and legac y? Nat urall y, t hese questi ons cannot be ans wered b y a fragm ented dram a; however, it can help the bett er understanding of the pres ent and t he exam ined period.
There are excell ent transl ations of the dram a in Hungari an and Germ a n, moreover it has got cri tical editi ons in Englis h and French. It also occurs in the Hungarian secondary literature, at first in Miksa Szabolcsi’s work of A zsidók egyetemes története. The two mos t important monographs are Howard Jacobson’s The Exagoge of Ez eki el (Cam bridge: Cambri dge Univers it y Press , 1983) and Pierluigi Lanfranchi’s (L 'Exagoge d'Ez echi el le Tragi que:
Intr oducti on, t exte, traducti on et commentair e (Studi a in Veteris Test amenti Pseudepi grapha 21) (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Jacobson prim aril y approaches t he dram a as a li terar y man; i n his book, t he Greek t ext and i ts trans lat ion i s embraced b y a detail ed int roduction and a comm entar y; though, the comm ent ar y does not expl ain the t ext line b y li ne, but onl y aft er bi gger fragm ents. Lanfranchi does likewi se, yet , he put m ore em phasis on the J ewis h background of the dram a and its adapt at ion in t he J ewis h cultural herit age.
The most accurate edition and commentary of the drama is Lanfranchi’s monograph, which focuses on the role of the text in the J ewi sh lit erat ure;
however, i t also t akes the cl assi cal l iterary model s into considerati on . He l a ys great stress on the histor y of res earch and the transmiss ion of the fragm ents b y si gni fi cantl y deal ing with the relat ion of t he J ews and the t heat re.
Despit e the dram a’s unique nat ure and i mportance, the text was deal t wit h b y the researchers rather l at e. When t he clas sical schol ars and t he res earchers of J ewish studi es cam e across the drama, the y prim aril y ex amined the non - canonical el ements of it. There are th ree sections of the dram a cl assed am ong this categor y. The fi rst i s the di alogue of Sepphora and Khos (Exag. 66 -67), the second, which i s the most import ant in terms of the di ssert ation, is the
Dr eam of Mos es (incl uding the throne visi on) (Exag. 68-82) and the des cri ption of the bi rd (Exag. 254 -269), whi ch cl os es t he drama.
Clearl y, the Dream of Mos es i s the m ost provoki ng s ect ion. It s peculi arit y is that not onl y does Mos es ri se and experiences revel ation while bei ng asleep on the Mount Sinai, but he als o obt ains the regali a from the nobl e man s itting on the throne.
The dream of Moses was and is expl ained as a m ys ti cal el em ent b y num erous researchers b y creating the Exagoge t he forerunner of t he e arl y J ewis h m ys ti cism and the Me rkavah lit erature. However, the m ain aim of the dissert ati on is to prove that the work of Ez eki el does not bel ong to the l egac y of the earl y J ewis h m ys ti cism . Those often quot ed works in the diss ertat ion whi ch regard the Exagoge as part of the earl y M erkavah lit erature do not take the other remai ned fragm ents and the context of the dram a into consideration.
The throne vi sion could have been influenced b y th e dream visions , heavenl y as cents and t hrone vi sions of t he apocr yp hal lit erature and the Old Test am ent;
yet , the Exagoge its elf is not part of the l iterat ure of the earl y m ys ti cism. The other secti ons of t he dram a clos el y follow the S eptuagi nt, besi des the parabibli cal i nt erpol ations do not i n clude el em ents be yond tradition, either.
M y aim i s to demons trate t hat Ezekiel worked rat her in the J ewish t raditi on of the Di aspora and despi te his form of expressi on, the Greek i nfl uence is limited to t he externals . In m y vi ew, t he audience of t he Exagoge was not prim aril y t he eli te of Greek culture, but the Jewis h Di as pora, who start ed to be Hell eniz ed b y s earching thei r own tradition i n t he m eantim e.
To support m y st at ement , I li st i nner as wel l as external argument s. The m o st important i nner argument is that neither the dream of M oses, nor M os es hims elf is in the cent re of the work, but the Exodus and the Pesach . Accordi ng to the ext ernal argument, t he t hrone vision also has got a poli tical interpretation. The main idea of m y dissertation is t hat t he Exagoge’s Moses is prim aril y a poli tical leader, whose compl ex charact er is affect ed b y num erous sources. Mos es as a king cannot be considered as a new
phenom enon in t he S econd Templ e peri od ; consequentl y, I would like to place the Exagoge i n this traditi on. In m y opi nion, Ez eki el was a hi ghl y educat ed aut hor of his age, who not onl y was wel l acquainted b y t he J ewish t raditi on but he was al so cl osel y li nked to t he phil osophi cal t radi tion t hrough his Hel lenic educat ion, furthermore, he t horoughl y studied the antecedents of t he cl assi cal Greek lit erature. M y stat em ent is fortifi ed in Chapt er 5, w here I cit e aut hors livi ng after Ezeki el and extracting his t ext, m ainl y Philo of Alexandri a and Eusebius of Caesarea. Philo of Alexandri a, in his work of Life of Mos es undoubt edl y used the text of Ezeki el and Eus ebius of C aesarea deli berat el y compil ed the dram a int o Chapter 9 of t he Praeparati o Evangeli ca. To prove m y thought s, I als o use anot her work of the father of the C hurch, his bi ograph y of Constantine the Great. As far as I am concerned, cert ain secti ons of t he Praeparati o Evangeli ca can be read as specul um regis, where t he J ewi sh kings, es peci all y Moses , have a great rol e.
2. The appli ed m ethodology
The dis sert ation di vi des up i nto five chapters. In the first chapt er I deal wit h the pi ct ure of Mos es and the Exodus occurring i n the works of Hecata eus of Abdera, M anetho, Art apanus and Eupolem us, t hrough which I depi ct t he ment al environm ent in which the work of Ezeki el was born and survived. The chapt er is not solel y important due t o it s description of t he ment al clim at e, since thes e authors are kno wn also from Eusebius of Caes area’s Praeparatio Evangeli ca.
Except for Manetho, the authors des cri be Moses as a remarkabl y vers atil e charact er, invent or, culture -hero, l egislator and philosopher. Mos es was com pet ent in almost all the import ant sci ences o f his age (ast rol ogy, m aths and phi losoph y), and he also handed down his knowl edge to the pagan people’s edification. As a consequence, the Jewish texts, which deal with the histor y of the Exodus from Egypt , are not necessar il y answers to the Greek historiographers ’ works of hostil e tone, but works born following the diffi culti es occurring during t he Di aspora for t he sake of satis f yi ng the communities’ inner demands. I do not differentiate pro - and anti-Judaist
aut hors on purpose on the basis how the y writ e about the J ews and t he Exodus. The hist or y of the l iberati on from the Egypti an captivit y is a cent re topi c onl y i n J ewish literat ure, yet, at the non -J ewish authors obviousl y not.
For them , Moses and the Exodus is nothi ng els e but the ori gi n of a col ourfu l ethnographi c portra yal.
In C hapter 2, I det ail t he Exagoge b y touching upon the dram a’s res earch histor y, the role of the t ext wit hin the dramati c li terature as well as it s presum ed audience, the recepti ve part y. I put great e m phasis on the s hort er sections which di ffer from the Book of Exodus, s uch as the judgem ent of the Egyptian “loan”. While examining the receptive party, I dwell on one of the most import ant and central elements of the drama, the anal ys is of the Pesach’s description. Although, the Exagoge does not refer to an archet ypal Pesach, one might find the Pesach’s roots of the age of Haggadah. There are no sources whether the Exagoge had been perform ed; therefore, one cannot know whet her the dram a had been put on the st age in a s ynagogue or on J ewish festivals , which is s upposed b y Lanfranchi. The fact that a M idrash - like, but lit erar y work coul d be wri tten presum es t he existence of a st rong J ewish communit y i n Al exandria, whi ch was on the border of as simil ation.
Apart from forming identit y, t h e aim of the Exagoge is al so fost ering the memor y of the P es ach.
In C hapt er 3 , I deal with the t ext’s earlier m enti oned com plem ent s, whi ch differ the most from the book of Exodus. The three sect ions are surplus com paring to the Septuagint, i n the fi rst on e, we m eet the fi gure of Khos , who is unknown b y other sources and strongl y oppos es t he m arri age of Mos es and Sepphora ; in the s econd one can read the throne vision of Moses and t he thi rd covers the des cri ption of the bi rd, whi ch has been wrongl y i denti fi e d wi th the phoenix in the secondar y li terature for long. The thi rd chapter includes the examinati on of t he dial ogue and the descripti on of t he bi rd in det ail . The dial ogue of Sepphora and Khos is t oo short to anal yse t he text thoroughl y enough, however, it can be stated that the charact er who opposes the marriage is also of Et hiopi an ori gi n. The st at ement, according t o whi ch Khos is the
earli er rej ect ed suit or of Sepphora or her brother, cannot be proved b y t he text.
In the modern s econdar y lit erat ure, the i dentifi cation of the des cripti on of the bird with the phoeni x was pres ent from the begi nning. In t his sub -chapter I search for the possi ble sources of Ezeki el, then I probe that the description writ ten in the text cannot be di rectl y connected with an y re al or fictional bi rd.
In m y vi ew, the bi rd also s ym bolises t he ruling rol e, it is t he king of the ot her birds (Exag. 265.: βασιλεὺς δὲ πάντων ὀρνέων / king of all birds) which foll ow it (Exag. 266-269). This mot if has som et hing to do wi th Mos es ’ kingdom, a s well .
In Chapt er 4 , I surve y t he s ci entifi c eval uati ons and int erpret ations of the throne visi on. The J ewish l iterature knows num erous heavenl y travel s and throne vis ions ; however, t here is no example for the surrender of the t hrone.
The ori gi n of the d ream-reader al so shoul d be not ed, R aguel, t he father -i n-l aw of M oses is of Mi dianit e ori gin or accordi ng t o the Exagoge, he is from Li b ya. It i s int eresti ng, si nce usuall y, t he J ews are the ones who unravel the dreams of the non -J ewish dream ers, and not in the other wa y round.
In t his chapt er of m y diss ertati on, I woul d like to pl ace t he dream of Moses in the J ewis h as well as i n the Greek t radition. Apart from introducing the archet ypes rel at ed t o the dream -reading and the throne visions of t he J ewis h literature, I pres ent t he effects of t he dreams occurring i n t he Greek lit erature on the Exagoge. I at t ach im portance not onl y to the Exagoge’s placement into the t radition, but also its cont ext; therefore, I parti cul arl y deal wit h the dreams occurri ng i n th e Hell eni stic Jewish lit erat ure. I separat ed the earli er gi ven modern answers to t he cat egoriz at ion of the dream s into three groups . In m y opi nion, there are two great cat egori es of interpret ati on: the m ys ti cal and the soci ological approach. I list those i nterpret ati ons to the thi rd “m ixed”
categor y, which can be associ at ed with onl y one aut hor and has not received much support from other researchers.
B y s earchi ng t he possibl e roots whi le histori call y s equencing the t hrone visions preceding t he Exagoge, w e avoid t he fact t hat however much the aut hor belonged to t he int ell ectual and l iterar y el ite of his age, one cannot prove exactl y, what sources he used.
The connection of t he Exagoge wi th the Merkavah tradition is arbitrar y, on the one hand, since it re fl ects el em ents from an earli er peri od, on the ot her hand the m ys ti cism and the worl d of the st age cannot be harm oniz ed. The m ys ti cal experi ences are not coll ective, neither do t he y speak to an audi ence, but the y are individual experi ences. The appearance of t he throne and t he other elements did not necessarily mean the text’s classification to the m ys ti cal lit erat ure i n the tim e of the Exagoge’s birth. Those, who approach this secti on from the M erkavah m ysti cism do not t ake the whol e dram a neit her i ts cult ural cont ext into consi deration .
The probl em of the s oci ologi c al approach is that it s eeks non -provabl e soci al confli cts . The Enoch -Moses confli ct seems l ogi cal; however, there a re differences between the E noch literature and t he Exagoge. The work of Ezeki el i s far l ess s pect acul ar and colourful t han the li terature bequeat hed under t he name of E noch. During his t ravel , Enoch met such things t hat are unri valled on earth. Ezeki el hid hi s mess age in a s ound dream -s cene and des cribed the throne visibl e i n the dream in rather s hort; bes ides t he st ars are also present as onl y celestial bodi es not as angels.
In his vis ion, Mos es recei ves the s ym bol s of the worldl y power, he does not experi ence a m ys t ical union but a change of pl ace, moreover, the mani fest ation o f dei ficati on i s reall y far from the period’s J ewish wa y of thinki ng as well as from t he m ainst ream of the J ewis h way of t hinking in general. As I have alread y indicat ed i n the ending of the previous chapt er, thos e who writ e a pl a y of the st age – no matt er i f it was performed or not – shoul d face such requirem ents of the genre whi ch excl ude the compl ex, m ysti cal interpret ati ons. The im ages of t he Exagoge are much less vi sual and theologi cal than that of the li terature survived under t he nam e of Henoch . In m y opinion, the Exagoge is a “si mple” work, whos e aim, apart from
rem em brance and reminding, is the eluci dat ion, identit y form ati on and pres ervat ion, as well as ent ert ainment.
One cannot be s ure wh y Alexander Pol yhist or select ed the Exagoge in his work, yet in the cas e of Eus ebi us of C aesarea we can s tat e that he dealt with the work for the s ake of education and propaganda, not for apologetics.
Const anti ne the Great, as t he firs t Chri stian m onarch, was not set a good exampl e of rul ing, therefore, a speculu m regi s had to be com piled for him, i n whi ch he could m eet the deeds of great predecessors . As far as I am concerned, Eus ebi us of C aesarea select ed such works i n the ninth chapt er of the Pr aepar atio Evangelica that he considered their utilit y with a view t o a Chris tian ki ng -ideol ogy.
In t he l as t chapt er of m y diss ertation, I introduce the pi ct ure of M os es, as a king, drawn b y the Hebrew Bi bl e and the Exagoge. In t he second sub -chapt er I present Moses as a king on the basis of Philo’s biographical work of De Vita Mosi s. For writi ng t he De Vita Mosi s, P hilo of Al exandria m ust have us ed t he Exagoge, whi ch has got phraseological and exegeti cal proofs. In m y vi ew, t he Mos es of the Exagoge and the De Vi ta Mosis is a fi gure of t he sam e t raditi on about t he Hell eni stic ideal king. I fini sh the chapter with the image of Mos es formed b y Eus ebi us of C aesarea b y supporti ng the link between the t exts and the just ness of the Exagoge’s interpretation from a political point of view.
Similarl y to Philo of Al exandri a, Eusebi us of C aesarea al so exploits the parallel of M os es and Plato. As one can com e across the im age of t he ideal king b y Plato i n t he De Vit a Mosis, in the Praeparati o Evangeli ca it als o oft en occur that the knowl edge of the Greeks is from Moses (Praep. Ev. 9.6.23, 11.18), moreover Eus ebius of Caesarea had the courage in the formation of the “Christian Moses” that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is derived from Mos es hims elf (Praep. Ev. 11.20).
Moses li fe is i n the centre of the Praeparat io Evangeli ca’s ninth book, though, t his Moses i s not t he Moses of t he Old Testament, but the Moses of the Hell enist ic authors t hat were sel ect ed b y Eusebi us of C aesarea. The fat her
of t he C hurch deli berat el y chos e thos e sections i nto his work that fit his purpos e. The Exagoge fell i nto the s ame cat egor y of such aut hors, like Eupolem us, according t o whom all knowl edge – i ncludi ng the skill of writing – derived from Moses; Artapanus, whose Moses goes even further, to the dom esti cation of t he Egypti an anim al cult s. In this cont ext , the drama of Ezeki el i s one of t he m ost moderat e ones; however, its t ask is im portant, since the coronati on of Mos es and his i ntroduction as a king happens here.
3. New result s
Ezekiel’s Exagoge is the onl y exist ing drama of t he Helleni sti c J ewish literature, whi ch stil l can be read, even i f in fragments. It went from hand to hand presum abl y from Al exandria to t he Jewish int ell ectuals of Berli n and from there to t he pres ent s ci enti fi c discourse. Not onl y does such an eni gmat ic t ext generat e its own int e rpret ation, but it also has the di vers e sci enti fi c i deas and approaches searched thei r own concepti ons. This dram a i s not sol el y special for the modern research, since in the coll ection of Eusebius of Caes area it has no peer concerning neither its genre, n or i ts content. As it was m enti oned above, i t proves to be a s eri ous probl em that t here is no other dram a of t he age wi t h a due length, with whi ch a parall el coul d be drawn.
The purpose of m y dissert ation was t o int roduce s uch an int erpret ation of t his parti cul arl y colourful and ri ch t ext, whi ch does not necess aril y refl ect back from l at er periods (like the Merkavah m ysti ci sm), o r s earch for s oci al pol emics (Enoch and Mos es; besi des Henoch and Adam ), but it ori ginat es in the drama’s Sitz im Leben.
To be abl e to exami ne the Exagoge, I had to st art from scratch, therefore in the firs t chapt er I outlined t he int ell ectual and cultural circumst ances, in whi ch the dram a had been polit icall y born (Hell enis m) and survi ved (among the ot her aut hors in the work of E usebius of C aesarea). I devot ed the second chapt er to the gradual int roduction of the dram a b y hi ghli ghting those el ements that are relat ed to the fundam ent al questi on of the dissertation, to the kingdom of Moses and the Hell enist ic king ideal. In the thi rd chapt er, I
surve yed the interpret ati ons of the throne visi on, whi ch was most often anal ys ed b y t he s econdar y lit erat ure, as wel l. The fourt h and fi fth chapt er is the novum of the dis sertation, the com pl etion and connection of the existing interpretations , whi ch focus ed on t he poli tical aspect.
In conclusion, I bel ieve that Ez eki el created such a work in the genre o f dram a, whi ch prim aril y s erved t he identi t y form ati on and st rengtheni ng of the comm uniti es of t he J ewish Di aspora. The thr one vision refers to the worl dl y kingdom of Mos es , i n which dream Mos es is t he perfect rul er.
4. Publi cat ions
Arti cl es
„The Role of a Myterious Bird in a Fragmented Jewish Drama” ( In Preparation for the Published Vers ion of the Thi rd Enoch Graduat e Semi nar, 2010)
„Herodotean influence on the book of Judith?” (In preparation for the Published Version of t he Sixth Int ernational C onference on the Deuterocanoni cal Books, 2009)
„Hérodotosz és az aranyásó hangyák” [Herodot and t he Gol d -di ggi ng Ants], Vallástudományi Szemle [Journal for Religious Studies] 2008/3, 87 –96.
„Az örök visszatérés madara”[The bird of Eternal Returning], Vallástudományi Szemle [Journal for Religious Studies] 2007/2, 63 -77.
Book C hapt ers
„Trónvízió a színpadon” [Throne Vision on Stafe] (In: „Vidim us enim stellam eius…” Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem, L’ Harmattan kiadó Budapest, 2011. Szerk.: Szávay László)
„A bukott angyalok tanítása”[Teaching of the Fallen Angels], „Angyalok az ókortól Szent Tamásig [The Angels from the Antiquity to Thomas Aqu inas]
eds., Dr. Géza Xeravits) 2011
Papers and l ect ures
2013 „Cosmos i n the Moses basket” International Conference in Theology, Károli Gáspár Reformed University, 15. November 2013. Budapest
2011 „Throne Vision on Stage” Int ernational Conference i n Theo l ogy, Károli Gáspár Reformed University, 15. October, 2011, Budapest
„The Political Background of a Mystical Ascent” In ternational Conference on Polit ical Power and Ideology i n Bi bli cal and Extra - Biblical Tradition, Sapi enti a - College of Theol ogy of Reli gi osus Orders, 19. M a y, 2011, Budapest
2010 „The Role of a Myterious Bird in a Fragmented Jewish Drama” Thi rd Enoch Graduate Seminar, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, 19 -23.
J ul y, 2010, Pilis cs aba, Hungar y
„Állati bűnök – bűnös állatok” – Miért ne fogyasszunk hiénát?
[Animals and Sins – Why do not consum e H yenas? ] – Fift h Conference of the Religion, Tradition and Modernity Workgroup at the Eötvös Lóránd University, 26. June, 2010, Budapest.
2009 „Rókánál nagyobb, de kutyánál kisebb” - egy fura szerzet Hérodotosz állatkertjéből. [„Bi gger t han a Fox, but Sm all er t han a Dog – A Wondrous C reature from the Zoo of Herodot] Fourt h Conference of the Religion, Tradition and Modernity Workgroup, Eötvös Lóránd Universit y, 25. J une, 2009, Budapest .
„Herodotean influence on the book of Judith?” – Conference on Deuterocanoni cal Books, S api entia - Col l ege of Theology of Reli gi osus Orders, 14 -15. Ma y, 2009, Budapest
„Mózes a Mennyekben – adalékok egy trónvízióhoz” [Moses in Heaven – Footnotes to a Throne Visi on] Annual Conference of the Reli gi on, Tradition and Modernity Workgroup, Eötvös Lóránd University, 27.
March, 2009, Budapest
2008 „Ezékielosz Exagógé című drámája” [The Exagoge of Ezekiel]
International Conference on „Bible as a Resource”, Károli Gáspár Reform ed Universit y, 05. December, 2008, Budapest
