sign in sign up
<<
Home , Azazel, Fallen (miniseries), Watcher (angel)

Andrei A. Orlov. Dark Mirrors: and Satanael in Early Jewish . Albany: State University of New York Press, 2011. xv + 201 pp. $75.00, cloth, ISBN 978-1-4384-3951-8.

Reviewed by Archie Wright

Published on H-Judaic (October, 2012)

Commissioned by Jason Kalman (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion)

Andrei A. Orlov is a specialist in Jewish apoc‐ is divided into two parts with three essays each. alypticism and mysticism, Ju‐ Part 1, labeled “Azazel,” includes “‘The Likeness of daism, and Old Testament pseudepigrapha. With‐ ’: Kavod of Azazel in the of in the fascinating feld of Second Temple Jewish ,” “Eschatological in the apocalyptic literature, Orlov is considered among : The Ritual,” the leading experts in the feld of Slavonic texts and “The Garment of Azazel in the Apocalypse of related to Jewish mysticism and Enochic tradi‐ Abraham.” Part 2, labeled “Satanael,” includes tions. This volume, Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Sa‐ “The Watchers of Satanael: The Tra‐ tanael in Early Jewish Demonology, demonstrates ditions in 2 (Slavonic) ,” “ and the Vi‐ his expertise. The book furthers the ongoing dis‐ sionary: Apocalyptic Roles of the Adversary in the cussion in (2TP) demonolo‐ Temptation Narrative of the Gospel of Matthew,” gy; in particular, it is focused on two of the lead‐ and “The Flooded Arboretums: The Garden Tradi‐ ing fgures, the so-called demonic beings Azazel tions in the Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch and the and Satanael. Orlov explores the mediating role of Book of ”; four of the six articles were pre‐ these paradigmatic celestial rebels in the develop‐ viously published between 2003 and 2010. The ment of Jewish demonological traditions from volume includes extensive (inconvenient) end‐ Second Temple apocalypticism to later Jewish notes, a bibliography, and a limited index. mysticism. Throughout his discussion, he makes Orlov explores the fgures of Azazel and Sa‐ use of lesser-known Jewish pseudepigraphical tanael in relation to the so-called symmetrical pat‐ materials in Slavonic. terns found in early Jewish apocalyptic literature. Following an introduction titled “Lightless He argues for the correspondence of inverse sym‐ Shadows: Symmetry of Good and in Early metry in which the antagonist and protagonist of Jewish Demonology,” the body of the presentation various pseudepigrapha, in essence, switch places H-Net Reviews by taking on particular attributes and conditions ed him authority over the wicked”.[1] It is possi‐ of his opposite number. Among his sources, he ble, although Orlov does not discuss it, that this is notes especially that in the Book of the Watchers, responsible in part for the Christian conception of angels and the antediluvian Enoch mir‐ the two kingdoms--Satan’s and the Divine. Howev‐ ror each other in the exchange of ofces, roles, at‐ er, Orlov does note that the author of AA may be tributes, and even wardrobes (p. 5). In 22, intentionally hiding details of Azazel (p. 17). He is Enoch receives angelic attire while the fallen clearly a fgure of authority, but the author does Watchers take on human ontological “garments” not intend to “fully match” the attributes of (cf. 1 En. 86:1-4). Also in the Apocalypse of Abra‐ Azazel with those of the deity--it is only a tempo‐ ham 13.7-14, Abraham assumes Azazel’s angelic rary role in an eschatological opposition. garment and Azazel takes on Abraham’s garment In the second essay of part 1, Orlov examines of . Moreover, the fallen angels are transport‐ the “Eschatological Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse ed to the earthly realm, while the righteous Enoch of Abraham: The Scapegoat Ritual.” Drawing on is taken up to heaven to serve in the heavenly Leviticus 16, he explores the sacerdotal dimension temple. Orlov develops his pattern through two of Azazel as the scapegoat. In AA, Azazel resem‐ traditions, the Adamic, and the Enochic mytholo‐ bles both the sacrifcial of Leviticus and a gies of evil. He demonstrates that in later tradi‐ fallen from the Enochic tradition. tions, the two evil characters are able to enter into Here Azazel exchanges his “angelic” status for the each other’s stories. Satanael becomes the leader sins of Abraham, thus allowing Abraham to enter of the fallen angels (i.e., Enochic) and Azazel be‐ the heavenly Temple. Orlov argues that AA ex‐ comes the tempter of Adam and Eve. He argues hibits a great deal of infuence from the Enochic that the transformation of the adversaries, Azazel tradition, in particular 1 Enoch 10:4-7, in which and Satanael, often carries cultic signifcance Azazel is bound and thrown into the darkness within priestly and liturgical settings--especially and covered with sharp stones. He suggests, as do Yom Kippur. others, that this scene is tied to the scapegoat im‐ The frst essay in part 1 focuses on the fgure agery of Leviticus 16--i.e., the goat is sent out to of Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham (AA). the “” in the wilderness. However, Orlov Orlov examines Azazel’s attempt to imitate the di‐ fails to discuss the ongoing debate as to what ex‐ vine manifestation situated between the two actly “Azazel” is in the Day of Atonement narra‐ cherubim in the Holy of Holies. Throughout the tive--goat, demon, or the wilderness. study, Orlov pays particular attention to the sacer‐ In the third essay of part 1, “The Garment of dotal dimensions of this demonology, showing Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” Orlov de‐ that the peculiar transformations of the adver‐ scribes how the angelic garment of Azazel is saries have cultic signifcance within the liturgical placed on Abraham (as Azazel has lost his status) settings of the Jewish tradition (p. 7). He raises the and he is allowed to enter the celestial Holy of question of whether the author of AA 14 is pre‐ Holies (p. 48). In the story, the angel Yahoel is senting the Azazel with his own “di‐ identifed as the High Priest of the sanctuary and vine” kavod (glory), perhaps as a negative coun‐ Abraham is made his apprentice. Orlov argues terpart of the deity. In addition, he notes other this episode once again demonstrates the inverse portions of AA that contain signifcant dualistic symmetry that he suggests runs through AA. Be‐ currents. Stone has argued that chapters cause of this symmetry “both positive and nega‐ 20, 22, and 29 in AA contain references that indi‐ tive characters progress into the respective cate Azazel and God rule jointly over the world-- realms of their eschatological opponents” (p. 49). which may coincide “with the idea that God grant‐

2 H-Net Reviews

In doing so, Orlov contends, they often assume the the mix of the two prominent “mythologies of roles and ofces of their counterparts. If AA evil,” which permits them to be taken up in rab‐ 13:7-14 is describing Abraham taking on the heav‐ binic and patristic writings (p. 87). He ofers fur‐ enly ofce of Azazel, one must ask what ofce ther evidence from 2 Enoch 7 and 18, which sug‐ Azazel is taking over on the earth. Interestingly, gest connections to the Enochic and Adamic the handing over of the angelic garment may be “mythologies of evil” (pp. 88-106). considered symbolic of the return of humanity to The second essay in part 2 deals with Satan’s its original state in the Garden (p. 50). Orlov ofers roles and actions during the trial of Jesus in the signifcant support from other Jewish texts to sup‐ wilderness. Here we fnd Satan assuming the role port this theory (see. e.g.. Targum Ps. Jon on Gen. of a transporting (psychopomp) and interpreting 3:21; Gen. Rabbah 20; Armenian LAE 12:1–16:2; angel (angelus interpres). Perhaps the most inter‐ Philo, De Mut 43-44; De Somn 2.28 [pp. 55-58]). He esting portion of this essay deals with the request does address the transformation of the antagonist by Satan that Jesus venerate him. Orlov sees simi‐ (Azazel and later Satan) in the earthly realm. He lar actions at play in Exodus 24:18 (Moses) and 1 changes into a hybrid form of an angel and a ser‐ Kings 19:8 (Elijah), in which both these fgures ob‐ pent during the temptation in the Garden; similar‐ serve a forty-day fast that ends with an episode on ly, the Satan fgure transforms into a , also a mountain, similar to what we see in the wilder‐ in the Garden. In both cases, the changes in form ness trial pericope. The author may, therefore, be are considered “garments” by Orlov. In addition, indicating that Satan is placing himself in the he ofers further explanation as to how the decep‐ place of God in the Moses and Elijah scenes, again tion of Eve takes place due to this transformation demonstrating Orlov’s inverse symmetry. We also (pp. 70-76). may see here that Satan setting Jesus upon the Part 2 of the volume begins with the essay ti‐ pinnacle of the Temple (Pesiqta Rabbati states tled “The Watchers of Satanael: The Fallen Angels that when the comes he will appear on Traditions in 2 Enoch.” In this essay, Orlov de‐ the pinnacle of the Temple) is an attempt to get Je‐ scribes Satanael switching to or taking on charac‐ sus to descend from his appointed ofce, just as teristics of Azazel. His primary source for this dis‐ the Watchers descended from heaven in 1 Enoch cussion is 2 Enoch. He points out how the author and lost their divinely appointed positions. The of 2 Enoch draws on the Watcher tradition of 1 third essay in part 2 is somewhat less convincing Enoch, but this should not be a surprise. However, for Orlov’s inverse symmetry theme. Although the author does take the liberty of changing the some parallels certainly can be identifed between roles of characters. Here we fnd the Satanael fg‐ 3 Baruch and the Enochic and Noachic traditions ure taking on the role of leader of the fallen an‐ (p. 114), it is more difcult to recognize the ex‐ gels held by Shemihazah and Asa’ in 1 Enoch. change of positions or characteristics of the pri‐ Orlov argues that this is an intentional efort by mary characters. the author to bring the Adamic myth into focus (p. Orlov has presented an intriguing investiga‐ 86), although this point seems a bit forced. In 2 tion of what he calls the symmetrical patterns of Enoch, Adam is originally presented as an angelic early Jewish demonology. Dark Mirrors is certain‐ being who was predestined by God to be ruler of ly a text that should be read by scholars with an the earth. However, due to the Fall, Enoch, as the interest in demonology, the “Fall in the Garden,” second Adam, is to regain the original state of the and the Watcher tradition in various early Jewish frst Adam and restore humanity to its proper and Christian texts, among other topics. Orlov has place as ruler of the world (not the Satan fgure). succeeded in producing a well-written and closely As a result, Orlov argues that in 2 Enoch we fnd

3 H-Net Reviews argued account that will serve as a fne resource in early Jewish and Christian literature for years to come. Note [1]. Michael Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: , Pseude‐ pigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Jose‐ phus (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 418.

exchanges garments with

formed T y may be may be dualistic thought the T S , o s in an that s are in which As such, t

with he is attempting

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-judaic

4 H-Net Reviews

Citation: Archie Wright. Review of Orlov, Andrei A. Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. October, 2012.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=35007

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5