1 Edward William West, the first editor of the ŠGW, dated the text to the end of the ninth century. West argued that, though the ŠGW often refers to the Dēnkard, a voluminous Middle Persian work often referred to as the Zoroastrian encyclopedia, it only mentions the Dēnkard's first compiler, Ādurfarnbag ī Farroxzādān, who lived at the time of the ʿAbbasid Caliph al-Maʾmun (r. 813–33), and not the later editor Ādurbād ī Emēdān. See Jamasp-Asana, Hoshang Dastur Jamaspji and West, Edward William, Shikand-Gumānīk Vijār (Bombay, 1887), xvii–xviiiGoogle Scholar. However, there are at least two problems with West's argument. First of all, the dating West proposes for Ādurfarnbag is itself less than certain. It is based on Ādurnfarnbag's appearance as the Zoroastrian participant in a disputation against a Muslim named Abališ (most likely a corruption of ʿAbd Allāh) before al-Maʾmūn. However, the historical reliability of this account, contained in the late Middle Persian text Gizistag Abāliš, deserves reconsideration. One cannot exclude the possibility that Ādurfarnbag appears as a character in that story because the author of this text considered him an archetypical representative of Zoroastrianism just as, conceivably, al-Maʿmun was the archetype of the wise king. For a discussion of the Gizistag Abāliš as an instance of the literary trope of court polemics see Jong, Albert F. de, “Zoroastrian Self-Definition in Contact with other Faiths,” in Irano-Judaica V, ed. Shaked, Shaul and Netzer, Amnon (Jerusalem, 2003), 16–26Google Scholar; and Timuș, Mihaela, “Fonder, bâtir, rénover: articulations conceptuelles du système zoroastrien d'expression moyenne-perse” (PhD diss., Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, 2009), 15–16Google Scholar. Secondly, as Jean de Menasce, the editor of the standard edition of the ŠGW, pointed out, there is evidence of a third editor of the Dēnkard, named Ādurbād ī Mahraspandān ī Ašawahištān, a tenth century figure who is mentioned in a Persian Rivāyat preserved in the British Library. Given the difficulty of determining the nature and extent of the redactional work by these two Ādurbāds, it is impossible to know what in the extant version of Dēnkard was anterior to the ŠGW and what is dependent on it. See Menasce, Jean de, Une apologétique mazdéenne du IXe siècle: Škand-Gumānīk Vičār: La solution décisive des doutes (Fribourg, 1945), 12Google Scholar. Though he rejects West's argument, on linguistic grounds De Menasce himself places the ŠGW before Manušcihr's letters, composed around 881, since the ŠGW uses less prototypical New Persian forms.

2 ŠGW 14: 82–6.

3 In Sasanian Iran, separate scripts, both ultimately derived from the Aramaic alphabet, were used to write Zoroastrian literature. Middle Persian texts were written in Pahlavi while the Avesta was written in a more phonologically versatile script specifically developed for that purpose. Zoroastrians in India transcribed many Pahlavi texts into the easier to read Avesgan script; these texts, and the modified Avestan script they employ, are both known as Pazand. Pazand texts also display unique dialectical features not found in other Middle Persian works. See Lazard, Gibert, “Pehlevi, Pazend et Persan,” in La formation de la langue persane, ed. Lazard, Gibert (Paris, 1995), 133–40Google Scholar; and Jong, Albert de, “Pāzand and ‘Retranscribed’ Pahlavi,” in Persian Origins: Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian, ed. Paul, Ludwig (Wiesbaden 2003), 67–77Google Scholar.

4 Mardānfarrox clearly marks citations with technical formulae. For instance, the following formulae are found in chapter fourteen: naxust īn i gōeṯ, first it says this (14: 4); u han jā gōeṯ, and it says there (14: 9); u han aβar xašmūnī i š gōeṯ, and it says regarding his wrathfulness (14: 18); han īnca gōeṯ, it also says this (14: 24), han jā īnca gōeṯ ku, it also says this there (14: 40), and so on.

5 The ŠGW catalogues the Jewish, claims for the First Scripture at the beginning of chapter thirteen: “they call it āžāṯ and they are all of one opinion that Moses received it from God by his own hand” (13: 2–3). The name āžāṯ has never been sufficiently explained. For the latest discussion see Shapira, Dan, “On Biblical Quotations in Pahlavi,” Henoch 23 (2001): 175–83Google Scholar.

6 Among the many critiques against and apologetics for Genesis 1–3 we can mention that of Mardānfarrox's near contemporary, the Jewish rationalist Hiwi al-Balkhi. See Rosenthal, Judah, “Hiwi al-Balkhi: A Comparative Study,” Jewish Quarterly Review 38 (1948): 317–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 419–30.

7 The scholarly literature on rabbinic midrash and aggada is immense and too expansive to cite here. For recent surveys see Bakhos, Carol, ed., Current Trends in the Study of Midrash (Leiden, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Bakhos West, Edward William, Pahlavi Texts Part Three, vol. 24 of Sacred Books of the East, ed. Müller, Max (Oxford, 1884)Google Scholar. West completed this translation before undertaking his critical edition of the ŠGW; the latter text includes several corrections of the former.

9 In addition to West's translation cited in the previous note, the ŠGW critique of Judaism has been translated and annotated by Darmesteter, James, “Textes Pehlvis relatifs au Judaisme: première partie,” Revue des Études Juives 18 (1889): 1–15Google Scholar; de Menasce, Une Apologétique; Neusner, Jacob, A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden, 1969), 4: 403–23Google Scholar; Hedayat, Sadeq, Gozareš-e gomān šekan (Tehran, 1943)Google Scholar; Shapira, “Biblical Quotations”; and Shakiba, Parvin, Guzārish-i gumān shikan: sharḥ va tarjumah-e matn-e Pāzand ‘Shikandah-Gumānīk Vīchār’: asar-i mardān Farrukh pisar-i Urmazddād (Champaign, IL, 2001)Google Scholar. All of these translations depend on the critical edition of the Pazand and Pahlavi texts in Jamasp-Asana and West, Shikand-Gumānīk Vijār. De Menasce's 1945 French translation and transcription of the entire ŠGW is the current standard edition and served as the basis for Neusner's, Shapira's and Shakiba's work. Hedayat's translation, which I was not able to consult, was completed under the direction of the Parsi scholar Bahramgor Tahmuras Anklesaria during Hedayat's stay in Bombay in 1936–38. The notable exception to the scholarly consensus regarding the direct relationship between the ŠGW and Jewish literature is in the work of de Menasce, who raised the possibility that Islamic or Christian sources could have served Mardānfarrox just as easily as Jewish ones. On this point see Jean de Menasce, Une Apologétique, 176–81.

10 Neusner, A History, 422.

11 While I am proposing an alternative model of the provenance of the Jewish citations here, the Judeo-Persian connections deserve further consideration. For a discussion of these connections, see Shapira, “Biblical Quotations.”

12 De Menasce, Une Apologétique, 201, amends to lāw on the basis of Manichaean Middle Persian lāb, meaning an entreaty or supplication. The Sanskrit translation guptamabhīpsitasayācata also points to the semantic field of the secret. The first part of the compound, guptama-, means “secretly” or “privately.” See Monier-Williams, Monier, A Sanskrit–English Dictionary (Oxford, 1899), 359Google Scholar.

13 All translations from Middle Persian and Rabbinic Hebrew are mine unless otherwise noted.

14 This criticism is especially cutting because the restoration of the world is precisely Ohrmazd's function at the end of time. See Shaked, Shaul, “Eschatology I: In Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian Influence,” Encyclopedia Iranica 8 (1998): 565–9Google Scholar.

15 The figure of Hanina ben Dosa, especially in the context of his characterization as a holy man and wonder-worker, has been well treated in the scholarship. See the major discussions in Gad Zarfatti, Ben-Ami, “Pious Men, Men of Deeds, and the Early Prophets,” Tarbiz 26 (1957): 126–53Google Scholar; Bokser, Baruch M., “Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa,” Jewish Studies Journal 16 (1985): 49–92Google Scholar; Safrai, Shmuel, “Hassidic Teaching in Mishnaic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1956): 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vermes, Geza, “Hanina Ben Dosa,” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 28–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fraenkel, Yonah, Darkei ha-Aggadah ve-ha-Midrash (Jerusalem, 1991), 1: 277–80Google Scholar; and Hasan-Rokem, Galit, “Did Rabbinic Culture Conceive of the Category of Folk Narratives?,” European Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (2009): 19–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 This image seems to derive from the “form of a hand” mentioned in Ezekiel 8: 3.

17 Interestingly, only ms Oxford 23 has ’akwā’nā’, a loanword from Middle Persian xwān, meaning tray or table. David Mackenzie, Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London, 1971), 95.

18 The citation follows the version in the Yemenite manuscript Yad Harav Herzog 1 which, despite being copied only in the sixteenth century, retains ancient readings. On the character of this manuscript (comprising Babylonian Talmud tractates Sanhedrin, Makkot and a small portion of Taanit) see Sabato, Mordechai, A Yemenite Manuscript of Tractate Sanhedrin and its Place in the Textual Tradition (Jerusalem, 1998)Google Scholar. Other manuscripts and the standard printed edition of the Talmud (Vilna, nineteenth century) contain numerous variants. Of relevance to the present discussion is the fact that all the other extant manuscripts (though not the Vilna edition or the Pesaro printing of 1516) make no mention of the heavenly hand descending to deliver the table leg. Instead, these versions state that it was cast down to him without specifying the means or identifying an agent. For a further discussion of the manuscript tradition see Hasan-Rokem, Galit, “Ha-im hayu haza'l muda'im le-musag ha-folklor?,” in Higayon L'Yona: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut in Honor of Professor Yonah Fraenkel, ed. Levinson, Joshua et al. (Jerusalem, 2006), 219–20Google Scholar.

19 On bloodletting in rabbinic literature see Rosner, Fred, “Bloodletting in Talmudic Times,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 62 (1986): 935–46Google ScholarPubMed.

20 The Shekhinah is usually identified as female. On this figure see Urbach, Efraim Elimelech, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1975), 37–65Google Scholar; Scholem, Gershom, “Shekhinah: the Feminine Element in Divinity,” in On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah, ed. Chipman, Jonathan (New York, 1991), 140–96Google Scholar; Goldberg, Arnold, Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (Berlin, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schäfer, Peter, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah (Princeton, NJ, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dan, Joseph, History of Jewish Mysticism and Esotericism (Jerusalem, 2008), 1: 362–87Google Scholar. As these scholars have noted, despite its feminine gender, in rabbinic literature the Shekhinah is identical with God himself. The distinction, as Schäfer notes, is one of different modes of existence; the Divine Presence “refers primarily to his presence on earth, as distinct from his presence in heaven” (Schäfer, Peter, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism (Albany, 1992), 89Google Scholar). The interchangeability of God and the Divine Presence in parallel passages, as noted by Scholem is further evidence of the two entities’ identity. See Scholem, Mystical Shape of the Godhead, 148–9.

21 This is a corruption of the phrase as it appears, for instance, in ms Munich 140: “with a fingerbone on my forehead.” See the discussion in Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Baltimore, MD, 2002), 150Google Scholar.

22 This narrative chain is discussed in Hasan-Rokem, “Did Rabbinic Culture.” For an analysis of the redaction history of the Hanina ben Dosa stories see Ilan, Tal, Massekhet Taʿanit: Text, Translation and Commentary (Tübingen, 2008), 254–8Google Scholar.

23 ŠGW 14: 71–3.

24 On gāh as a division of time see Boyce, Mary, “Gāh,” Encyclopedia Iranica 10 (2001): 253–4Google Scholar.

25 Daniel 7: 10. My translation follows Hartman, Louis F. and Lella, Alexander A. Di, The Book of Daniel, vol. 23 of The Anchor Bible, ed. Albright, William Foxwell and Freedman, David Noel (New York, 1978), 203Google Scholar.

26 On the biblical context of this vision, for Ezekiel see Greenburg, Moshe, Ezekiel 1–20, vol. 22 of The Anchor Bible, ed. Albright, William Foxwell and Freedman, David Noel (New York, 1983), 37–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 51–9; and for Isaiah, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, vol. 19 of The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York, 2000), 222–6. The parallel in Genesis Rabbah 78: 1 (Theodor, Yehudah and Albeck, Chanokh, Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary (Jerusalem, 1996), 196–197Google Scholar) states explicitly that the ḥayyot sweat because of the weight of the divine throne.

27 Hagigah 14a. The text follows ms Munich 6. The other manuscripts do not significantly differ except for Munich 6's inclusion of the number of angels created.

28 Interestingly in light of what follows, the heikhalot literature also includes a passage which combines the two motifs of sweating angels and the fiery river. There, however, there is no mention of angelic destruction in the river of fire but rather of the “rivers of fire and the sea of fire which surrounds the throne of glory, from which come the hosts of angels, the ministering angels, and stand to the right of the throne.” This text is §785 of the Oxford manuscript 1531 (Peter Schäfer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Tübingen, 1981), 274). My thanks to Abraham Yoskovitz for pointing me to this passage and for sharing with me his work on this section of tractate Hagigah.

29 Lamentations 3: 21–23: “Yet one thing I will keep in mind which will give me hope: God's mercy is surely not at an end, nor is his pity exhausted. They are renewed every morning; ample is your faithfulness!” For a discussion of this verse in the context of the chapter as a whole, see Hillers, Delbert R., Lamentations, vol. 7A of The Anchor Bible, ed. Albright, William Foxwell and Freedman, David Noel (New York, 1972), 54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 The name Ādīnō, the ŠGW's usual way of referring to the Jewish god, is ultimately derived from one of the regular biblical divine epithets ʾAdōnāy, meaning “my Lord.” Various forms of the name ʾAdōnāy were used in various scriptural, polemical and magical contexts by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Manichaeans and others. For further discussion see Lauterbach, Jacob Z., “Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 2 (1930): 39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 According to ms Harav Herzog 1.

32 For instance, Genesis Rabbah 8: 4 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 59–60).

33 Alexander, Philip, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 18 (1987): 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Mackenzie, John L., Second Isaiah, Vol. 20 of The Anchor Bible, ed. Albright, William Foxwell and Freedman, David Noel (New York, 1968), 85–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 On angels in rabbinic literature see the discussion in Urbach, The Sages, 135–83; Schäfer, Peter, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (Berlin, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Olyan, Saul M., A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen, 1993)Google Scholar; and Rebiger, Bill, “Angels in Rabbinic Literature,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception, ed. Reiterer, Friedrich V. et al. (Berlin, 2007), 629–44Google Scholar .

36 I am including here the first Islamic centuries within the period of Late Antiquity. For a critical evaluation of this periodization and its underlying assumptions, see Robinson, Chase, “Reconstructing Early Islam: Truth and Consequences,” in Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins, ed. Berg, Herbert (Leiden, 2003), 101–34Google Scholar.

37 Boyarin, Daniel, “Beyond Judaisms: Meṭaṭron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010): 323–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Metatron figures in rabbinic and Jewish mystical literature both as an angel and as the apotheosis of the biblical Enoch (Genesis 5: 24). See the discussion in Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1946), 68–9Google Scholar; Scholem, Gershom, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1960), 41–2Google Scholar; and Halperin, David J., The Faces of the Chariot (Tübingen, 1988), 420–27Google Scholar. Nathaniel Deutsch juxtaposes these two aspects as representative of opposing tendencies within mystical texts to, on the one hand, destabilize the boundaries between human and divine and, on the other, to reinforce those same divisions. See Deutsch, Nathaniel, Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 1999), 27–47Google Scholar.

39 For a recent general assessment of heikhalot literature see Boustan, Ra'anan S., “The Study of Heikhalot Literature: Between Mystical Experience and Textual Artifact,” Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2007): 130–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 On the political designation of this term as a garden-palace within ancient Iranian culture and rabbinic literature, see Subtelny, Maria E., “The Tale of the Four Sages who Entered the Pardes: A Talmudic Enigma from an Iranian Perspective,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 11 (2004): 3–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 On the hermeneutic character of this list see Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 347.

42 The text is quoted according to ms Munich 6. The major difference between the manuscript witnesses and the printed edition is that the manuscripts lack the following question put to Metatron by anonymous members of the divine retinue: “They said to him: ‘when you saw him [Elisha], why did you not get up before him?’” For a discussion of the manuscript tradition see Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 54.

43 Lashes of fire appear elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud as a particularly strict form of punishment. See Yoma 77a on the whipping of the angel Gabriel, Bava Metsiya 47a in a metaphorical context and further the lexicographical discussion in Sokoloff, Dictionary, 889.

44 The scholarly literature generated by this story is considerable. For a recent discussion in the context of the wider development of Jewish mysticism see Schaefer, Peter, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen, 2009), 196–203Google Scholar and the sources quoted there.

45 Segal, Alan F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden, 1977), 70–71Google Scholar.

46 Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 325.

47 On the continuity of these beliefs in the period of the Geonim—that is to say, roughly contemporaneous with Mardānfarrox—and Geonic responses see Brody, Robert, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven, CT, 1998), 142–7Google Scholar and the sources quoted there. Karaite texts also condemn belief in angels—including Metatron—magic and mystical speculation, all of which they identify with the rabbis and their followers. See the discussion of the tenth century scholar al-Qirqisanī in Mann, Jacob, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature (Cincinnati, 1931), 2: 55–7Google Scholar; Vadja, George, “Etudes sur Qirqisani: la magie, la mantique et l'astrologie selon le ‘Livre des lumieres et des vigies,’” Revue des Études Juives 106 (1946): 87–123Google Scholar; and Astren, Fred, Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding (New York, 2004), 72–6Google Scholar. The Jewish belief in Metatron is also noted by Muslim authors. See al-Masʿūdī's analysis of the belief in Adang, Camilla, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm (Leiden, 1996), 100–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 359. YHWH is the pious English representation of the four Hebrew letters that make up the ineffable name of God.

49 Translation follows Cereti, Carlo G., “Some Notes on the Škand Gumānīg Wizār,” in Languages of Iran, Past and Present: Iranian Studies in memoriam David Neil MacKenzie, ed. Weber, Dieter (Wiesbaden, 2005), 4–5Google Scholar.

50 Manicheanism is critiqued in ŠGW chapter sixteen. On these specific points of contention see Sundermann, Werner, “Das Manichäerkapitel des Škand Gumānīg Wizār in der Darstellung und Deutung Jean de Menasces,” in Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, ed. Oort, Johannes van et al. (Leiden, 2001), 325–37Google Scholar; Sundermann Taillieu, Dieter, “Pazand nišāmī Between Light and Darkness,” in Iranica Selecta, ed. Tongerloo, Alois van (Turnhout, 2003), 239–46Google Scholar; and Cereti, “Some Notes on the Škand Gumānīg Wizār,” 8–13.

51 ŠGW chapter fifteen, in particular 15: 18–68. See also the discussion in Gignoux, Phillipe, “Comment le polémiste mazdéen du Skand Gumânîg Vîzâr a-t-il utilisé les citations du Nouveau Testament?,” in Controverses des chrétiens dans l'Iran sassanide, ed. Jullien, Christelle (Paris, 2008), 59–67Google Scholar.

52 ŠGW 11: 3–5.

53 This “monotheization” of Judaism tracks nicely against Shaul Shaked's notion of Zoroastrianism's emphasis on dualism as arising out of polemical contacts. See Shaked, Shaul, Dualism in Transformation (London, 1994), 25Google Scholar.

54 As Scholem writes, “the earliest Jewish mysticism is throne-mysticism.” See Scholem, Major Trends, 44. On throne mysticism (and angelic thrones) in Second Temple and early Christian literature see Olyan, A Thousand Thousands, 61–6; in Islam and the parallels with the Jewish concept see Subtelny, “Iranian Perspective” and the sources quoted there.

55 The translation of both these passages follows Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 203.

56 Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 341.

57 Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 336–42.

58 Alexander, Philip, “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” Journal of Jewish Studies 28 (1977): 165–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues for a date between the fifth and ninth centuries in Babylonia.

59 See the discussion in Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 346–52. For a different reading of the relation between these two passages see Goshen-Gottstein, Alon, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: the Rabbinic Invention of Elisha ben Abuya and Eleazar ben Arach (Stanford, CA, 2000)Google Scholar.

60 As translated in Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 63. Emphasis added.

61 This opinion is cited and dismissed in Scholem, Major Trends, 69 and Alexander, “Historical Setting,” 162. Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 356, on the other hand, supports this theory. A similar etymology derives the name from Greek σύνθρονος, in the sense of “co-occupant of the divine throne.” This etymology has been supported in Saul Lieberman, “Metatron, the Meaning of His Name and His Functions,” in Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, ed. Ithamar Gruenwald (Leiden, 1980), 235–41; and Schäfer, Hidden and Manifest God, 94. These and other etymologies are discussed in Orlov, Andrei A., The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (Tübingen, 2005), 92–6Google Scholar.

62 Benjamin, Walter, Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, ed. Arendt, Hannah, trans. Harry Zohn (New York, 1969), 259–60Google Scholar.

63 On this point see Giorgio Agamben's brilliant reading of this passage. Agamben, Giorgio, The Man Without Content, trans. Georgiag Albert (Stanford, CA, 1999), 104–15Google Scholar.

64 Alter, Robert Necessary Angels: Tradition and Modernity in Kafka, Benjamin and Scholem (Cambridge, MA, 1991), 115–16Google Scholar.