This

article was first presented at the SBL International Meeting 2016 in Seoul,
South Korea. It is published as a chapter in conference proceedings volume.

 Angelic Mediators: Gabriel, Uriel and Remiel in
Jewish Apocalypses

Introduction
Angels are ubiquitous in the pre-exilic writings of the Hebrew Bible. Sometimes
called ‫בני־אלהים‬, 1 but more commonly known as ‫מלאכים‬, or ἄγγελοι in the LXX, they
function as members of the divine council,2 messengers of God,3 and the heavenly
army and warriors.4 Although it is said there are “thousands upon thousands” of them
(Ps 68:18; Deut 33:2; and Dan 7:10), and although sometimes certain terms may be
used, e.g. “the angel of the Lord” (‫)מלאך יהוה‬,5 “the captain of the Lord’s army” (‫שׂר־‬
‫)צבא יהוה‬,6 and “the angel of his presence” (‫)מלאך פּניו‬,7 angels remained anonymous in
the background in the writings of the HB, without title or rank8 until the appearance
of the Book of Daniel, dated to the second century BCE in its current form. Here for
the first, and only, time in the HB names of two angels, Gabriel and Michael are
given, along with their specific ranks and roles, and even their appearance. Also for
the first time, a named angel, Gabriel, interprets dreams and visions for a human
character.9 In addition, this interpreting function goes hand in hand with the
development of the apocalyptic genre, for the Book of Daniel is the only apocalyptic
book found in the Hebrew Bible.

1
Or ‫בני־אלים‬, ‫בני־האלהים‬, Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; and Ps 29:1, 89:7.
2
E.g. 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Ps 29:1, 82:1, and 89:6–7.
3
E.g. Gen 16:11–12, 31:11–13; Exod 3:2; and 2 Kgs 1:3, 15.
4
E.g. Deut 33:2; Josh 5:14; and Ps 68:17–18. For an overview of the features and functions of angels
in the Hebrew Bible, see Carol A. Newsom, “Angels,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. I, ed. David
Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 249–50.
5
Gen 16:10, 11; 22:11, 15; Exod 3:2; Num 22:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 34, 35; Jud 2:4; 5:23; 6:12,
21; 13:3, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Kgs 19:7; 2 Kgs 1:3, 15; 19:35; Isa 37:36; Zech
1:11, 12; 3:1, 5, 6; 12:8; Ps 34:8; 35:5, 6; and1 Chron 21:12, 15, 16, 18, 30.
6
Josh 5:13–15.
7
Isa 63:9.
8
A recent book by Ellen White, Yahweh’s Council: Its Structure and Membership (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2014), endeavours to shed more light on the characteristics of these heavenly beings and the
nature of their relationship with God.
9
The angels in Ezekiel 40–48 and Zephaniah 1:7–6:8 are often seen as the precursors of angeli
interpretes. For studies of the above texts, see Karin Schöpflin, “God’s Interpreter: the Interpreting
Angel in Post-Exilic Prophetic Visions of the Old Testament,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial
Beings – Origins, Development and Reception, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook
2007, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas and Karin Schöpflin (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007),
189–203. Two more recent PhD theses that deal with the development of Jewish angelology also have
extensive treatment of both Eze 40–48 and Zeph 1–6. See Heather Macumber, “Angelic
Intermediaries: The Development of a Revelatory Tradition” (PhD diss., University of St Michael’s
College, 2012); and David P. Melvin, The Interpreting Angel Motif in Prophetic and Apocalyptic
Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013).
 Three interconnected factors, therefore, are found in Daniel’s witness of the
emergence of the complexity of heavenly hosts: more clearly delineated individual
characters; the significant roles they play in divine revelations to humans; and the
apocalyptic literary genre.10 Here, “apocalypse” should be differentiated from either
an eschatological worldview (i.e. belief in the imminent end of this world or age), or a
socio-political movement motivated by such a worldview; it is instead characterized
as

a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is

mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent
reality …11
An angel in his revelatory role is commonly called angelus interpres. 12 However,
such an angelic interpreter is not limited to interpreting dreams and visions, but takes
on a much broader spectrum of functions that fall into the category of divine
revelation.13 Hence I will use the terms “otherworldly mediators” and “human
recipient” in accordance with the above quoted definition of the apocalyptic genre.14

Although Daniel is the first and the only in the Hebrew Bible that mentions
angels by names and describes their appearance, office and functions, it is not unique
or the earliest example in Second Temple Judaism. It is a single reflection of many
well-established traditions about angelic beings that had been developing for centuries

10
This is not to say, of course, that angels do not feature significantly in literary genres other rather
apocalypses. On the contrary, more sophisticated beliefs in angels are manifest in almost all Jewish
literary works in the Second Temple period; one only needs to look at the Angel of the Presence in
Jubilees, Rafael in Tobit, and the significant roles of angelic beings in the writings of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. However, it is certainly only within the apocalyptic genre that the function of angelus interpres
is accentuated.
11
See John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 4–5; also idem, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a
Genre,” Semeia14 (1979): 1–20 (9–10).
12
Three books in German scholarship offer comprehensive studies of angelic beings in ancient Jewish
literature: Peter Schäfer, Die Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur
rabbinischen Engelvorstellung, SJ8 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975); Michael Mach,
Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, TSAJ 34 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1992); and Donata Dörfel, Engel in der apokalyptischen Literatur und ihre theologische
Relevanz: am Beispiel von Ezechiel, Sacharja, Daniel und Erstem Henoch (Aachen: Shaker Verlag,
1998). All three explicitly identify the function of the angel in apocalyptic writings with an angelus
interpres. The German equivalent, “Engel der Offenbarung”, or “angel of revelation”, seems more
suitable to accommodate a wider range of revelatory roles. See also Beyerle, “Angelic Revelation in
Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Reiterer et al, Concept of Celestial Beings, 205–23; 207–8.
13
“ἀποκάλυψις”, from the verb “ἀποκαλύπτω,” to uncover, to reveal.
14
See also Benjamin E. Reynolds, “The Otherworldly Mediators in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: A
Comparison with Angelic Mediators in Ascent Apocalypses and in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah,” in
Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. Matthias Henze and Gabriele
Boccaccini, JSJSup 164 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 175–93, for his choice of terms in line with the
apocalyptic genre (175 n.1).
in the post-exilic era. The earliest lists for named angels appear in the oldest parts of
the Book of 1 Enoch, but there is no evidence for these names to be older than the
Hellenistic period.15 Angelic mediators continued to appear in later apocalyptic works
towards the end of the Second Temple period; two such examples are Uriel and
Remiel in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras 3–14) and 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch)
respectively.16 These two pseudepigrapha are commonly recognized as Jewish
compositions around the turn of the first century CE in the aftermath of the Roman
destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 CE. Both are fictionally set in the
period after the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians. Written over two
centuries later than the Book of Daniel, they share several common features with the
latter: a concern over the desolations of the Temple and its ramifications,17 the uuuse
of the apocalyptic genre – and specifically in the historical type rather than heavenly
ascent – 18 and the use of named angelic figures in the process of revelation.
A study by Benjamin Reynolds on angelic mediators in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch19
has indicated that, on the one hand, the portrayals of Uriel and Remiel differ
significantly from those of ascent apocalypses (i.e. featuring otherworldly journeys)
such as the Book of the Watchers (1 En 1–36) and the Apocalypse of Abraham; and on
the other hand, they bear similarities to Daniel, and all three have a closer link with
the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible.20 My paper aims to further look into
these angelic figures and ask, in what ways are the portrayals of Uriel and Remiel
different from Gabriel? Given the great influence of Daniel upon later apocalypses

15
John J. Collins, “Gabriel,” DDD, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst,
2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 339.
16
On 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, see Michael E. Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch:
Translation, Introduction, and Notes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013); Stone, Fourth Ezra: A
Commentary of the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); and Henze, Jewish
Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context, TSAJ 142 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2011).
17
The Book of Daniel in its redacted form is dated to the mid-Second Century BCE, in the background
of the desolations of the Jerusalem Temple and religious persecution under the Seleucids. For its
historical context, dating and an overall introduction, see John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
18
They are called “historical apocalypses” because the revelations are concerned with future events of
this world rather than otherworldly journeys. For a classification within the broader Jewish apocalyptic
genre, see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 6–7.
19
Reynolds, “The Otherworldly Mediators.” Before Reynolds, Anitra Bingham Kolenkow (“The
Angelology of the Testament of Abraham,” in Studies in the Testament of Abraham, ed. George W. E.
Nickelsburg, SBLSCS 6 [Missoula: Scholars, 1976], 153–62) also briefly comments on the
connections between Uriel and Remiel with the angels in Daniel (156). Recent studies by Macumber
(“Angelic Intermediaries”) and Melvin (Interpreting Angel Motif) also observe the differences in this
regard between Daniel and 1 Enoch, but their studies do not cover 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.
20
Reynolds, “The Otherworldly Mediators,” 191–2.
including 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, and given their shared literary genre and revelatory
roles of the angel, why did 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch NOT choose Gabriel? In what ways
do otherworldly mediators facilitate or hinder human communication with the divine?
A comparison of how these characters are portrayed will also have implications for
our understanding of the nature of angelic roles and how beliefs about otherworldly
mediators fit in the overall picture of Second Temple Jewish religion.
I will begin with a brief overview of the three characters in traditions earlier than
Daniel, followed by surveys of angelic depictions in Daniel, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch
respectively.

Gabriel, Uriel and Remiel in Earlier Traditions

The earliest extant evidence on named angelic figures is found in the Book of the
Watchers (1 En 1–36) and the Book of the Luminaries (1 En 72–82), both in their
current form are dated to the third century BCE, although some layers of material can
be even earlier.21

The Book of the Watchers contains two traditions of archangels. One of them lists
four: Michael, Raphael, Sariel and Gabriel (1 En 9–10). They interceded on behalf of
the world after the rebellious watchers had descended, mixed with daughters of man
and filled the earth with violence. They were then given tasks to punish the watchers
and their descendants and cleanse the world. The other tradition gives the names and
functions of seven archangels in chapters 20 to 33: Uriel, Raphael, Reuel (or Raguel),
Michael, Sariel, Gabriel and Remiel.22 Enoch ascended to take on a journey of the
heavenly world, where the seven “holy angels who watch” (20:1) acted as his tour
guides.
The list of four may claim literary priority, as it comes from the oldest literary
layer of the Book of the Watchers that can be dated to the fourth century BCE,
whereas the list of seven seems no earlier than the late third.23 However, the
distinction between the two lists may not be diachronic, but synchronic reflecting
different contexts, as one is part of the watchers myth, and the other the myth of

21
George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 3 and 6. Also refer to Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the
Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), and Nickelsburg
and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011).
22
For different forms of this name, see M. Mach, “Jeremiel,” in van der Toorn et al, DDD, 466–7.
23
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 170–293.
Enoch’s heavenly ascent.24 However, the two lists in 1 Enoch do reflect different
stages of development of the characterization of Michael, Gabriel and Rafael, the
most prominent angelic figures on the one hand, and for Uriel and Remiel, the more
fluid and ambiguous ones on the other. Michael and Gabriel undisputedly appear in
both traditions; Uriel and Remiel, however, do not feature in the list of four.25
Remiel’s status as one of the seven is also dubious, as the verse that contains his name
(20:8) is altogether missing from the Ethiopic version.26 The variant forms of his
name in different texts, where the same angel seems to be referred to, also testify to
the fluid state of the traditions about him.
In terms of individual profiles, Gabriel, as one of the four in the watchers myth, is
commissioned to destroy the giants begotten illicitly by the fallen angels and mortal
women (1 En 10:9–10). As one of the seven in the myth of Enoch’s heavenly tour,
Gabriel is “in charge of paradise and the serpents and the cherubim” (1 En 20:7). His
prominence is also attested in later traditions apart from Daniel. He appears side by
side with Michael in the Qumran War Scroll (1QM 9:14–6) as one of the four
archangels on the side of Israel in the eschatological battle. Given Gabriel’s close
association with Michael, it is worth mentioning that Michael was regarded as the
patron of Israel and of the righteous ones from a very early time, attested in 1 En 20:5
and 25:4–5. His dominant role is confirmed in the Qumran War Scroll (9:15–16; and
13:10).
Uriel appears as one of the four only in the later Greek manuscripts of 1 Enoch.
However, his being one of the seven is undisputed. In the myth of Enoch’s ascent,
Uriel reveals to him the place of punishment and imprisonment for the rebellious
watchers; hence he is called the “one of the holy angels, who is in charge of the world
and Tartarus” (1 En 20:2). However, in another third century BCE tradition, the Book

24
Christoph Berner, “The Four (or Seven) Archangels in the First Book of Enoch and Early Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period,” in Reiterer et al, Concept of Celestial Beings, 395–411: 399.
The two traditions converged in later Second Temple angelology, even in later literary traditions within
1 Enoch (the Animal Apocalypse, 1 En 87:2–3, 88; and 90:21, 31). See Berner, ibid. Kelley Coblentz
Bautch further elaborates on the developments of converged angelic traditions in “Putting Angels in
Their Place: Developments in Second Temple Angelology,” With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and
Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, ed. Károly Dániel Dobos and Miklós Koszeghy
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 174–88.
25
Although the Greek translation of 1 En 9:1 has Uriel instead of Sariel, the original Aramaic version
found at Qumran (4QEnb Fr. 1 III 7) has Sariel; and the Ethiopic version corroborates this. Nickelsburg
(1 Enoch 1, 202) suggests that the difference in the Greek version may be the result of a scribal error
that confused the omicron with sigma; but Berner (“Archangels,” 397) argues that it may as well have
been an intentional, given Uriel’s prominent roles in 1 En 19–21 and 72–82.
26
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch Translation, 41.
of the Luminaries (1 En 72–82), he is said to be the angel of the luminaries, and is
elevated to the unique position as the revealer of astrological secrets:

…Uriel the angel whom the Lord of eternal glory set over all the heavenly luminaries,
in the sky and in the world, showed me the sign, the seasons, the year and the days so
that they may rule the firmament, appear above the earth, and be leaders of days and
nights – the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the serving entities that go around in all the
heavenly chariots.27 (1 En 75:3)
The two traditions about Uriel’s function, i.e. over the fiery depths of Tartarus and
over the luminaries, can be traced to two different interpretations of his name. ‫אוריאל‬
may be derived from either the Hebrew term ‫אוּר‬, fire, or ‫אוֹר‬, which means light.28 His
role over the underworld is attested later in the Sibylline Oracles (2:227–37), opening
the doors of Hades and leading the souls to final judgment.29 By using Uriel as the
otherworldly revealer, 4 Ezra adopts the meaning associating his name with light, but
at the same time offers a new interpretation: the angel that enlightens.

As mentioned above, Remiel appears as the last of the seven in a textually

dubious context. He is the one “whom God has put in charge of them that rise” (20:8).
His connection with the resurrection of the dead is derived from the lexical root of his
name, ‫רום‬, “to be high, exalted”, or “to lift up” in hifil.30 For this reason, the variants
of his name, Ramiel, Remiel, Jeremiel31 and Eremiel,32 are thought to refer to one and
the same angel.33 Remiel is the angelus interpres in 2 Baruch; however, there he is
not associated with the idea of resurrection.
I will now turn to the angelic mediators featured in Daniel, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.
To what extent do they conform or deviate from the earlier traditions in the Book of
Enoch? For each analysis, I will focus on the following aspects: 1) the type of
revelation the mediator is engaged with; 2) the mode of interaction between the
mediator and the recipient, e.g. who initiated the process and the implied context of
the encounter; 3) the descriptions of the angel, i.e. name, appearance, title and
function; and 4) the reaction of the human recipient.

Otherworldly Mediators in Daniel 7–12

27
Translations of 1 Enoch are taken from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch Translation.
28
Berner, “Archangels,” 400.
29
Berner, “Archangels,” 401.
30
M. Mach, “Jeremiel,” in van der Toorn et al, DDD, 466; also Berner, “Archangels,” 408.
31
In 4 Ezra 4:36, Jeremiel the archangel answers the questions of the souls of the righteous in the
treasuries.
32
In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6–7, Eremiel is the angel “who is over the abyss and Hades.”
33
Mach, “Jeremiel,” 466.
The Book of Daniel features four apocalyptic revelations: the vision of the four beasts
and the divine throne (chapter 7); the vision of the ram and the he-goat (8); the
meaning of the prophetic word of Jeremiah regarding the “seventy years” (9); and the
history from Persian dominion to the eschaton (10–12). The function of the heavenly
mediator, therefore, is not limited to interpreting visual images, but extends to
interpreting past prophecy and future events. Apart from different types of revelation,
depictions of the heavenly mediator in the four episodes do not always show
uniformity in terms of the mode of interaction, description of the heavenly mediator,
and the reaction of the human recipient.

Episode of the Four Kingdoms and Divine Throne (chapter 7)

In this episode, the human recipient becomes a spectator in the heavenly court
through his dream (or a nightly vision, 7:1–2), which occurs without any preparation
in the text. The human figure asks for an interpretation from someone unnamed, who
happens to be “one of those who stood there” (7:16). (This mode of interaction is
comparable to Zechariah 1:7–21, in which the human recipient and the interpreter are
both part of the vision, and the former initiates questions which the latter answers.)
Although the human recipient becomes “anxious” and “alarmed” and his “colour
changed” (Dan 7:15, 28), this awe is a reaction to the content of the dream and its
interpretation, rather than the sight of the angel, who remains anonymous and without
feature.

Episode of the Ram and the He-Goat (chapter 8)

It is in the following episode of the vision of the ram and the he-goat that Gabriel
makes his first appearance. Again, the vision occurs without preparation like the one
before; however, both the human recipient and the angels this time stand outside the
vision. Daniel first hears the conversation between two unnamed heavenly beings,
called “holy ones” (8:13), then he sees Gabriel, described as “one having the
appearance of a man”, ‫( כמראה־גבר‬8:15). Gabriel’s name is made known through the
“a man’s voice,” ‫“ קול־אדם‬who called” and commanded him to make the human
recipient understand the vision (8:16).
The contrast of the choice of words, ‫ גבר‬and ‫ אדם‬is worth commenting. Whereas
‫ אדם‬indicates that the voice speaks a human language comprehensible to Daniel, ‫גבר‬
echoes the name of the angel Gabriel, ‫גבריאל‬. It thus indicates the etymology of the
name Gabriel, and a possible development from originally a general description of an
angel in the image of a strong man to a proper noun and specific identity. The identity
of the voice, though of divine origin, is unspecified;34 but its purpose is to introduce
the name of Gabriel and to indicate that he was sent to be the interpreter of the vision;
thus the interaction is initiated by the divine.
Also different from the previous vision, Daniel is “frightened” at the sight of the
angel; he fell on his face (8:17), and “fell into a deep sleep” with his face to the
ground (8:18). This motif seems to indicate the supernatural nature of the encounter..
Gabriel mentions in his speech “the Prince of princes”, ‫( שׂר־שׂרים‬8:25). This
expression implies a developed idea of angelic hierarchy in the heavenly army, i.e. the
ranks of angels, archangels and chief among archangels, even though the specific
term “archangel”, ἀρχάγγελος, is not used.35

Episode of the “Seventy Years” (chapter 9)

The third episode featuring Gabriel as the otherworldly mediator is concerned

with the interpretation of the “seventy years”, a prophetic word spoken by Jeremiah
(Jer 25:11–12; 29:10) regarding the time that must pass “before the end of the
desolations of Jerusalem” (9:2). “Seventy years” is subsequently reinterpreted by the
angel to be seventy weeks of years (9:21, 24–27).
A new pattern appears in the mode of interaction in this episode; what triggers
the revelatory process is the fervent prayer of the protagonist accompanied with
fasting and mourning (9:3–19). While pondering over the Jeremianic prophecy of
seventy years and the stark reality of diminished hope for revival and renewal, Daniel
was

speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and
presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy hill of my God …
(9:20)
Gabriel’s appearance, therefore, is a direct and speedy response to Daniel’s fasting
and prayer. Gabriel arrives “in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice” while
Daniel was still speaking in prayer (9:21). If the specific mentioning of the time

34
Schöpflin (“God’s Interpreter,” 199) thinks the voice is that of God. But it could well be one of the
two “holy ones,” with Gabriel being the other.
35
The Greek term ἀρχάγγελος (“ruling angel”) is anachronistic when dealing with the early stages of
this idea. It does not occur in the LXX and lacks a Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent. 1 Enoch may have
originally used the expression “watchers and holy ones,” ‫ ;עירין וקדישׁין‬whereas Daniel refers to them as
“princes”, ‫שׂרים‬. The term “archangel” seemed to have become popular only around the turn of era. See
Berner, “Archangels,” 395–6.
coupled with Daniel’s lengthy formal prayer (9:4–19) suggests a setting of worship
and liturgy, then Gabriel’s almost instant appearance seems to suggest the belief of
angelic presence and participation at human worships. This is not quite the same as
the idea of spiritual union with angels reflected in the sectarian writings discovered in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it certainly points to a close connection of the human world
with the heavenly, rather than distance.36

More information about Gabriel’s appearance is given in this episode. He is

called “the man Gabriel,” ‫( האישׁ גבריאל‬9:21), and he is a winged being, since he flew
(9:21). Schöpflin observes that the flying feature had never occurred with regard to an
interpreting angel before.37 The word for “man” here is ‫ ;אישׁ‬different from ‫גבר‬, which
echoes the angel’s name, and from ‫אדם‬, meaning a human being; it simply describes
the angel’s appearance in the image of a man. Unlike the last episode, Daniel seems
not disturbed or even surprised at the sight of the heavenly being.
Before he explains the correct meaning of the seventy years, Gabriel introduces
his mission this way:

I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of your
supplications a word went forth, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly
beloved; therefore consider the word and understand the vision. (9:22–3)
Several observations can be made regarding Gabriel’s angelic roles. Firstly, his
function in this episode, from our perspective, is still that of an angelus interpres,
albeit of prophetic words rather than visions. However, he is presented by the
Danielic author as a teacher of “wisdom and understanding,” to instruct and command
that his human pupil “consider the word and understand the vision.” In addition,
Gabriel seems to see himself as a messenger when he says, “a word went forth, and I
have come to tell it to you.” This harks back to the essential biblical understanding of
an angel’s role, that of God’s messenger, ‫מלאך יהוה‬.

Episode of Revealed History (chapters 10–12)

In this episode the intermediary’s role is not strictly speaking that of angelus
interpres, but rather a revealer of the future and the end of human history. The cycle
of interaction again begins with the human recipient’s mourning and fasting (10:2–3).

36
See Cecilia Wassen, “Angels and Humans: Boundaries and Synergies,” in Celebrating the Dead Sea
Scrolls: A Canadian Collection, ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime and Kyung S. Baek (Atlanta: SBL,
2011), 523–39 (533–7). Eadem “Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Reiterer et al, Concept of Celestial
Beings, 499–524.
37
Schöpflin, “God’s Interpreter,” 200.
Again the angel that appears is described as a man, ‫אישׁ־אחד‬, but this time in vivid
details:

a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with gold of Uphaz. His body was like
beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms
and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the noise
of a multitude. (10:5–6)
The linen clothing indicates the heavenly priestly role in heaven. The colours, the
sound and the fiery images are reminiscent of the theophany in Ezekiel 1 and 8:2–4.38
This is the angel sent to Daniel to give him the answer to his prayer. He is never
named in this episode; the reader may assume he is Gabriel due to knowledge of his
previous appearances. However, the author repeatedly avoids naming him, but refers
to him as “one in the likeness of the sons of men”39 (10:16), “one having the
appearance of a man”40 (10:18), and “the man (‫ )אישׁ‬clothed in linen” (12:7). As a
matter of fact, the only named angel in this episode is Michael (10:21; 12:1), who is
absent from the scene, away in battle with the Prince of Persia.

The motif of “falling on my face in a deep sleep” is in use again to describe

Daniel’s reaction at the sight of the supernatural being (10:9–10). This reaction of fear
perhaps goes hand in hand with the description of the angel’s awe-striking
appearance. There is also no indication in his reaction that he recognizes the angel as
someone he has seen several times before.
This episode provides more information on the ranks, divisions and structure of
heavenly beings. Firstly, four chief angels are mentioned, although only Michael is
named. Apart from Michael, who is away fighting, and the angel who is the revealer,
two others also appear, “one on this bank of the stream and one on that bank of the
stream” (12:5). Michael is depicted as a warrior, “one of the chief princes,” ‫אחד השׂרים‬
‫הראשׁנים‬, (10:13), i.e. a chief of archangels. Moreover, he is designated as the
archangel in charge of the people of Israel, “your prince” (10:21), “the great prince
who has charge of your people” (12:1). As war is raging in this world between Israel
and her enemies, a parallel war takes place on the cosmic plane. Against Michael, the
Prince of Israel, as well as the revealing angel who fights beside him, there are also

38
Reynolds, “Otherworldly Mediators,” 186. Also Christopher Rowland, Open Heavens: A Study of
Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 2003), 98–101.
39
‫כדמות בני אדם‬
40
‫כמראה אדם‬
otherworldly chief angels engaged in the spiritual warfare on behalf of Persia (10:13)
and Greece (10:20).
In summary, depictions of angelic encounters in the four episodes display certain
divergences. The human recipient may participate in a divine vision and seek
interpretation, or a heavenly mediator may be sent to unveil a mystery to the human
recipient. Such revelations may occur spontaneously, or as the result of and response
to the mourning, fasting and praying of the human protagonist. The sight of an
otherworldly figure may or may not trigger a reaction of fear and awe in the human
character.
In terms of angelic characters, two archangels, Gabriel and Michael are named,
although not in all four episodes. In Daniel’s visions angels appear either in a pair,
likely Michael and Gabriel, or in four. This arguably reflects knowledge of two
different traditions of archangels. The Book of Daniel also provides more detailed
descriptions of the appearance of angel: man-like, winged, transcendent beings
bearing features of the divine throne. Lastly, it is worth pointing out that the role of
Michael and Gabriel in Daniel is mainly a military one. Although Gabriel is also the
messenger and revealer of eschatological mysteries to a human being, he fights side
by side with Michael, portrayed through Gabriel’s words as the angelic commander of
the heavenly hosts, and Israel’s protector and advocate. These two roles of Gabriel
and Michael as messenger and as military commander respectively are later adopted
in Luke’s annunciation account (Luke 1: 19, 26) and John’s vision of Michael and his
angels fighting against the dragon (Rev 12:7).

The Influence of Daniel on 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch show the influence of Daniel, especially in terms of the latter’s
eschatology in general, and the reckoning of time in particular. The Four Kingdoms
motif in Daniel 7, in the symbolic vision of the four beasts, made its way into 4 Ezra’s
vision of the Eagle (4 Ezra 11–12), an animal symbol referred to as “the one that
remains of the four beasts” (11:39). A specific reference is even made to Daniel when
the angel Uriel tells Ezra that “the eagle you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth
kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel” (12:11). 2 Baruch also
adopts the Four Kingdoms scheme in the vision of the Forest and the Vine to explain
the successive powers that are Israel’s enemies (2 Bar 39:1–5). The specific identities
of the four kingdoms are not the concern for the later authors; it is a schematic way to
understand the preordained stages of human history before its consummation.

Another feature of Danielic reckoning of time before the eschaton is the notion of
seventy weeks (Dan 9:24). This is adopted by 2 Baruch in its measurement of time in
weeks of seven weeks (2 Bar 28:2). 4 Ezra, on the other hand, developed the Danielic
notion of “time, two times and half a time” (Dan 7:25; 12:7), and it reckons that nine
and half parts out of twelve have already passed, i.e. two and half parts are left
(14:11–2) till the eschaton.41
It is not surprising to find significant influence of an earlier authoritative book in
later writings; however, this raises a question concerning the choice of angelic
mediators. Why did 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch NOT adopt Gabriel or Michael for this role,
since they share with Daniel, among many other things, the same genre and similar
eschatological concepts and symbols?42 Before attempting to answer this question, a
look into the otherworldly mediators in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch is needed.

Angelic Mediator in 4 Ezra

Uriel plays an almost equally crucial role as the protagonist Ezra in the unfolding of
the narrative dialogues. Set in the Babylonian exile, Ezra laments over the fate of
Jerusalem and questions God’s justice in abandoning his covenant people and
allowing Israel’s enemy prosper. The angel Uriel is sent to converse with Ezra.
However, Ezra appears unconvinced in his long disputes with the angel and his
conversion only occurs when he sees the vision of a woman being transformed into
the heavenly Jerusalem. He is then granted more visions showing what will happen at
the eschaton, when Israel’s fate will be reversed. Finally, God reveals to Ezra the
Law, which had been given to Moses but lost in the fire during the burning of the
Temple; however the Law includes not only the common books of Scripture but also
secret revelations.

4 Ezra is divided into seven clearly signposted episodes separated by fasts.

Episodes 1–3 feature extensive dialogues between Ezra and Uriel (3:1–5:19; 5:20–
6:34; and 6:35–9:25). In Episode 4, marking both the middle point of the text and a

41
I made this point in my article, “The Unity and Coherence of 4 Ezra: Crisis, Response, and Authorial
Intention,” in JSJ (forthcoming). 4 Ezra perhaps shows even more influence from Daniel than 2
Baruch. For more examples showing 4 Ezra’s consciousness of Daniel, see Michael A. Knibb,
“Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 13 (1992): 56–74: 66–7, 70–1.
42
For other similarities, see Reynolds, “The Otherworldly Mediators,” 184–5.
transition from dialogues to visions, Ezra experiences a change of heart after seeing
the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem (9:26–10:58). Episode 5 (11:1–12:51) and
Episode 6 (13:1–57) feature the vision of the Eagle and the Lion, and the Man from
the Sea respectively, both of which foretell the destruction of the Roman Empire and
the coming of the Messiah, the punishment of the lawless nations, the return of the
exiled people of Israel and the vindication of the righteous. Episode 7, the Epilogue
(14:1–50), portrays Ezra as the second Moses, restoring the Law, with both common
and esoteric contents. The Epilogue is the only episode in which Uriel does not appear
as a main character apart from Ezra. His role as the dialogue partner of Ezra, carrying
half of the narrative content, is so significant that one of the constant issues under
debate in 4 Ezra scholarship is whether Ezra and Uriel represent rival theological
views, and if so, where the author’s voice is located, in the pseudonymous hero or in
the angel.43
In contrast to the content-related weight Uriel carries, the description of his
appearance and personality is somewhat wanting. No physical description is provided.
He is simply called “the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel,” “the
angel who had come to me,” or “Uriel the angel.”44 The arrival of Uriel on the scene
is marked by nothing extraordinary. Ezra prays and pleads, Uriel is sent and begins
speaking.45 Ezra shows no reaction to the appearance of this heavenly figure. Uriel’s
departure is just as without ceremony as his arrival, often unannounced and seemingly
unnoticed. Ezra’s prayers and supplications are always addressed to the Most High,
including those made in the middle of his dialogues with Uriel.46
As an otherworldly mediator, Uriel provides two types of revelation. In Episodes
4–6 he plays the typical part of an angelus interpres, interpreting the symbolic dreams
to the human recipient. However, in the first three episodes, his role is even more
significant as the dialogue partner of Ezra, preparing him for his conversion and for
the task of writing the Law. In this latter role, Uriel is presented as a wisdom teacher.
This goes hand in hand with the presentation of Ezra as a seeker of wisdom,
conscious about his intention to “comprehend the way of the Most High” and to

43
For a good overview of the issues concerned in 4 Ezra studies see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 11–36; Bruce
W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 20–32; and Karina Martin Hogan,
Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution, JSJSup 130 (Leiden: Brill,
2008), 1–40.
44
E.g. 4 Ezra 4:1, 5:20, 5:31.
45
E.g. 4:1–2; 5:31; 7:1.
46
E.g. 3:3–4; 5:22–23; 6:35–38; 9:28–29; 12:6–7; and 13:13–14.
“search out his judgment”.47 Uriel, on the other hand, is introduced as the one
imparting knowledge, using expressions such as “listen to me and I will instruct you”
(5:32), “and will admonish you” (7:49), “and I will inform you” (10:38).48 Other
heavenly revealers also interact with the human recipient; take, for example, Gabriel’s
instructing Daniel on the meaning of the seventy years (Dan 9). But Uriel’s role as
teacher is made unique by the extensive use of dialogues as well as quizzes, parables,
analogies and visual imagery. In Episode 1, for example, Uriel begins his instruction
by testing Ezra with quizzes: “Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me
a measure of wind, or call back for me the day that is past” (4:5). The list of
impossible tasks is to indicate to Ezra his lack of wisdom, thus the absurdity of
questioning divine justice. He then uses the parable of the forest and the sea to further
demonstrate the limitation of human intellect to understand divine matters (4:13–21).
As Ezra queries the delay of the eschaton, Uriel answers him with the analogy of a
woman waiting to go into travail and the treasuries of the underworld in haste to give
back the souls of the dead (4:40–43). He further demonstrates the imminent nature of
the end by showing Ezra the visual image of the smoke after a flaming furnace, and of
drops in the cloud after a rainstorm. The first three episodes follow a similar pattern
of dialogue, but there is nevertheless a sense of progression. At the end of the last
vision (Episode 6), Uriel/the Most High praises Ezra because “you have forsaken your
own ways and have applied yourself to mine, and have searched out my Law; for you
have devoted your life to wisdom, and called understanding your mother” (13:54–5).
Now Ezra is well equipped to receive the ultimate revelation in order to restore the
Law. Uriel’s teaching role, therefore, is the most important aspect in the portrayal of
the otherworldly mediator in 4 Ezra.
No doubt Uriel as a person is different from God. He makes clear that he was
sent by God to answer Ezra’s prayers (6:33). He admits the limits of his knowledge
and authority, stopping at the signs that he is “permitted to tell” (5:13). When Ezra
was afraid after seeing the transformation of the woman into the heavenly Jerusalem,
he called out to Uriel, and the latter took his hand and strengthened him (10:28). Yet
at times the division between Uriel and God is blurred. This is because, while
speaking with Uriel, Ezra makes addresses to the Most High instead;49 and Uriel

47
3:31; 4:12, 22; 5:34; and 8:4.
48
See Knibb, “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” 65–66.
49
4:38; 5:36, 41, 56; 6:11; 7:17, 58, 132; 8:6, 63; and 13:50–1.
frequently switches to first person phrases, such as “my judgment,” “my law,” and
“my messiah,” etc.50 This phenomenon seems to indicate that to the author of 4 Ezra,
the angelic mediator exists not because God is inaccessible, but because the angel
provides the means of access.
Also relevant to the supposed divine inaccessibility is Uriel’s gradual
disappearance from the picture. In the first four episodes, although the line between
the angel and God becomes ambiguous at places, it is still clearly Uriel interacting
with Ezra. In Episodes 5–6, however, Uriel is no longer introduced by name; after
Ezra’s apocalyptic vision and prayer, it is a simple “He” who answers and interprets.
That the mediator is Uriel can only be tentatively inferred from his previous
appearances. By the last episode, Uriel has completed faded out of the picture; it is
God who summons Ezra directly from behind a bush with a double calling of his
name (14:1; cf. Exod 3:4). This portraying of Ezra in the model of Moses is
intentional; Ezra is presented as a new Moses the Lawgiver. The gradual
disappearance of Uriel suggests not God’s inaccessibility; but rather, that closeness
with God is determined by the level of a person’s spiritual maturity; or how much
wisdom he has. Ezra only receives direct revelation from God after he is declared
wise and worthy (13:54–5).
Finally, the role of Uriel in 4 Ezra departs from older traditions in which he is in
charge of either the fiery underworld of the dead or the light of the heavenly
luminaries. 4 Ezra’s portrayal of Uriel represents an innovative interpretation of the
angel’s name: Uriel, the wise teacher, is the one that enlightens. This is also in
accordance with the author’s concern about the fate of Israel and future happenings of
this world, rather than the secrets of the heavens above or the depths below.

Angelic Mediator in 2 Baruch

2 Baruch shares many characteristics with 4 Ezra. Both were composed at
approximately the same time as a reaction to the same event (the destruction of the
Second Temple in 70 CE). Both chose for their protagonists a figure from the
Babylonian destruction and exile. Both can be categorized as historical apocalypses
featuring a narrative frame and the extensive use of dialogue. They are also joined by
many common themes and expression, despite each being a distinctive work with
unique perspectives and inclinations. One thing that makes 2 Baruch very different

50
5:40–42, 48–49; 6:6, 18–20; 7:11, 28–29, 44; 8:38–40, 47; 9:20–22; and 13:32, 37, 48.
from 4 Ezra, however, is the role of the angel Remiel as Baruch’s otherworldly
mediator. Compared with Uriel’s pivotal part in 4 Ezra, the minor role assigned to
Remiel is puzzling.

The story of 2 Baruch unfolds in Jerusalem rather than in exile. God calls Baruch
to tell him his plan to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple as a punishment for Israel’s
sin. Baruch intercedes to no effect and is commanded to leave the city with Jeremiah
and the others. He witnesses angels taking out the Temple’s holy vessels and torching
its walls before the Babylonians enter the city. God commands Baruch to send
Jeremiah to be with the exiles in Babylon, but Baruch is to stay in the land to await
further revelations. These revelations come to Baruch each time following his fasting,
praying and mourning, either as a conversation with God or as a dream vision. After
each revelation, Baruch speaks to his people, comforting them and exhorting them to
observe the Torah. The last revelation Baruch receives is the vision of twelve bright
and dark waters, symbolizing the periods of the entire human history, and Israelite
history in particular; it is a cyclical history of obedience, sin and punishment,
culminating in the consummation of time and the last judgment of the messiah. After
teaching the people that have remained in the land, Baruch writes two letters for the
Israelite tribes in exile. The book finishes with Baruch’s epistle of exhortation.
Unlike Uriel in 4 Ezra, Remiel is completely missing from all the episodes of
revelation except the last one, in which he functions as the angel sent by God to give a
lengthy explanation of the vision of the twelve bright and dark waters (55:3–76:5).
Prior to that, God communicates with Baruch directly. God calls upon Baruch in the
fashion of the calling of biblical prophets: “the word of the Lord was upon Baruch,
son of Neriah” (1:1);51 “the word of God was upon me” (10:1); “a voice came from
on high and said to me” (13:1; cf. 22:1). In other cases, God simply answers and
speaks to Baruch after he has prayed and pondered.52
Like in 4 Ezra, no description of theophany or angelophany is given. Remiel
arrives without ceremony, drawing no special attention from Baruch, and his leaving
the scene is not even commented on. There is also a seemingly confused use of
persons. During Remiel’s speech, he speaks of himself in the third person: “and then
the Mighty One commanded Remiel, his angel, who speaks with you” (63:6). At one

51
Cf. Zech 1:1; 8:1; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1.
52
27:1; 29:1; 39:1; 48:26; and 50:1.
point Remiel speaks in the first person, “my servant, the messiah” (70:9; cf. 4 Ezra
7:28), as if it was God speaking instead of the angel.
Overall, Remiel’s role in the telling of the revealed history is typically that of an
angelus interpres. Revealed human history, entire or partial, is common in historical
apocalypses. While Daniel 10–12 is a partial history revealed as a “word” (Dan 10:1,
“a word was revealed to Daniel”) mediated by an angel, and while the Animal
Apocalypse in the Enochic Dream Vision (1 En 85–90) is a “complete” history
revealed as a vision in animal symbols but without an interpreter or even
interpretation,53 the Twelve Bright and Dark Waters in 2 Baruch is a “complete”
history revealed in both a vision and a word, through a heavenly mediator. Unlike
Uriel, Remiel does not take on a teaching role. However, he does play the role of a
messenger of God. Before his disappearance from the scene, he passes on a message
to Baruch, telling the latter to instruct the people for forty days before his departure
from this world. The message is introduced thus: “hear the word of the Most High”
(76:1).
How can one explain the vastly different roles given to Uriel and Remiel by their
respective author? Perhaps the answer lies in the different portrayals of the human
recipients. Both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch promulgate obedience to the Law as an answer
to the national crisis they face. For 4 Ezra, the Law must be expanded to include new
esoteric revelations; whereas for 2 Baruch, the Law remains the Law of Moses, but its
rewards and punishments are to be fulfilled only at the eschaton. Both Ezra and
Baruch are portrayed as the new Moses. In 4 Ezra it is through God’s calling him,
paralleling it to the calling of Moses, and through Ezra’s writing the Law dictated to
him by divine spirit. It is, therefore, Moses the Lawgiver that Ezra imitates. For this
purpose Uriel functions as the wisdom teacher until Ezra is ready for direct revelation
from the Most High. In 2 Baruch, however, Baruch is modeled after Moses the
Teacher of Israel. This is achieved through the three speeches Baruch delivers to the
people after each divine encounter, as well as through the exhortative epistle in the
epilogue (2 Bar 77:18–87:1). His epistle echoes themes and terms in the farewell
speech of Moses (Deut 30). Before he departs from this life, Baruch is instructed to go
up to a mountain to see the world pass before him, which brings to mind the death of

53
In this interesting writing of revealed history, human characters are represented by animals, whereas
angelic figures are represented by men. See my article, “Animals, Humans, Angels and God: Animal
symbolism in the Historiography of the ‘Animal Apocalypse’ of 1 Enoch,” in JSP 24 (2015): 268–87.
Moses (Deut 34). To the author, Baruch is a sage, a teacher of the Law, and a prophet
chosen by God from the very beginning of the book (2 Bar 1:1).
Baruch’s direct access to the divine, however, makes Remiel’s unnecessary
appearance even more puzzling; why the intermediary in the last scene, since Baruch
has always been in direct connection with God? The author possibly had a particular
purpose in mind, namely, to correct some contemporary angel beliefs. In earlier
traditions Remiel is the angel in charge of resurrection; but the author of 2 Baruch
apparently disagrees through his own portrayal of Remiel. Interestingly, 4 Ezra,
probably by coincidence, mentions the archangel Jeremiel (a variant form of Remiel)
being in charge of the souls of the righteous in the underworld (4 Ezra: 4:36). Instead,
the author of 2 Baruch emphasizes that Remiel is “the angel who presides over true
visions” (55:3). The word “true” seems to carry a certain polemic against visions
mediated by other named angels. Another detail may also be explained in the same
vein. While interpreting biblical history represented by the bright and dark waters,
Remiel inserts himself into the historical episode of the siege of Jerusalem during
Hezekiah’s reign, stating himself to be the “angel of the Lord” who destroyed the
Assyrian army (63:6–7; 2 Kgs 19:35; Isa 37:36; 2 Chron 32:21). This detail does not
contribute to the overall purpose of the apocalypse, but does stand opposed to another
tradition recorded in the Targumim (2 Chron 32:21) which attributes the deed to
Gabriel.54 There seemed to be disputes over the identity of this ‫מלאך יהוה‬.

Summary and Conclusion

The above comparison of the portrayals of angelic characters in Daniel, 4 Ezra and 2
Baruch shows that even within the historical apocalyptic genre, there is considerable
diversity. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch stand at a distance from Daniel, despite being
influenced by the latter. Gabriel and Michael in Daniel have similar profiles as
warriors and patrons of Israel as in earlier traditions, but the roles of Uriel and Remiel
in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch depart from those in the earlier traditions. Whereas curiosity
in angels is detected in Daniel’s descriptions of their looks, ranks and multiple
appearances onto the scene, in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch only a single mediator is
presented without any fantastical description. Uriel and Remiel remain in the
background, not at all presented as glorious figures.

54
Collins, “Gabriel,” in van der Toorn et al, DDD, 339.
 Past scholarship has proposed various theories to explain the complexity of
angelic beliefs from the post-exilic period: exposure to pagan religions and cultures,
mirroring of the political hierarchy of the time, or the belief that God became
inaccessible except through intermediaries. But as Saul Olyan has argued, these
hypotheses, though no doubt playing some part, cannot be substantiated. Instead, he
attributes such a development to an increasing level of scriptural exegesis, tracing the
complex articulation of heavenly hosts to interpretive processes of odd and unusual
words, textual difficulties, theophanies and angelophanies, and hapax legomena, etc.55
His theory is particularly convincing when it is considered together with evidence of
intensified textualization and scriptural interpretation in the Second Temple period
and beyond.
The various traits of angelic portrayal in the three texts under study here bear
some of the theory out. God does not always seem remote and inaccessible and can
indeed be the revealer himself. Angels seem indispensible in all types of revelations;
yet in spite of their independent identities and personalities, their existence and
functions are not strictly separable from God. Their names, descriptions, titles and
roles are built upon biblical foundations, even though it is not always possible to
delineate each step in the developing systems of belief.
The need for heavenly figures, therefore, is not determined by the belief in a
remote and inaccessible God, but rather a natural expression of the eschatological
worldview that dominates Second Temple Judaism despite its inner diversity: the
same worldview underlies other literary genres and not just apocalypses, such as the
sectarian writings at Qumran and early Christian gospels and epistles. The
transcendent nature of the world/age to come means that the reality can only be
perceived and conveyed by someone whose perspective is not of this world.
Within this context, we can perhaps answer the question why 4 Ezra and 2
Baruch chose an angelic mediator that was different from Gabriel and Michael. It is
because varied angelic traditions which had developed in the Second Temple period
were at their disposal. They chose different angels because the profiles of Gabriel and
Michael, although well established, did not fit their purposes. Both Michael and
Gabriel were perceived as army commanders and protectors of Israel in eschatological

55
Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism,
TSAJ 36 (Tübingen: Siebeck Mohr, 1993).
warfare, whereas both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch convey a strong message concerning the
survival and preservation of the people through strict Law obedience.
Benjamin Reynolds suspects that the more “prophetic”, in other words, less
fantastical, depictions of angels in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch may reflect a backlash within
certain Jewish apocalyptic groups against the sort of angelic and heavenly speculation
in works such as 1 Enoch.56 It may not, however, be a backlash, but simply a different
exegetical tradition. Both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, through the choice of their
pseudonyms and the characterization of their protagonists as a type of Moses,
identified themselves within the Mosaic, legalistic-exegetical tradition, which
intrinsically stood apart from 1 Enoch, appealing as it does to authority in the name of
Enoch, an antediluvian patriarch. The portraits of angelic mediators in 4 Ezra and 2
Baruch simply bear the imprint of their chosen exegetical identity.

56
Reynolds, “Otherworldly Mediators,” 193.