1. I use this term in the limited sense of “traditions pertaining to the figure of Enoch” (as opposed to the corpus associated with his name) without presuming a continuous, static, and unbroken discourse throughout the ages.

2. The literature on the Enoch-Metatron traditions is vast. See e.g. Joseph Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism and Esotericism: Ancient Times (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2008), 2:641–677; Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, trans. George Lichtheim (New York: Schocken, 1946), 68–69; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkavah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1960), 41–42; David J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 420–427; Nathaniel Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 27–47; Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, SJLA 25; (Leiden: Brill, 1977); Idel, Moshe, “Enoch is Metatron,” Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 220–240Google Scholar; idem, “Metatron: Notes towards the Development of Myth in Judaism,” ʾEshel Beʾer-Sheva 4 (1996): 29–44Google Scholar; idem, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, Kogod Library of Judaic Studies (London: Continuum, 2007); Alexander, Philip S., “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28 (1977): 156–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 18 (1987): 40–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morray-Jones, Christopher, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition: Alexander's Three Test Cases,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 22 (1991): 1–39Google Scholar; Stroumsa, Guy G., “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ: For Shlomo Pines,” Harvard Theological Review 76 (1983): 269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Boyarin, Daniel, “Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010): 323–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peter Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 103–149; Kister, Menahem, “Metatron, God, and the ‘Two Powers’: The Dynamics of Tradition, Exegesis, and Polemic,” Tarbiz 82 (2014): 43–88Google Scholar.

3. See for instance Idel, Ben, 46, 160; Alexander, “Historical Setting”; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 333–335; Orlov, “Enoch-Metatron,” 99–100.

4. Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 160.

5. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 13–15, 103–149. Schäfer's argument, in a nut shell, is that the vast majority of the Metatron passages are found either in the Babylonian Talmud or in 3 Enoch, a work that appears to have reached its final form in Babylonia. The Babylonian provenance of the Metatron traditions is also corroborated by the extraliterary evidence, as Metatron plays a significant role in the Babylonian incantation bowls.

6. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 103–149; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 323–365 (See especially 326 n. 6, in which Boyarin traces the development from his earlier position in Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religions [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004].)

7. Different aspects of Christian impact on the Babylonian Talmud were discussed in Gafni, Isaiah M., “Ḥiburim Nestorianim ke-makor le-toldot yeshivot Bavel,” Tarbiz 51 (1982): 567–576Google Scholar; Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Jewish-Christian Conversation in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia: A Reconstructed Conversation, Judaism in Context 12 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011); eadem, Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 129–238; eadem, “Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noah's Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, ed. Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay (Lovanii: Peeters, 1997), 57–71; Shlomo Naeh, “Freedom and Celibacy: A Talmudic Variation on Tales of Temptation and Fall in Genesis and Its Syrian Background,” in Frishman and Van Rompay, Book of Genesis, 73–89; Becker, Adam H., “The Comparative Study of ‘Scholasticism’ in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East Syrians,” AJS Review 34 (2010): 91–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007); idem, Jewish Jesus, 1–20; and cf. the review of the former by Kalmin, Richard in Jewish Quarterly Review 99 (2009): 107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holger M. Zellentin, “Margin of Error: Women, Law, and Christianity in Bavli Shabbat 116a–b,” in Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity, ed. Eduard Iricinschi and Holger M. Zellentin (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 339–363; Michal Bar-Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

8. The absence of scholarly discussion regarding the relevance of the Zoroastrian and Manichaean traditions to Metatron speculation is particularly surprising in light of the recent interest in the field of Irano-talmudic studies. For a brief history of the field, see Herman, Geoffrey, “Ahasuerus the Former Stable-Master of Belshazzar, and the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: Two Parallels between the Babylonian Talmud and Persian Sources,” AJS Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar (esp. 283–288); Secunda, Shai, “Reading the Bavli in Iran,” Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 2 (2010): 310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elman, Yaakov, “Up to the Ears in Horses' Necks: On Sasanian Agricultural Policy and Private ‘Eminent Domain,’” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 3 (2004): 95–102Google Scholar.

9. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 276 n. 21. Similar remarks to that effect can be found in Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism, 2:642.

10. Some of the different forms of the name include Avestan Yima, Vedic Yama, Middle Persian Jam/Jamšed, and New Persian Jamšid. Comprehensive treatments of the myths of Yima are provided in Prods Skjærvø, Oktor, “Jamšid I: Myth of Jamšid,” Encyclopedia Iranica 14:501–522 (updated online April 10, 2012)Google Scholar; Götz König, Die Erzählung von Tahmuraṯ und Ğamšid: Edition des neupersischen Textes in Pahlavi-Schrift (MU 29) nebst zweier Parallelfassungen, Iranica 14 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008).

11. Thus, for instance, in the Avesta Yima is said to have ruled the world during the golden age; he saved the good creation from a flood by preserving samples of it in his var- (fortress); he possessed the divine fortune (Avetsan x^varǝnah; Pahlavi xwarrah) among mortals; he lost his fortune and kingship as a consequence of lying; and he was cut in half by an evil being. The Pahlavi literature preserves additional myths about Jam: he was enthroned on the New Year festival (nowruz); He had a twin sister named Jamag; his sin consisted of hubris; he propagated the “good measure” (paymān); and he defeated the demon-king Dahāg. Persian literature contains stories about Jamšid saving his brother Tahmuraṯ from Ahriman; his discovery of the healing powers of bull's urine (gōmēz); Jamšid as a cultural hero; and so on. See Skjærvø, “Jamšid,” 501–522; Shaul Shaked, “First Man, First King: Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism and Iranian Mythological Transformations,” in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution, and Permanence in the History of Religions, Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ed. Shaul Shaked et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 238–256.

12. For recent discussions of the meaning of pseudepigraphic attributions, see Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Najman, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez, ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 529–536; eadem (with Itamar Manoff and Eva Mroczek), “How to Make Sense of Pseudonymous Attribution: The Case of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” in Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 308–336.

13. Stanley Cavell, Must We Mean What We Say? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 78–80; Hindy Najman, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 58–59. I am indebted to Hindy Najman for elucidating this important methodological distinction and for generously sharing her work with me.

14. A related phenomenon is the reception of Greco–Roman mythical figures in Syriac and Arabic literature, see Kevin van Bladel, The Arabic Hermes: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science, Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 23–63. And see Kiel, Yishai, “Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra,” Journal of Religion 95, no. 1 (2015): 36 n 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Such attempts were also made by medieval Zoroastrian authors, who sought to improve their social standing by identifying their heritage as part and parcel of the monotheistic tradition, thus rendering themselves eligible for the status of ahl al-kitāb (people of the book). Thus, for example, several authors identified Zarathustra with Abraham: see Russell, James, “Our Father Abraham and the Magi,” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 54 (1987): 56–67Google Scholar; Daniel Sheffield, “In the Path of the Prophet: Medieval and Early Modern Narratives of the Life of Zarathustra in Islamic Iran and Western India” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2012), 52–83; Wheeler M. Thackston, The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisāʼī (Boston: Twayne, 1978), 136–150. An alternative crosscultural identification was proposed by several Greek Christian authors, who sought to identify Zarathustra with the biblical figure Nimrod, see Wilhelm Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (1907, reprinted Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 377; van der Toorn, Karel and van der Horst, Pieter W., “Nimrod before and after the Bible,” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 1 (1990): 1–29 (esp. 26–27)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kiel, “Abraham and Nimrod,” 35–50.

16. Shaked, “First Man, First King,” 245: “It seems, however, possible to assume that they [the Iranians] had already made it earlier, at the time of the Sasanians, in order to harmonize their traditions with those of their Semitic neighbors. The process of syncretistic adaptation of Iranian materials to the surrounding Semitic world may have begun long before the advent of Islam.”

17. Shaked, “First Man, First King,” 252–253. The latter tendency includes, for example, equating the Iranian Gayōmard with the biblical figure of Adam. This association is explicitly made by Masʽūdī, quoted in Arthur Christensen, trans., Les types du premier homme et le premier roi dans l'histoire légendaire des Iraniens, Archives d’études orientales 14.1–2 (Stockholm and Leiden: P.A. Norstedt, 1917–34), 194.

18. There are several affinities between Yima and Solomon, which provoked the identification of the two figures. Most notably, the reign of Yima, his advocating the “right measure” (paymān), and his association with the demons, were compared with the biblical and rabbinic narratives about Solomon. See for instance: Ibn Qotayba Dinavari, Ketāb al-maʿāref, ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Ibn Coteiba's Handbuch der Geschichte (Göttingen: Andenhöck und Ruprecht, 1850), 320; Abu Ḥanifa Dinavari, Aḵbār al-ṭewāl, ed. Vladimir Guirgass (Leiden: Brill, 1888), 9; Moṭahhar b. Ṭāher Maqdesi, Ketāb al-badʾ wa'l-taʾrikò, ed. and trans. Clément Huart as Le livre de la création et de l'histoire (Paris: Leroux, 1899–1919), 3:46–48, 106–109. Ibn al-Nadim does not identify the two figures but points out that some say Solaymān was the first to make the demons his subjects, while others say it was Jamšid, see: Ibn al-Nadim, Ketāb al-fehrest, ed. Gustav Flügel (Leipzig: Vogel, 1871–72), 309; Bayard Dodge, trans., The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 727. For a summary see Skjærvø, “Jamšid.” And see Yishai Kiel, “The Usurpation of Solomon's Throne by Ashmedai (bGit 68a-b): A Talmudic Story in Its Iranian Context,” Irano-Judaica 7, ed. Shaul Shaked and Julia Rubanovich (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, forthcoming).

19. There are several affinities between Yima and Noah, which triggered the identification of the two figures. Most notably, both figures are associated with a mythic flood; Yima's var- (fortress) to which he brought samples of all species of the good creation is comparable with Noah's ark; Yima's gift of meat to mankind is reminiscent of Noah's sacrifice, by which mankind was allowed to eat meat, and so on. Masʽūdī records a tradition, according to which the flood occurred during the reign of Yima. See Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille, trans., Les Prairies d'or, revised and corrected by Charles Pellat (Paris: Société Asiatique, 1962–71), sec. 536. Maqdesi says that Jamšid lived at the time of Noah (ed. and trans. Huart, 3:23–25). For a summary see Skjærvø, “Jamšid.” For the Zoroastrian version of the flood story (Videvdad 2) see Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 70–75; Moazami, Mahnaz, “The Legend of the Flood in Zoroastrian Tradition,” Persica 18 (2002): 55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jason M. Silverman, “It's a Craft! It's a Cavern! It's a Castle! Yima's Vara, Iranian Flood Myths, and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions,” in Opening Heaven's Floodgates: The Genesis Flood Narrative, Its Contexts and Reception, ed. Jason M. Silverman, Biblical Intersections 12 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013), 191–230.

20. Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Iranian Elements in Manicheism: A Comparative Contrastive Approach: Irano-Manichaica I,” in Au carrefour des religions: Hommages à Philippe Gignoux, ed. Gyselen, Rika, Res Orientales 7 (1995): 263–284Google Scholar; idem, “Iranian Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants: Irano-Manichaica III,” AOASH 48, no. 1–2: Zsigismond Telegdi Memorial Volume, ed. Eva Jeremias (Budapest: Akad Kiadó, 1995 [1997]), 187–223. A fascinating example of a three-way Manichaean/Zoroastrian/Semitic identification is the Manichaean Third Messenger (Syriac izgaddā, Latin tertius legatus, Middle Persian narēsahyazad), who was identified with the Zoroastrian god Nēryōsang (Avestan Nairyō Sangha), on the one hand, and the Semitic Ēl, on the other hand. See Sundermann, Werner, “Ēl as an Epithet of the Manichaean Third Messenger,” JSAI 26 (2002): 172–175Google Scholar.

21. Mani's Book of Giants was composed in the third century and is attested mainly in Iranian languages (Manichaean Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian). In other words, as far as we know, the work was only transmitted in the eastern Manichaean tradition. See Werner Sundermann, “Giants, the Book of,” Encyclopedia Iranica, 10:592–594 (updated online February 9, 2012); idem, “Mani's Book of Giants and the Jewish Books of Enoch: A Case of Terminological Difference and What It Implies,” in Irano-Judaica 3, ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994), 3:40–48; John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992); Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic.”

22. This is the Latin form for the “King of Honor”; Syriac: . Cf. Aramaic (Dead Sea Scrolls): מלכא רבא דאיקרא.

23. On the connections between Mani's Book of Giants and the Enochic tradition see below in greater detail.

24. For example, both figures are regarded as mythical exemplars of human repentance; both are associated with the sun and the solar calendar; both are associated with the New Year celebration; both are associated with celestial wisdom; and both are linked to immortality. The similarities between Yima and the earlier traditions of Enoch reflect, for the most part, analogous connections, which do not necessitate any kind of exchange or genealogical dependence (I refer here to the concept of analogous and genealogical connections in the sense discussed by Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and Religions of Late Antiquity [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990], 46–53).

25. Videvdad 2.5–6, in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 71: “Then beautiful Yima answered me: I shall accept to be the protector, guardian, and overseer of your herds. Under my command there shall be no cold or heat, no illness or destruction. Then I gave him two tools: a golden pick and a gilded goad. Thus Yima possessed two commands.” Yašt 19.31–32, in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 113: “The Fortune followed splendid Yima with good herds for quite a long time thereafter; so that he ruled on the sevenfold earth, over evil gods … he deprived the evil gods of sheep and herds, satisfaction and glorification.” On Yašt 19 in general see Jean Kellens, “Langues et religions indo–iraniennes: de la naissance des montagnes à la fin du temps: le Yašt 19,” in Annuaire du Collège de France 1997–1998: résumé des cours et travaux (Paris: Collège de France, 1998), 737–765; idem, “Langues et religions indo-iraniennes: Promenade dans les Yašts à la lumière de travaux nouveaux (suite),” in Annuaire du Collège de France 1999–2000: résumé des cours et travaux (Paris: Collège de France, 2001), 721–751.

26. The Videvdad is a Zoroastrian work in Young Avestan composed (or rather “crystalized”) orally at some point during the first half of the first millennium BCE. On the name of the Videvdad see especially: Émile Benveniste, “Que Signifie Vidēvdād,” in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, ed. Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch (London: Lund Humphries, 1970), 37–42. And, in general, Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “The Videvdad: Its Ritual-Mythical Significance,” in The Idea of Iran: The Age of the Parthians, ed. Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Sarah Stewart (London: Tauris, 2007), 105–162.

27. His subsequent sin and punishment will be discussed below.

28. The concept of the golden age is connected to the notion of metallic substances (often gold, silver, copper, and iron) representing the unfolding of history. This motif is known from the book of Daniel, the book of Revelation, Hesiod, the Iranian Zand ī Wahman Yasn, and other ancient works, and numerous studies were devoted to its various manifestations. For the Iranian version see Dan Shapira, “Studies in Zoroastrian Exegesis: Zand” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998), 154; Yuhan S. D. Vevaina, “Miscegenation, ‘Mixture,’ and ‘Mixed Iron’: The Hermeneutics, Historiography and Cultural Poesis of the ‘Four Ages’ in Zoroastrianism,” in Revelation, Literature and Community in Late Antiquity, ed. Phillipa Townsend and Moulie Vidas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 237–270.

29. Yasna 9.5: “Under Yima the *brave's command, there was no cold, no heat, there was no old age, no death, no envy set in place by the daēuuas” (based on an unpublished translation by Prods Oktor Skjærvø).

30. By comparison, according to the Rigveda, Yama was regarded as immortal or among the immortals (Rigveda 1.83.5: yamásya jātám amṛˊtamṟ) and he became a king “at the barrier of the sky” (Rigveda 9.113.8). His realm of the dead, the abode of the “fathers,” was originally in highest heaven (Rigveda 10.14.8: paramé vyòman) and only later underground. See Skjærvø, “Jamšid.”

31. The Persian Rivāyats are collections of questions addressed by the Zoroastrian community in India to the religious leadership in Iran during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and the responses they received. The Persian Rivāyats are much later than the Pahlavi Rivāyats (dated to the ninth to tenth centuries), but often preserve much earlier traditions. For an edition of some of the Persian Rivāyats see Ervad Bamanji Nusserwanji Dhabhar, The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others: Their Version with Introduction and Notes (Mumbai: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1932).

32. Trans. in Arthur Christensen, Les types du premier homme et le premier roi dans l'histoire légendaire des Iraniens, Archives d’études orientales 14.1–2 (Leiden: Brill, 1934), 2:60–67. Compare the tools Yima receives according to Videvdad 2.6.

33. The Šāh-nāma (“Book of Kings”) is a long epic poem written by the Persian poet Firdausī between the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. For a recent discussion of the Pahlavi precursors of this work, see Yuhan S. D. Vevaina, “‘The Ground Well Trodden, But the Shah Not Found…’: Orality and Textuality in the ‘Book of Kings’ and the Zoroastrian Mythoepic Tradition,” in Orality and Textuality in the Iranian World: Patterns of Interaction across the Centuries, ed. Julia Rubanovich (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 169–190.

34. Abu'l-Qāsem Ferdowsi, Šāh-nāma, ed. Djalal Khaleghi-Motlagh (New York: Bibliotheca Persica, 1987), 1:44, verses 48–55.

35. Videvdad 19.28.

36. Jean Kellens, “Langues et religions indo-iraniennes: Promenade dans les Yašts à la lumière de travaux nouveaux (suite),” 727 n. 7.

37. Yasna 9.4.

38. Yasna 9.1.

39. Yasna 9.4: “Yima the radiant with good herds, the most fortunate [=endowed with the divine royal Fortune] among those born, like the sun to look at among men” (based on an unpublished translation by Prods Oktor Skjærvø).

40. For a summary of scholarship see Gherardo Gnoli, “Farr(ah),” Encyclopedia Iranica 9:314–315 (updated online December 15, 1999).

41. Skjærvø, “Jamšid.”

42. See for instance: Abu'l-Fedā ʿEmād-al-Din Esmāʿil, al-Moḵtaṣar fi aḵbār al-bašar, ed. Henricus Orthobius Fleischer as Abulfedae Historia anteislamica; Arabice, e duobus codicibus Bibliothecase regiae Parisiensis (Leipzig: Vogel, 1831), 66–69. Reference from Skjærvø, “Jamšid.”

43. Yašt 19.33–34: “That was before, when he [Yima] had not yet lied, before this one insidiously brought him the word Deception, for him to understand (the world?) as it not really was.… After that, the Fortune, now visible, ran away from him in the form of a bird” (trans. in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 113).

44. Dādestān ī Dēnīg 38.19–20. Cf. Mahmoud Jaafari-Dehaghi, ed. and trans. Dādestān ī Dēnīg, Part 1: Transcription, Translation and Commentary, Studia Iranica 20 (Paris: Association pour l'avancement des études iraniennes, 1998), 158–159.

45. The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg 31a10. Cf. Alan V. Williams, ed. and trans., The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, 2 vols., The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters: Historisk-filosofiske meddelelser 60 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1990), 1:136–137, 2:57.

46. Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari, Taʾ riḵ al-rosol wa'l-moluk, ed. Michaël Jan De Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 1:182; trans. Franz Rosenthal, The History of al-Ṭabari (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1985–2007), 1:351. For the references in this footnote and the following one, I am indebted to Prods Oktor Skjærvø.

47. Abu ʿAli Moḥammad Amirak Balʿami, Tāriḵ-e Balʿami, ed. Moḥammad-Taqi Bahār (Tehran: Zavār, 1962), 131; rev. ed., ed. Moḥammad Parvin Gonābādi (Tehran: Zavār, 2000), 89; Hermann Zotenberg, trans., Chronique de Tabari traduite sur la version persane d'Abou-ʿAli Mohammad Balʿami (reprinted Paris: Maisonneuve, 1958), 1:104.

48. A similar expression appears in the Paikuli inscription: dēhēm sar bast “bound the diadem to his head.” See Helmut Humbach and Prods Oktor Skjærvø, The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983), pt. 3.1, 29; pt. 3.2, 26.

49. Kaw Sogdian V, p. 2, in Walter B. Henning, “The Book of the Giants,” BSOAS 11 (1943): 52–74 (esp. 74); reprinted in idem, Selected Papers II, Acta Iranica 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 115–137 (esp. 137). Translation follows Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 203.

50. Sogdian nawí m[ēθ], which corresponds with the Iranian festival now ruz (Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 204). Skjærvø notes that this term is also found in a Manichaean letter with New Year's greetings, all of which echoes closely Ferdousi's account in the Book of Kings of the beginning of Jamšid's reign (ed. Khaleghi-Motlagh, 1:41). On the connection of Yima (and Enoch-Metatron) to the celebration of the New Year, see below.

51. Kaw Sogdian V page 1, in Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 203–204.

52. Another Sogdian fragment (M178ii 106–111; Walter B. Henning, “A Fragment of the Manichean Cosmogony,” BSOAS 12 [1948]: 312–313) describes the Rex Honoris as follows: “After that, the Living Spirit (Wēšparkar) evoked the Lord of Honor (smānxšēδ). And they sat him upon a throne in the seventh heaven and made him lord and ruler of all ten heavens.” See Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 204–207.

53. Following the lead of Milik, Reeves has demonstrated that Mani faithfully followed the Aramaic version of the story, part of which is found in the Enoch fragments at Qumran. See, for instance, Jozef T. Milik ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976); Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony, 51–164; Sundermann, “Mani's Book of the Giants,” 40–48. Guy Stroumsa, on the other hand, has argued for gnostic mediation: Guy A. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 153 and throughout.

54. Skjærvø, “Iranian Epic,” 204; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 82.

55. Prods Oktor Skjærvø suggested to me, however, that since mythical characters can easily be “split” when adopted and adapted, there is no reason to reject the possibility that Yima represents both God and other semidivine figures at one and the same time (private communication).

56. On the son of man in the Similitudes see recently a number of articles conveniently collected in Gabriele Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 153–259, and see below in greater detail.

57. 1 Enoch 46:1–5, translation follows George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 59–60. And cf. Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 48.

58. 1 Enoch 48:2, 5 (Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 62; cf. Black, Book of Enoch, 49).

59. For a compelling argument to that effect, see Greenfield, Jonas C. and Stone, Michal E., “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977): 51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenfield and Stone, “The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch,” Numen 26, no. 1 (1979): 89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More recently, see James H. Charlesworth, “The Date and Provenance of the Parables of Enoch,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Darrell L. Bock, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Series, ed. James H. Charlesworth (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 37–57; Darrell L. Bock, “Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht,” in Charlesworth and Bock, Parables of Enoch, 58–113.

60. For the question of the sectarian or nonsectarian nature of the Similitudes, see recently P. Piovanelli, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and Mighty Who Possess the Earth’: The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch,” in Boccaccini, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 363–379; Daniel Boyarin, “Was the Book of Parables a Sectarian Document?: A Brief in Support of Pierluigi Piovanelli,” in ibid., 380–385. And cf. Greenfield and Stone, “Enochic Pentateuch.”

61. Alongside the incorporation of the heavenly Enoch (identified with the son of man) into the Manichaean system, the earthly Enoch too played a significant role in Manichaeism, insofar as he was perceived by Mani as a link in the chain of prophetic succession (which typically included Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, and Mani himself). For the different variants of the prophetic list, see John C. Reeves, Heralds of the Good Realm: Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 7–17.

62. Gen. 5:24: “Enoch walked with God; and then he was gone, because God had taken him” (ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים ואיננו כי לקח אותו אלהים); Gen. 5:22: “Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah” (ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים אחרי הולידו את מתושלח).

63. A number of traditions concerning the disappearance of Enoch are collected and discussed in James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 173–174; Levi Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968), 5:156–157; Devorah Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 14–29; James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQ Monograph Series 16 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984); Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 9–28. For some of these traditions see, e.g., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:85, 9:28; Philo, Change of Names 38; Jubilees 10:17; Septuagint to Gen. 5:24; 1 Enoch 14:8–25. A rabbinic polemic against the notion of Enoch's “elevation,” insisting that Enoch did in fact die, is found in Bereshit Rabbah, Bereshit, par. 25:1, to Genesis 5:24 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 238), and see also Targum Onkelos to Gen. 5:24: “And Enoch walked in the fear of the Lord, and he was not, for the Lord had killed him” ('והליך חנוך בדחלתא דיי', ולייתוהי, ארי אמית יתיה יי). A positive rabbinic depiction of Enoch is found in Vayikra Rabbah, ’Emor, par. 29:11, to Leviticus 23:24 (ed. Margulies, pp. 680–681) and parallels. For rabbinic attitudes towards Enoch, see Martha Himmelfarb, “A Report on Enoch in Rabbinic Literature,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, SBLSPS 13 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 259–269 (esp. 262); Ephraim E. Urbach, Ḥazal: Pirkei 'emunot ve-deʾot (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1969), 295; Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 124–140.

64. 1 Enoch 71:14: “You are that son of man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you” (Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 95; cf. Black, Book of Enoch, 68). For a recent discussion of this identification and its problems, see Helge S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Boccaccini, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 179–215. For a source–critical approach to the problem and the suggestion that the identification of Enoch and the son of man stems from a secondary addition, see John Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chiala and Helge Kvanvig,” in Boccanccini, Enoch and the Messiah, 221–227. See also Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 333; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 292 n. 13. And see the cautious stance taken in Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 48 n. 20.

65. For the connections between this description and Daniel 7:13, see Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 70–85; Sabino Chiala, Il libro delle Parabole di Enoc: Testo e commento (Brescia: Paideia, 1997), 303–340; John Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304–310.

66. 2 Enoch 22:10, in Francis I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 139. On the figure of Enoch according to 2 Enoch see, in general, Orlov, Enoch-Metatron, 148–202.

67. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 60.

68. Compare, however, 1 Enoch 62:5.

69. 3 Enoch 10: 1–2, in Philip Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 263–264.

70. 3 Enoch 12:1–5, in Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 265.

71. The analogies between the early Enoch and Yima will be addressed below in greater detail.

72. In contrast to 3 Enoch, the Babylonian Talmud does not address the transformation of Enoch into the angel Metatron or the identification and convergence of the two figures (although we will see that, at least in certain talmudic passages, this may be implicit). Rather, the Babylonian Talmud sketches, in a number of passages, the “mature” figure of Metatron. Notwithstanding several important differences, which will be discussed below, the basic description of Metatron in 3 Enoch as God's viceroy, who sits on a glorious throne and rules the celestial and earthly creatures, emerges from the Babylonian Talmud as well.

73. While these God-like characteristics are reminiscent of the heavenly Jesus, seated on a throne in heaven on the right hand of God, we shall see below that, unlike the heavenly Jesus who is indeed of divine nature, Metatron and Yima are charged with misrepresenting themselves as God and are severely punished.

74. Recent interpretations of this passage include, Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 329–333; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 104–115; Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 74–83.

75. Rav 'Idit's assertion that God's name is borne by Metatron indicates that it is God who told Moses to ascend to Metatron (aka YHWH) and not that Metatron told Moses to ascend to God as suggested by several traditional exegetes. See Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 291–292 n. 8.

76. Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 929. Cf. Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 75, who applies the more common use of the term in the sense of “messenger, agent.” See also David N. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 65, s.v. parwānag. Prods Oktor Skjærvø informs me that this term is typically used in Zoroastrian and Manichaean texts of gods/demons who lead to paradise/hell (private communication).

77. Yishai Kiel, “Redesigning Tzitzit in the Babylonian Talmud in Light of Literary Depictions of the Zoroastrian Kustīg,” in Shoshanat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, ed. Shai Secunda and Steven Fine (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 190–192 (185–202).

78. The use of Persian loanwords was definitely not the choice of the medieval scribes, who copied the extant textual witnesses. On the contrary, the scribes tend to replace obscure Persian terminology with decipherable Aramaic words. See for instance Rosenthal, David, “ʽArakhim nosafim la-milon ha-talmudi (3),” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 219–225Google Scholar, with regard to the replacement of the Persian term arzānīg in most textual witnesses.

79. While I was unable to find the term parwānag explicitly linked to Yima in the extant Iranian literature, there is little doubt that parwānagīh (guidance, leadership) is in fact the essence of the role assigned to him by God (see Videvdad 2.4: “Accept to be the protector, guardian, and overseer of my herds,” in Skjærvø, Spirit of Zoroastrianism, 71).

80. The motif of Metatron's sitting appears in all textual witnesses of B. Ḥagigah 15a, with the exception of Munich 95. In some textual witnesses (namely, Oxford - Bodl. heb. d. 63 (2826) 31–32 and Vatican 171), this motif is further emphasized later on in the narrative, when Metatron is asked: “Why, when you saw him (i.e. Elisha), did you not rise before him?” Cf. the interpretation of Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 297 n. 94, based on Septimus, Dov, “Ḥetʾo shel Metatron: bisvaḥ leshonot ve-nusḥaʾot,” Leshonenu 69 (2007): 292 (291–300)Google Scholar.

81. The idea that there is no standing in heaven appears in most textual witnesses, but as correctly noted by several scholars, this further complicates the interpretation of ’Aḥer's error. See Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 297 n. 92; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 346–347. Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 68, argues that the mention of “no standing” is indeed the more accurate reading according to the textual witnesses, but this does not imply that it was part of the original talmudic tradition.

82. That is, since they have faces on all sides, they have no nape. See Rashi, ad loc.; Bereshit Rabbah, Bereshit, par. 49:7, to Genesis 18:22 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 505); Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 66.

83. B. Ḥagigah 15a.

84. See the detailed discussion in Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 63–73.

85. Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 54–66; Idel, “Enoch,” 225.

86. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaism,” 349–350; Kister, “Metatron, God, and the Two Powers,” 71.

87. The term “permission” appears in most textual witnesses, except for the Oxford fragment (Oxford-Bodl. heb. d. 63 (2826), 31–32), which reads: חזייה למיטטרון דמתיהבא לה חדא שעתא ביומא ויתיב כתיב להו לזכואתא דישראל (he saw that Metatron was given one hour a day, in which he sat and wrote down the merits of Israel).

88. B. Ḥagigah 15a.

89. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 350; Alon Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: The Rabbinic Invention of Elisha ben Abuya and Eleazar ben Arach (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 110.

90. 3 Enoch 16:2–3, in Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 268.

91. For the position that 3 Enoch is later and dependent on the talmudic version, see for example: Ephraim E. Urbach, “The Traditions about Merkabah Mysticism in the Tannaitic Period,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion, Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, ed. Ephraim E. Urbach, Raphael J. Z. Werblowsky, and Chaim Wirszubski (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 1–28; Alexander, “3 Enoch.” For the opposite position, see for example Christopher Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition”; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 349–351. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 130, argues that “both version supplement each other and presumably draw from a common source.”

92. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 349, suggests that the talmudic version deliberately obliterates the throne found in the Enochic tradition, so as to delegitimize Metatron speculation, and yet maintains the notion of sitting, representing his sovereignty and authority. Notably, however, a deliberate attempt on the part of the talmudic authors to eliminate Metatron's throne would altogether obscure 'Aḥer's mistake.

93. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 349.

94. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 298 n. 103.

95. B. Ḥagigah 15a.

96. 3 Enoch 16:5, in Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 268.

97. B. Yevamot 16b; B. Ḥullin 60a; B. Sanhedrin 94a.

98. Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism, 2:651–654; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 123–125; cf. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 48–50.

99. Peter Schäfer, with Margarete Schlüter and Hans G. von Mutius, eds., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 47, 56; Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 243; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 124–125.

100. B. Yevamot 16b.

101. Compare the identification of this figure with Michael, the Great Prince (ha-sar ha-gadol) in B. Ḥagigah 12b.

102. Gruenwald, Ithamar, “Re'uyot Yeḥezkel,” Temirin 1 (1977): 101–139 (128–131)Google Scholar; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 116–117.

103. See for instance Gruenwald, “Re'uyot Yeḥezkel,” 101–102; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 267–277.

104. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 116–123.

105. I would like to thank Steven Fraade for suggesting this articulation, which underscores the notion that the two figures need not be identical or synonymous.

106. See for instance Šāh-nāma (ed. Khaleghi-Motlagh, 1:41–43); Persian Rivāyats, trans. in Christensen, Les types du premier homme, 2:66–68.

107. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 174–178.

108. Steven Fraade suggested that this number is connected to the solar calendar promoted in Qumran and Enochic literature (private communication). See his “Theory, Practice, and Polemic in Ancient Jewish Calendars,” Dine Israel 26–27 (2009–2010): 147–181.

109. Certain scholars have stressed the connection between Enoch's solar characteristics and Mesopotamian sources. The primary basis for these connections has been the suggestion that the genealogy of Genesis 5 bears some resemblance to a Mesopotamian list of kings who lived before the flood (“The Sumerian King List”). While Enoch appears as the seventh generation from Adam in the genealogy of Genesis 5, the Mesopotamian tradition identifies the seventh king as a certain Enmeduranki, a figure associated with the sun god, Shamash, and with heavenly wisdom. While the connections between the biblical Enoch and the Mesopotamian list were largely called into question, the association of Enoch with the sun is indeed manifest in Scripture. For a discussion of the Mesopotamian connections see, e.g., Hartman, Thomas C., “Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 28, 34; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 191–192; Helge S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, WMANT 61 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988).

110. Bereshit Rabbah, Bereshit, par. 25:1, to Genesis 5:24 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 238).

111. See e.g. M. Rosh Ha-shanah 1:2.

112. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 177–179, 193–194.

113. Greek version of Ben Sira 44:16, trans. in Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 178. See also Wisdom of Solomon 4:10–14; Philo, Questions and Answers in Genesis 1:82; idem, On Abraham 17; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 1:15–16.

114. On repentance in Zoroastrianism, see: Jes P. Asmussen, X ^uāstvānīft: Studies in Manichaeism (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1965), 26–112; Kiel, Yishai, “The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 22 (2012): 119–135Google Scholar; idem, “Penitential Theology in East Late Antiquity: Talmudic, Zoroastrian, and East Christian Reflections,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014): 551–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115. Hell is located in the north.

116. The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg 31a1–7 (ed. Williams, 2:57), and cf. Dādestān ī Dēnīg 38.21 (ed. Jaafari, 158–161): “And he asked forgiveness from the Creator who is most beneficent. And in atonement for having abandoned the service of the Creator he informed and advised those who came after him.”