Corrigendum

The author unintentionally failed to appropriately reference and acknowledge the bearing of Mika Ahuvia’s dissertation on the development of the author’s ideas for this article: Ahuvia, M. 2014. ‘Israel among the Angels—a Study of Angels in Jewish Texts from the Fourth to Eighth Century C.E.’ (PhD dissertation, Princeton University). The author apologises to the readers. The following corrections apply (revisions are identified in bold):

On page 101:

Original

These approaches can be divided loosely into two broad categories based on the types of ancient Jewish literature that they examine: (1) those studies which take rabbinic literature as their starting point (including the Talmuds and midrashic works); and (2) those that examine para-rabbinic and extra-rabbinic texts (such as Hekhalot literature, piyyut and the incantation amulets and bowls). This terminology is unfortunately rabbinocentric and obscures many scholars’ overlapping interests.

Revised

These approaches can be divided loosely into two broad categories based on the types of ancient Jewish literature that they examine: (1) those studies which take rabbinic literature as their starting point (including the Talmuds and midrashic works); and (2) those that examine para-rabbinic and extra-rabbinic texts (such as Hekhalot literature, piyyut and the incantation amulets and bowls). A similar taxonomy of texts was also devised by Ahuvia in her 2014 dissertation. While the terminology of rabbinic, pararabbinic, and extra-rabbinic are unfortunately rabbinocentric and obscure many scholars’ overlapping interests, they remain useful.

Original

Urbach’s synthesis of rabbinic texts is impressive, but his synthesis presumes a static rabbinic theology, which flattened rabbinic change over time as well as genre considerations. Because Urbach imagines that the rabbis had power over the Jewish population at the time, he assumes that rabbinic theology was reflective of broader Jewish trends.

Revised

As Ahuvia 2014 notes, Urbach’s synthesis of rabbinic texts is impressive, but his synthesis presumes a static rabbinic theology, which flattened rabbinic change over time as well as genre considerations. Because Urbach believes rabbinic reports of their power over the Jewish population at the time, he assumes uncritically that rabbinic theology was reflective of broader Jewish trends.

On page 106:

Original

Lieber notes Yannai’s depiction of the relationship of Israel and the angels as more harmonious than the rabbis do, and posits a close relationship between Yannai’s liturgical song and Hekhalot mysticism, discussed below (2010: 227-41).

Revised

Lieber notes Yannai frequently includes angelic beings “in poems lacking any biblical trigger for this element, […which suggests] how keen his – or his community’s – interest in this topic was” (Lieber 229). In part because of the connections between angelic liturgy and the late antique Qedusha prayer, Lieber posits a close relationship between Yannai’s liturgical song and Hekhalot mysticism, discussed below (2010: 227-41) (cp. Ahuvia 2014: 91).

Original

Schafer has surveyed the function of angels within each of the Hekhalot macroforms and concluded that there is no consistent construction of angels across the Hekhalot texts (1992: 141-42). In fact, Schafer argues that there is no consistent angelology even within certain Hekhalot texts, such as Hekhalot Zutarti (1992: 62-66).

Revised

Schafer has surveyed the function of angels within each of the Hekhalot macroforms and concluded that there is no systematic construction of angels across the Hekhalot texts. In fact, Schäfer argues that there is no systematic theology of the angels even within certain Hekhalot texts, such as Hekhalot Zutarti (1992: 141-42, and see Ahuvia 2014 thereon).

Original

In a 1988 article, Himmelfarb suggests that angelic hostility to human ascenders in Hekhalot literature is related to a belief that heaven was understood as a true temple, of which the Jerusalem Temple was only a copy, and that, like the Jerusalem Temple, its ‘cult is fraught with danger for those who are not fit or who err in its performance’ (Himmelfarb 1988: 85; following Maier 1963: 19-22).

Revised

In a 1988 article, Himmelfarb suggests that ‘angelic hostility’ to human ascenders in Hekhalot literature is related to the depiction of the ascenders as initiating the ascent, without the direct will and aid of the angelic gatekeepers. The danger posed by those desiring to initiate or impose an exploration of the divine realm is in part explained by the belief that heaven was understood as a true temple, of which the Jerusalem Temple was only a copy, and that thus, like the Jerusalem Temple, only proper initiates may enter and serve. Its ‘cult is fraught with danger for those who are not fit or who err in its performance’ (Himmelfarb 1988: 85; following Maier 1963: 19-22, see Ahuvia 2014: 220). Himmelfarb argues that the danger and hostility share significant parallels with gnostic literature and the magical papyri.