What do you think?
Rate this book
Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity
A book that challenges our most basic assumptions about Judeo-Christian monotheism
Contrary to popular belief, Judaism was not always strictly monotheistic. Two Gods in Heaven reveals the long and little-known history of a second, junior god in Judaism, showing how this idea was embraced by rabbis and Jewish mystics in the early centuries of the common era and casting Judaism's relationship with Christianity in an entirely different light.
Drawing on an in-depth analysis of ancient sources that have received little attention until now, Peter Schäfer demonstrates how the Jews of the pre-Christian Second Temple period had various names for a second heavenly power—such as Son of Man, Son of the Most High, and Firstborn before All Creation. He traces the development of the concept from the Son of Man vision in the biblical book of Daniel to the Qumran literature, the Ethiopic book of Enoch, and the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the picture changes drastically. While the early Christians of the New Testament took up the idea and developed it further, their Jewish contemporaries were divided. Most rejected the second god, but some—particularly the Jews of Babylonia and the writers of early Jewish mysticism—revived the ancient Jewish notion of two gods in heaven.
Describing how early Christianity and certain strands of rabbinic Judaism competed for ownership of a second god to the creator, this boldly argued and elegantly written book radically transforms our understanding of Judeo-Christian monotheism.
192 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 3, 2020
32 people are currently reading
197 people want to read
About the author
Peter Schäfer
146 books31 followersPeter Schäfer is a prolific German scholar of ancient religious studies, who has made contributions to the field of ancient Judaism and early Christianity through monographs, co-edited volumes, numerous articles, and his trademark synoptic editions.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 4, 2023
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
This is essentially how Schäfer feels when folks try to use the term "monotheistic" in reference to ancient Judaism. In this book, he seeks to briefly demonstrate why such language is inaccurate or, at the very least, must be heavily qualified.
To support his main thesis that Second Temple Jewish conceptions of God are more commonly "binitarian" (God plus a semidivine Agent, divine emanation(s), or a divinized Messiah figure), Schäfer marshals textual evidence from the Hebrew Bible, intertestamental literature, and postbiblical Jewish traditions. These include the traces of polytheism in the Old Testament, the divinization of the angelic "Son of Man" figure in Daniel 7, the personification of Wisdom as God's divine child in Proverbs 8, the "younger gods" Logos and Sophia in Philo, and the elevation of Enoch to God's emissary Metatron in the Hekhalot literature.
Schäfer successfully demonstrates that the concept of divinity was more broad and fluid during the period shortly before, during, and after the time of the New Testament than contemporary readers often realize. He is to be commended for offering such a concise and precise treatment of this broad swath of material, and for helping to prevent anachronistic misunderstandings.
On the negative side, he does have to engage in more technical discussion in places where a given text's interpretation is hotly debated by scholars, and those sections did tend to get rather dense and dry. This is especially the case in Part II of the book, which examines postbiblical material and later debates within rabbinic Judaism. Those chapters made for a dry read.
Also, I was personally hoping for more discussion of how the varying conceptions of divinity in the Second Temple period should factor into our reading of messianic texts in the New Testament (e.g., to what extent was language of divinity considered to be ontological vs. merely due to acting as God's authorized agent, and what methodological parameters should be applied when interpreting such language?). But admittedly Schäfer's main goal here is simply to demonstrate that binitarian ideas were present at all within the Judaisms of antiquity. To that end, his book succeeds. And along the way he does offer a few reflections on how the Christology of the New Testament both builds upon and diverges from the binitarian ideas of earlier Judaism, particularly in its claim of the incarnation -- the Divine condescending to become fully human, a notion unparalleled elsewhere in ancient Jewish writings.
This is essentially how Schäfer feels when folks try to use the term "monotheistic" in reference to ancient Judaism. In this book, he seeks to briefly demonstrate why such language is inaccurate or, at the very least, must be heavily qualified.
To support his main thesis that Second Temple Jewish conceptions of God are more commonly "binitarian" (God plus a semidivine Agent, divine emanation(s), or a divinized Messiah figure), Schäfer marshals textual evidence from the Hebrew Bible, intertestamental literature, and postbiblical Jewish traditions. These include the traces of polytheism in the Old Testament, the divinization of the angelic "Son of Man" figure in Daniel 7, the personification of Wisdom as God's divine child in Proverbs 8, the "younger gods" Logos and Sophia in Philo, and the elevation of Enoch to God's emissary Metatron in the Hekhalot literature.
Schäfer successfully demonstrates that the concept of divinity was more broad and fluid during the period shortly before, during, and after the time of the New Testament than contemporary readers often realize. He is to be commended for offering such a concise and precise treatment of this broad swath of material, and for helping to prevent anachronistic misunderstandings.
On the negative side, he does have to engage in more technical discussion in places where a given text's interpretation is hotly debated by scholars, and those sections did tend to get rather dense and dry. This is especially the case in Part II of the book, which examines postbiblical material and later debates within rabbinic Judaism. Those chapters made for a dry read.
Also, I was personally hoping for more discussion of how the varying conceptions of divinity in the Second Temple period should factor into our reading of messianic texts in the New Testament (e.g., to what extent was language of divinity considered to be ontological vs. merely due to acting as God's authorized agent, and what methodological parameters should be applied when interpreting such language?). But admittedly Schäfer's main goal here is simply to demonstrate that binitarian ideas were present at all within the Judaisms of antiquity. To that end, his book succeeds. And along the way he does offer a few reflections on how the Christology of the New Testament both builds upon and diverges from the binitarian ideas of earlier Judaism, particularly in its claim of the incarnation -- the Divine condescending to become fully human, a notion unparalleled elsewhere in ancient Jewish writings.
March 17, 2024
Two Gods in Heaven by Peter Schafer
The idea of the Christian Trinity seems like such a departure from what I’ve been taught about Jewish Monotheism, that I thought the idea was invented ex nihilo.
Sure, there are some odd passages that seem to gesture at more than one God in heaven. Abraham meets with three strangers, for example, but that seems to be God and two angels, not the Trinity. Elsewhere, God refers to himself in the plural case, but so do English monarchs. These “proof texts” seem to have an easy explanation.
Yet, we clearly have something going on in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 which commands that catechumens be baptized “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” So, clearly within 40 years of Jesus’s crucifixion, we have something “Trinitarian” going on.
How did a Jewish culture come to accept such a non-Jewish concept? It
The answer should not involve denying the premise by arguing that it was pagans that adopted Trinitarianism. The early Church was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. A lot of Jews in the diaspora became Christian. There was not a clear demarcation between Christians and Jews until the second century, according to some scholars, and much later, according to others.
The answer according to some scholars, including Peter Schafer and Daniel Boyarin, is that Judaism was pre-adapted to accept Trinitarianism because it already incorporated a binitarian idea into its theological and social understanding. From that perspective, Christian beliefs about a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not such a radical innovation.
One thing to keep in mind is that first century Judaism is not the Judaism we are familiar with. First century Judaism was far more diverse because the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD ended those forms that had been based on the Temple. What was left was Christianity and what became rabbinical Judaism, which are both daughter religions of the Judaism.
Schafer and Boyarin stress in various books that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity developed in communication with each other. Each group adopted or rejected ideas from the other. The idea of “schismogenesis” – where one group deliberately distinguishes itself from a neighboring group by adopting contrary mores or customs – applies to Schafer and Boyarin’s presentation.
Central to the binitarian speculations of Temple Judaism was the vision of “one like a Son of Man” in chapters 7 through 12 of the book of Daniel. One of the visions is that someone who looks like a human being (“one like a Son of Man”) is presented to the Ancient One and is “given dominion and glory and kingship forever.” To wit:
(Dan. 7:9) I watched until thrones were set in place, and an Ancient of Days (‘atiq yomin) took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. (10) A river of fire issued and came forth from before him. Thousands upon thousands served him, and myriads upon myriads stood attending him. The court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. … (13) As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. (14) To him was given dominion and glory and kingship; all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (p. 20). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Schafer and Boyarin read Daniel as being premised on the habit of prior Jewish texts that describe God as both a young warrior figure and an old monarch. These types were divided into separate persons in Daniel.
That doesn’t mean that there were two God, however. In some way, the two persons, or powers, were grammatically confused. References for one turned into references to the other. The clues and effects are subtle, but Jewish readers were attentive.
This ties into the thread of Wisdom literature. The wisdom tradition “probably goes back to the third century BCE” in the book of Proverbs, according to Schafer. The wisdom tradition personified God’s wisdom as a created being who was present at creation. (Prov. 8.22, 29-30.) The Wisdom of Solomon identifies Wisdom with the Logos. As with the “two powers,” there is a confusion between God and Wisdom:
Wisdom flows from God. In a platonic sense, she is the archetype of his perfection and at the same time his emanation, which imparts God’s glory and active workings into the earthly world: “In every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets” (7:27).
Now we have come full circle. Wisdom is (in biblical terms) with God and is enthroned with him, yet at the same time she is identical to him as the platonic archetype, emanating as God’s working into the souls of humankind. This drive of Wisdom to be immanent in the earthly world of human beings is—with varied accents—common to all three books of wisdom. In the biblical Book of Proverbs, it is still expressed with reserve, as directly after Wisdom plays before God the text continues somewhat cryptically, “I was playing in his inhabited world, finding delight in humankind” (Prov. 8:31). In Wisdom of Solomon, the drive toward immanence is philosophical, and in Jesus Sirach, it assumes a totally new form. The author of Jesus Sirach lets there be no doubt where the personified wisdom ultimately belongs:
(24:8) Then the Creator of all things gave me a command, and my Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.”
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 28-29). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
So, Wisdom is both a part of God and somehow separate from God.
Schafer relies on Wisdom 24:23 to conclude that Wisdom is embodied in the book of the Torah.
(24:23) All this (tauta panta) is the book of the covenant (biblos diathēkēs) of the Most High God, the law (nomos) that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob. “
All this” refers to everything that had previously been said about wisdom; all this is now interpreted as the Book of the Covenant between God and his people Israel—that is, as the Torah (Greek nomos). Wisdom, God’s personified messenger on earth, is now embodied in a book, the book of the Torah. This reinterpretation of biblical wisdom paved the way that classical rabbinic Judaism would take: from personified Wisdom to the book of the Torah, which needs to be interpreted.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 29-30). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Christianity went in a different direction, namely, Wisdom/Logos continued to be personified in a person:
In contrast to this, New Testament Christianity continues the line of the personified (male) Logos, referring it to Jesus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
This Christological interpretation can be found, of all places, in the oldest complete Palestinian targum on the Pentateuch that we know of: the so-called Codex Neofiti. In the Aramaic translation of the Codex Neofiti, Genesis 1:1 reads, Mileqadmin be-hokhmah bera de-YYY’ shakhlel yat shemayya we-yat ar’a,11 which can only be translated literally as, “In the beginning, by means of wisdom, the son of God perfected the heaven and the earth.”
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 30-31). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Philo of Alexandria – whose life encompassed that of Christ – accepted the idea of the Logos bridging between the immutable God and the created world.
The “two powers” idea continued into Rabbinic Judaism. The Son of Man figure in Daniel led to speculation about other figures occupying that space, including Melchisedek or an angel. One such speculation from the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, the Third Book of Enoch, and Hekhalot literature had Enoch – who was taken and was no more – being transformed into the angel Metatron. Metatron – not actually named in the Bible - was theorized to be the angel that God assigned to escort the Jews to the Promised Land. This angel carried the name of God and was given divine authority. Metatron was eventually described as a kind of lesser God. Schafer explains the reasoning in this passage:
Rav Idith immediately falls for the heretic’s provocation, admitting that the “Lord” (YHWH) is Metatron and even offering an explanation for it: Metatron is the angel with the same name as God—namely, YHWH. The proof text for this (Exod. 23:21) tones it down only marginally by proving “only” that God’s name is contained “in” Metatron, which presumably means “in his name.” With that the heretic’s trap snaps shut, and he immediately retorts, if God and Metatron have the same name (that is, YHWH), and hence the two are interchangeable, then it is only logical for us also to revere Metatron, which in plain language means that we worship him as a second God. The heretic does not even need to refer explicitly to the context of the Bible verse Exodus 23:21, which the rabbi so carelessly cited—which is unmistakably about an angel whom God will send in front of Israel and Israel must obey: “Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him (al tamer bo).”
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (p. 126). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Of this same angel, Exodus 23:21 says that this angel will not forgive transgressions. Since the forgiveness of sins was a prerogative of God, this angel seemed to have the power and authority of God. This made for speculation.
This speculation made its way into the midrash, where it was treated with great hostility, along with those who advocated “two powers” theology. For example, Metatron gets demoted and flogged, and Rabbi Aher (Elisha ben Avuhah), who advocate otherwise, was disgraced. The fact that this theology had to be repudiated by the Rabbinic literature is good evidence that this had some kind of traction (and that it was too close to the hated Christian mutation to be tolerated in early Rabbinic Judaism, such are the forces of schismogenesis.) Schafer notes:
With his exegesis of Exodus 23:21, Rav Idith opened a Pandora’s box, saying exactly what the heretic wanted to hear—namely, that Metatron is a second divine figure next to God, as the author of the Third Book of Enoch also claimed. Of course, this is neither his personal opinion nor that of his rabbinic colleagues, but he lets himself be cornered by the heretic, who consistently has the better arguments and well-nigh imposes this conclusion on him. Rav Idith obviously rejects the heretic so vehemently because the heretic’s opinion was not merely a side issue that the rabbis could simply disregard. On the contrary, it was a view that had found a place in the heart of rabbinic—or more precisely, Babylonian rabbinic—Judaism.90 The notion of two Gods in heaven was attractive and had become, in influential rabbinic circles, even acceptable. This is the only way to explain the rabbi’s harsh and yet awkward reply. There is reason to assume that here too the direct opponents of the rabbi can be found among those circles that stand behind the Hekhalot literature and especially the Third Book of Enoch.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 127-128). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Things are different in the past. History is complicated. Schafer notes:
Not until the nineteenth century did monotheism become the generally valid norm, not least under the influence of Protestant Christianity.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (p. 134). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Schafer observes:
The proximity of binitarian ideas of pre-Christian ancient Judaism to thoughts and images as encountered in the New Testament is obvious. This is not merely a matter of parallels, much less equations, but rather of the fundamental insight that Second Temple Judaism prepared the stock on which the New Testament could draw. The fact that this, apart from many other themes, also applies to the notion of a “second” God next to the “first” God is an insight that is only slowly beginning to gain acceptance.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 135-136). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
This is a fairly short read. It is informative and generally accessible. It covers ground previously covered. I would recommend it as a useful way of understanding the complexity of human intellectual development as a general theme, and the context of Christian theology, in particular.
The idea of the Christian Trinity seems like such a departure from what I’ve been taught about Jewish Monotheism, that I thought the idea was invented ex nihilo.
Sure, there are some odd passages that seem to gesture at more than one God in heaven. Abraham meets with three strangers, for example, but that seems to be God and two angels, not the Trinity. Elsewhere, God refers to himself in the plural case, but so do English monarchs. These “proof texts” seem to have an easy explanation.
Yet, we clearly have something going on in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 which commands that catechumens be baptized “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” So, clearly within 40 years of Jesus’s crucifixion, we have something “Trinitarian” going on.
How did a Jewish culture come to accept such a non-Jewish concept? It
The answer should not involve denying the premise by arguing that it was pagans that adopted Trinitarianism. The early Church was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. A lot of Jews in the diaspora became Christian. There was not a clear demarcation between Christians and Jews until the second century, according to some scholars, and much later, according to others.
The answer according to some scholars, including Peter Schafer and Daniel Boyarin, is that Judaism was pre-adapted to accept Trinitarianism because it already incorporated a binitarian idea into its theological and social understanding. From that perspective, Christian beliefs about a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not such a radical innovation.
One thing to keep in mind is that first century Judaism is not the Judaism we are familiar with. First century Judaism was far more diverse because the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD ended those forms that had been based on the Temple. What was left was Christianity and what became rabbinical Judaism, which are both daughter religions of the Judaism.
Schafer and Boyarin stress in various books that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity developed in communication with each other. Each group adopted or rejected ideas from the other. The idea of “schismogenesis” – where one group deliberately distinguishes itself from a neighboring group by adopting contrary mores or customs – applies to Schafer and Boyarin’s presentation.
Central to the binitarian speculations of Temple Judaism was the vision of “one like a Son of Man” in chapters 7 through 12 of the book of Daniel. One of the visions is that someone who looks like a human being (“one like a Son of Man”) is presented to the Ancient One and is “given dominion and glory and kingship forever.” To wit:
(Dan. 7:9) I watched until thrones were set in place, and an Ancient of Days (‘atiq yomin) took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. (10) A river of fire issued and came forth from before him. Thousands upon thousands served him, and myriads upon myriads stood attending him. The court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. … (13) As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. (14) To him was given dominion and glory and kingship; all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (p. 20). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Schafer and Boyarin read Daniel as being premised on the habit of prior Jewish texts that describe God as both a young warrior figure and an old monarch. These types were divided into separate persons in Daniel.
That doesn’t mean that there were two God, however. In some way, the two persons, or powers, were grammatically confused. References for one turned into references to the other. The clues and effects are subtle, but Jewish readers were attentive.
This ties into the thread of Wisdom literature. The wisdom tradition “probably goes back to the third century BCE” in the book of Proverbs, according to Schafer. The wisdom tradition personified God’s wisdom as a created being who was present at creation. (Prov. 8.22, 29-30.) The Wisdom of Solomon identifies Wisdom with the Logos. As with the “two powers,” there is a confusion between God and Wisdom:
Wisdom flows from God. In a platonic sense, she is the archetype of his perfection and at the same time his emanation, which imparts God’s glory and active workings into the earthly world: “In every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets” (7:27).
Now we have come full circle. Wisdom is (in biblical terms) with God and is enthroned with him, yet at the same time she is identical to him as the platonic archetype, emanating as God’s working into the souls of humankind. This drive of Wisdom to be immanent in the earthly world of human beings is—with varied accents—common to all three books of wisdom. In the biblical Book of Proverbs, it is still expressed with reserve, as directly after Wisdom plays before God the text continues somewhat cryptically, “I was playing in his inhabited world, finding delight in humankind” (Prov. 8:31). In Wisdom of Solomon, the drive toward immanence is philosophical, and in Jesus Sirach, it assumes a totally new form. The author of Jesus Sirach lets there be no doubt where the personified wisdom ultimately belongs:
(24:8) Then the Creator of all things gave me a command, and my Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.”
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 28-29). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
So, Wisdom is both a part of God and somehow separate from God.
Schafer relies on Wisdom 24:23 to conclude that Wisdom is embodied in the book of the Torah.
(24:23) All this (tauta panta) is the book of the covenant (biblos diathēkēs) of the Most High God, the law (nomos) that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob. “
All this” refers to everything that had previously been said about wisdom; all this is now interpreted as the Book of the Covenant between God and his people Israel—that is, as the Torah (Greek nomos). Wisdom, God’s personified messenger on earth, is now embodied in a book, the book of the Torah. This reinterpretation of biblical wisdom paved the way that classical rabbinic Judaism would take: from personified Wisdom to the book of the Torah, which needs to be interpreted.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 29-30). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Christianity went in a different direction, namely, Wisdom/Logos continued to be personified in a person:
In contrast to this, New Testament Christianity continues the line of the personified (male) Logos, referring it to Jesus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
This Christological interpretation can be found, of all places, in the oldest complete Palestinian targum on the Pentateuch that we know of: the so-called Codex Neofiti. In the Aramaic translation of the Codex Neofiti, Genesis 1:1 reads, Mileqadmin be-hokhmah bera de-YYY’ shakhlel yat shemayya we-yat ar’a,11 which can only be translated literally as, “In the beginning, by means of wisdom, the son of God perfected the heaven and the earth.”
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 30-31). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Philo of Alexandria – whose life encompassed that of Christ – accepted the idea of the Logos bridging between the immutable God and the created world.
The “two powers” idea continued into Rabbinic Judaism. The Son of Man figure in Daniel led to speculation about other figures occupying that space, including Melchisedek or an angel. One such speculation from the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, the Third Book of Enoch, and Hekhalot literature had Enoch – who was taken and was no more – being transformed into the angel Metatron. Metatron – not actually named in the Bible - was theorized to be the angel that God assigned to escort the Jews to the Promised Land. This angel carried the name of God and was given divine authority. Metatron was eventually described as a kind of lesser God. Schafer explains the reasoning in this passage:
Rav Idith immediately falls for the heretic’s provocation, admitting that the “Lord” (YHWH) is Metatron and even offering an explanation for it: Metatron is the angel with the same name as God—namely, YHWH. The proof text for this (Exod. 23:21) tones it down only marginally by proving “only” that God’s name is contained “in” Metatron, which presumably means “in his name.” With that the heretic’s trap snaps shut, and he immediately retorts, if God and Metatron have the same name (that is, YHWH), and hence the two are interchangeable, then it is only logical for us also to revere Metatron, which in plain language means that we worship him as a second God. The heretic does not even need to refer explicitly to the context of the Bible verse Exodus 23:21, which the rabbi so carelessly cited—which is unmistakably about an angel whom God will send in front of Israel and Israel must obey: “Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him (al tamer bo).”
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (p. 126). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Of this same angel, Exodus 23:21 says that this angel will not forgive transgressions. Since the forgiveness of sins was a prerogative of God, this angel seemed to have the power and authority of God. This made for speculation.
This speculation made its way into the midrash, where it was treated with great hostility, along with those who advocated “two powers” theology. For example, Metatron gets demoted and flogged, and Rabbi Aher (Elisha ben Avuhah), who advocate otherwise, was disgraced. The fact that this theology had to be repudiated by the Rabbinic literature is good evidence that this had some kind of traction (and that it was too close to the hated Christian mutation to be tolerated in early Rabbinic Judaism, such are the forces of schismogenesis.) Schafer notes:
With his exegesis of Exodus 23:21, Rav Idith opened a Pandora’s box, saying exactly what the heretic wanted to hear—namely, that Metatron is a second divine figure next to God, as the author of the Third Book of Enoch also claimed. Of course, this is neither his personal opinion nor that of his rabbinic colleagues, but he lets himself be cornered by the heretic, who consistently has the better arguments and well-nigh imposes this conclusion on him. Rav Idith obviously rejects the heretic so vehemently because the heretic’s opinion was not merely a side issue that the rabbis could simply disregard. On the contrary, it was a view that had found a place in the heart of rabbinic—or more precisely, Babylonian rabbinic—Judaism.90 The notion of two Gods in heaven was attractive and had become, in influential rabbinic circles, even acceptable. This is the only way to explain the rabbi’s harsh and yet awkward reply. There is reason to assume that here too the direct opponents of the rabbi can be found among those circles that stand behind the Hekhalot literature and especially the Third Book of Enoch.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 127-128). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Things are different in the past. History is complicated. Schafer notes:
Not until the nineteenth century did monotheism become the generally valid norm, not least under the influence of Protestant Christianity.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (p. 134). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
Schafer observes:
The proximity of binitarian ideas of pre-Christian ancient Judaism to thoughts and images as encountered in the New Testament is obvious. This is not merely a matter of parallels, much less equations, but rather of the fundamental insight that Second Temple Judaism prepared the stock on which the New Testament could draw. The fact that this, apart from many other themes, also applies to the notion of a “second” God next to the “first” God is an insight that is only slowly beginning to gain acceptance.
Schäfer, Peter. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (pp. 135-136). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
This is a fairly short read. It is informative and generally accessible. It covers ground previously covered. I would recommend it as a useful way of understanding the complexity of human intellectual development as a general theme, and the context of Christian theology, in particular.
January 20, 2024
If you harbor any illusions such as Larry Hurtado's "sEcOnd TeMPle JuDaiSm wAs deFianTly mOnoTheIstic" or William Lane Craig, who quoted him for support, you need to read this book to be disabused.
The bulk of this work is about Judaic interpretations of Daniel 7:9-14, where the "Ancient of Days," an old dude with white hair gives dominion to a young "Son of Man," starting from when the book was created up until late antiquity.
The following exegeses of those verses are given:
Author: Ancient of Days = Elyon (Most High), Son of Man = Yahweh
Daniel Boyarin: Ancient of Days = Yahweh, Son of Man = nameless God
Alan Segal: El (akin to chief Canaanite deity), Son of Man = Yahweh
These two gods provided the background for Christianity's father and son.
Schafer examined multiple texts from the second temple period to late antiquity, among which was the Prayer of Joseph, on which Col. 1:15-17 was based. In that hymn, Jacob/Israel was the firstborn. Some Bibles translate Col. 1:15 as Jesus' being "superior over all creation." From the context of the Prayer of Joseph, it's supposed to be "firstborn over all creation" like the KJV and ESV render it. Jesus is the firstborn like Jacob/Israel was.
Schafer also goes through the books of 1-3 Enoch, wherein Enoch becomes a god called Metatron. So deification is a thing.
So does 2TJ have anything that suggests the "One substance two three persons" stuff you find in the Nicene Creed? Well, you can make that argument.
"Rav Idith immediately falls for the heretic's provocation, admitting that the "Lord" (YHWH) is Metatron and even offering an explanation for it: Metatron is the angel with the same name as God--namely, YHWH...if God and Metatron have the same name (that is, YHWH), and hence the two are interchangeable, then it is only logical for us also to revere Metatron, which in plain language means that we worship in as a second God."
That's the best you've got. In any case, let's stop calling people heretical for believing in two Gods.
The bulk of this work is about Judaic interpretations of Daniel 7:9-14, where the "Ancient of Days," an old dude with white hair gives dominion to a young "Son of Man," starting from when the book was created up until late antiquity.
The following exegeses of those verses are given:
Author: Ancient of Days = Elyon (Most High), Son of Man = Yahweh
Daniel Boyarin: Ancient of Days = Yahweh, Son of Man = nameless God
Alan Segal: El (akin to chief Canaanite deity), Son of Man = Yahweh
These two gods provided the background for Christianity's father and son.
Schafer examined multiple texts from the second temple period to late antiquity, among which was the Prayer of Joseph, on which Col. 1:15-17 was based. In that hymn, Jacob/Israel was the firstborn. Some Bibles translate Col. 1:15 as Jesus' being "superior over all creation." From the context of the Prayer of Joseph, it's supposed to be "firstborn over all creation" like the KJV and ESV render it. Jesus is the firstborn like Jacob/Israel was.
Schafer also goes through the books of 1-3 Enoch, wherein Enoch becomes a god called Metatron. So deification is a thing.
So does 2TJ have anything that suggests the "One substance two three persons" stuff you find in the Nicene Creed? Well, you can make that argument.
"Rav Idith immediately falls for the heretic's provocation, admitting that the "Lord" (YHWH) is Metatron and even offering an explanation for it: Metatron is the angel with the same name as God--namely, YHWH...if God and Metatron have the same name (that is, YHWH), and hence the two are interchangeable, then it is only logical for us also to revere Metatron, which in plain language means that we worship in as a second God."
That's the best you've got. In any case, let's stop calling people heretical for believing in two Gods.
June 28, 2020
A fascinating journey through the Jewish sources that suggest or support the idea of two Gods in heaven. Schäfer works through the sources systematically, offering a masterclass is close and careful reading in the process. The book is in conversation with Schäfer's previous work, as well as the work of Daniel Boyarin and Menachem Kister on this topic. The book can certainly be read alone with pleasure and insight, but it often feels like it would be better to have read the preceding scholarship on all sides in order to fully appreciate the arguments that Schäfer is making.
May 7, 2023
okay i have now read reviews of it by Lieve Teugels, Josiah Bisbee, Reading Religion, Shofar
I gotta say. As someone who phones it in a lot and probably won't write a good book. this isn't a very good book. Unless you are Lieve Teugels and know the field of the scholarship, you won't really get what he is saying. Schafer fails to demonstrate what his views are, instead attacking Boyarin. Which I'm all for. I'm attacking Schafer now. I'm entering the chat you Dr. Schaefer. And it is not just really great scholars who have issue with your text like Boyarin. It's nonexperts like me.
Like maybe instead of translating it, like
How about you and me and my mom get together. We translate it into Spanish together. But I add all the things you left out. Like I don't even disagree with Schafer. he doesn't say anything.
I am bad at writing clearly. and schafer is too. I'm so sorry to say anything bad about anything every. but i'm so pissed i picked this book to read for class because it is not a good book. it just doesn't do anything it says and it is a waste of time.
Just read the review in ancient jew review and you will not have to feel like an idiot for not understanding why schafer would say what he does, and save yourself time and learn the arguments that way.
I don't get it
I don't get it
i chose to write a review of this. book for class because it was short but i don't get it.
like I'm not disagreeing
or agreeing
i just don't see why
like in chapter 9
I don't get how the passages connect.
he shows it is an old God and Young God in the passage because of the Targum Pseudo Jonathan and then he talks about Boyarin. I don't get why though?
And then he has that last passage and it ends seemingly saying no two Gods
i am trying and I am okay at reading but can you help me. I'm trying and I don't know why I just don't get it.
Like unless this book is just not convincing
like the intro and conclusion and middlr page make sense
I just don't get why he says things
Like the Prayer of Joseph
why is that a thing
Why is it always a different second in command God. Are you saying it is a tendency? okay that is cool. there is a tendency to do it. But like
I mean is that a literary trope then or is that like a thought
i mean anything can happen. what is going on
i need to go to bed and finish this up later. i am going to go to bed and wake up at around noon and then pass this in. i just feel like
okay eep breath. i can just say
I don't think the arguments are convincing. but that is because they don't make sense
i think the Philo one and the metraon one are kind og convincing. but it is like even still. i follow the metatron one and I'm like okay so there is abother archcaptain angel. but that's not like a second God . explain in a few paragraphs why that is a second God and not just, another thing that exists in a panoply.
maybe I'm too dense on the idea of God. But it's like
If the last chapter is saying
enoch becomes metatron and metatron is a lesser subgod. It is cool. But the text itself is just letting metatron be metatron without calling it anything. so is it a subgod, or is heavenly courts full. and it is like, in part the reaction against it that shows it.
I'm sorry I'm so sorry i have one last paper before i graduate and i just want to make sure
i just can write a positive review for class just as an academic exercise.
It is not convincing to me.
I gotta say. As someone who phones it in a lot and probably won't write a good book. this isn't a very good book. Unless you are Lieve Teugels and know the field of the scholarship, you won't really get what he is saying. Schafer fails to demonstrate what his views are, instead attacking Boyarin. Which I'm all for. I'm attacking Schafer now. I'm entering the chat you Dr. Schaefer. And it is not just really great scholars who have issue with your text like Boyarin. It's nonexperts like me.
Like maybe instead of translating it, like
How about you and me and my mom get together. We translate it into Spanish together. But I add all the things you left out. Like I don't even disagree with Schafer. he doesn't say anything.
I am bad at writing clearly. and schafer is too. I'm so sorry to say anything bad about anything every. but i'm so pissed i picked this book to read for class because it is not a good book. it just doesn't do anything it says and it is a waste of time.
Just read the review in ancient jew review and you will not have to feel like an idiot for not understanding why schafer would say what he does, and save yourself time and learn the arguments that way.
I don't get it
I don't get it
i chose to write a review of this. book for class because it was short but i don't get it.
like I'm not disagreeing
or agreeing
i just don't see why
like in chapter 9
I don't get how the passages connect.
he shows it is an old God and Young God in the passage because of the Targum Pseudo Jonathan and then he talks about Boyarin. I don't get why though?
And then he has that last passage and it ends seemingly saying no two Gods
i am trying and I am okay at reading but can you help me. I'm trying and I don't know why I just don't get it.
Like unless this book is just not convincing
like the intro and conclusion and middlr page make sense
I just don't get why he says things
Like the Prayer of Joseph
why is that a thing
Why is it always a different second in command God. Are you saying it is a tendency? okay that is cool. there is a tendency to do it. But like
I mean is that a literary trope then or is that like a thought
i mean anything can happen. what is going on
i need to go to bed and finish this up later. i am going to go to bed and wake up at around noon and then pass this in. i just feel like
okay eep breath. i can just say
I don't think the arguments are convincing. but that is because they don't make sense
i think the Philo one and the metraon one are kind og convincing. but it is like even still. i follow the metatron one and I'm like okay so there is abother archcaptain angel. but that's not like a second God . explain in a few paragraphs why that is a second God and not just, another thing that exists in a panoply.
maybe I'm too dense on the idea of God. But it's like
If the last chapter is saying
enoch becomes metatron and metatron is a lesser subgod. It is cool. But the text itself is just letting metatron be metatron without calling it anything. so is it a subgod, or is heavenly courts full. and it is like, in part the reaction against it that shows it.
I'm sorry I'm so sorry i have one last paper before i graduate and i just want to make sure
i just can write a positive review for class just as an academic exercise.
It is not convincing to me.
September 13, 2020
I enjoyed the work and detailed analysis of the different texts used. However, I felt there was too much focus on justifying his interpretations verses Daniel Boyarin, who also writes on the subject. Of course, I’ve not read Daniel’s work! At times I’m in the middle of a debate between two scholars, when I’ve not read the one and I’m a pseudo-scholar! Would have enjoyed it more had Peter just presented his insights, without the repetitive support on why his view is the better argument. Keep the bantering out of publication, haha.
There is also zero mention of the Third God - namely Heavenly Mother or Wisdom, etc., that is alluded to in some of the passages he is using for the Two God discussion - he is completely silent on the topic - this isn’t a One God - Two God discussion - it should a pantheon of Gods discussion.
Brett Folkman
Doctor of Ministry
There is also zero mention of the Third God - namely Heavenly Mother or Wisdom, etc., that is alluded to in some of the passages he is using for the Two God discussion - he is completely silent on the topic - this isn’t a One God - Two God discussion - it should a pantheon of Gods discussion.
Brett Folkman
Doctor of Ministry
December 31, 2025
A very interesting read! I had been reading scholarship alongside a Bible read-through and was afraid I had stepped out of my depth and a lot would be referenced that I wouldn’t understand
NOT SO
There is a very good balance. You are only given the portions you need to follow his point, and he gives you the dissenting opinions he respects, albeit with a lot of needless rebuttal for a non-journal work. Is that typical of academia? I don’t care for it whenever I see it. He and two specific authors need to get a room!
That’s my biggest issue with the book, how it feels a touch over-personalized. I will say there is a lot of evidence by negative space, but I’m not sure that’s avoidable in scholarship where direct attestations are fragmentary and changing over centuries
NOT SO
There is a very good balance. You are only given the portions you need to follow his point, and he gives you the dissenting opinions he respects, albeit with a lot of needless rebuttal for a non-journal work. Is that typical of academia? I don’t care for it whenever I see it. He and two specific authors need to get a room!
That’s my biggest issue with the book, how it feels a touch over-personalized. I will say there is a lot of evidence by negative space, but I’m not sure that’s avoidable in scholarship where direct attestations are fragmentary and changing over centuries
December 30, 2020
An interesting reading of the "two powers" controversy in Second Temple Judaism and how that came to influence Christianity. Schafer's work makes a good companion to Hurtado's 'One God, One Lord' on the same topic with a slightly different focus. As another reviewer pointed out, Schafer spends too much time comparing his theories with that of Boyarkin, but overall this is a very nice overview of the concept.
February 7, 2022
Inter-testamental Judaism was binitarian in some respects, and continued to be, into the early Christian era. Only the growth of rabbinic Judaism, in conscious rejection of Christianity, came to reject plurality in God.
Read
January 11, 2026Ciekawe, ale zdecydowanie dla osób już mających pewne pojęcie na temat; brakowało mi jakichś wstępów, podsumowań czy "narracji" skierowanych do laików.
August 9, 2022
Solid but a bit too arrogant
Good treatment of the source material, but the author gets a bit too strong in the disdain for other takes on the same questions.
Good treatment of the source material, but the author gets a bit too strong in the disdain for other takes on the same questions.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews